Woman lays on stretcher in ER for five days in health care Mecca, Canada. I can’t wait till Hillary or Obama nationalize our health care here.
“I’m angry we pay such high taxes and the more money we throw at the health care system the worse it gets. People shouldn’t be lined up on stretchers in the emergency department. If you are sick you should get a room.”
“This is a terrible environment. I suggested taking her to another hospital, but we were told there are long waits across the region and the doctors we need are here. So there was nothing we could do,”
Part of the problem is the monopoly doctors create on their services by limiting the number of students who may enter the medical colleges; only a fraction of applicants are accepted. Who does it benefit that one doctor makes fifty-thousand pounds a year and not three doctors making fifteen or so each?
Having had a life saving proceedure performed on myself about six months ago, I can tell you I’m happy to be alive and had a boyish-looking student operate right there that evening than having died waiting for the staff doctor to come in the next morning. (This is a pre-emptive counter to the rebuttal: but do you want every Tom Dick and Harry to hold a medical license?)
Yeah, the medical profession enjoys a lot of government granted monopoly privileges. Another big problem is the fact that nurses and pharmacists aren’t allowed to do more. Any monopoly causes misuse since there’s no competitor around to keep you efficient, and the government’s monopoly on issuing medical licenses is undoubtedly causing harm to the medical industry.
Anyway, I don’t believe that removing government restrictions on the medical field would cause a lot of kooky wannabe doctors to start killing people. In a free market situation, i think what would happen is that there would still be similar things that we have now such as medical licenses. I think the difference would be that there would be competing ‘medical licensing’ companies in existence, each trying to find and train the best potential doctors to increase their own success and prestige, or something like that. In this situation, if any company decided to try and artificially limit its supply of doctors, it would be outmaneuvered by the other companies who would end up taking more of the market share.
Having a universal healthcare system doesn’t rule out the possibility of private hospitals and clinics for those who can afford them. Might be a point to consider for the richest country in the world.
In 2005, the United States spent 16 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on health care. It is projected that the percentage will reach 20 percent by 2016.1
In 2007, health care spending in the United States reached $2.3 trillion, and was projected to reach $3 trillion in 2011.1 Health care spending is projected to reach $4.2 trillion by 2016.1
Health care spending in Canada is projected to reach $160 billion, or 10.6% of GDP, in 2007.
Looks like they are doing something right, since they spend less (both in tersm of real money as well as % GDP) and manage to have a better ranking.
But if you like paying through the nose for a crappy product, be my guest . . .
Michael Moore is stupid, canada’s health care system has massive errors, in large part because in a lot of places, there is absolutely no system set up for dealing with patient need vs patient care, when you’re brutally overworked, and you need to see hundreds of people, if you have no way to know which are serious and which aren’t, theres a massive problem there.
socialized medical-care can mean waiting for treatment (though rarely if you have enough money to truly move around) but thats a far cry above the medical care in the united states. If I wanted an x-ray, a cat-scan, an mri, and to see a specialist, I could do it within a month for free, than if I felt I needed it all again in a couple of months, I could, for free.
Free MRI’s rule.
Its not a huge issue with MRI’s, but its a pretty huge issue when you don’t have to pay for surgeries and etc as well.
Most people who practice by the book personal medical care, never end up in the type of emergency where they need access to specialists and can’t get them, things can happen and progress quickly to death, but for many many many people, patients could help themselves with early diagnosis/education, thats part of the problem with overworked hospitals, patients show up on the d eathbed or with symptoms that should have been reported weeks to months ago.
How is someone who needs a hip replacement ever supposed to afford somthing like that? Many people who need hip replacements, some of them have been predisposed to joint problems from young age, had extreme joint pain and ended up with a shitty job because of it, so this originally sick person, who could never afford treatment to begin with, is left essentially to the dogs, for somthing they need, to live, like a remotely normal person.
Its more than barbaric. Is it wrong to force people to pay for ‘everyones medical attention’ yes, obviously it is. Is it somehow more wrong than leaving the sick to suffer/die with low quality of living? I just don’t see how people compare the two.
Before hip replacements were available to anyone everyone with a joint problem lived with it. It is not a lower standard of living. It is a standard of living that YOUR physical body has placed you. The technology to replace a hip comes with a value. It is that value offered to those that have the resources to afford it. If you can not afford it, it has not lessened your standard of living, it has remained the same. It only raises the standard of living for those that have the resources to acquire the value offered.
Any society that believes all the values of life it has to offer create the statues quo of standard of living has lost all concepts of life and value. If I have diabetes, I am not living a lower standard of life. It does not matter if I can afford the medications or not. The medications are a way to improve my standard of life, not vice versa. Those improvements have a value. If I do not have the resource to acquire those improvements of my life then it is theft to steal them from others, no matter the way (through government, socialized healthcare or holding a gun to your head and making the doctor perform it).
I’ve heard 1 to 4 months, which for a case where getting it in a few days can make a life and death difference, is critical.
The wealthy, poor and employed in America don’t have medical coverage problems, its the middle-class younger unemployed or self-employed that fall through the cracks with prohibitive health care insurance costs. But part of that has been provided for with health care savings accounts (HCAs) which help immensely, especially for the young. The rest of the gap could be closed if they could buy group insurance for individuals and families according to their needs, not government and/or insurance company mandated unnecessary coverages.
And low wage workers can get health care with only a short 3 or 4 months of employment at one business or government entity that has such coverage, of which there are many, including Wal-Mart. Their model, from what I see also employs more middle aged and older and crippled employees than any other company, large or small, out there. Their employee turnover is much lower than those hiring mostly young workers.
I’m sure the matter of getting an mri an hour earlier can be a life or death difference if it means the difference between a scheduling and not getting to see a certain doctor, or if it delays diagnosis even 1 single day (brain infections, etc). Getting an mri on time can be paramount importance, I meant the price scale, for most people an MRI wouldn’t be that bad to pay for compared to say, a surgery.
The poor have problems accessing health everywhere. The very poor (homeless) have problems with access to medication, and so does most people straight up to middle-class. I’m not saying there aren’t programs to help them, only that its certainly not true that there aren’t massive amounts of people that have a hard time getting medical coverage/treatment besides self-employed, younger unemployed group. (i’m not aruging that the self-employed have an easy or easier time, just that the poor do have problems)
The whole point is that a huge percent of people that need medical attention have pre-existing medical problems that make working really really hard or outright not possible. If you’ve had brutal joint problems since 17, and can’t work, guess what? You suffer. Nor do all the walmarts/etc that have such amazing plans like walmart (and yeah, its not common for a huge portion of places to offer such complete coverage to low wage workers, ,though theres quite a few)
and walmarts don’t higher enough people or specifically enough disabled people and all companies like that, for it to fix the problem or even come close.
Statistically more americans are leaving America to get surgeries, this number shouldn’t be increasing as the years go by, but it is. Obviously the states is not meeting the medical needs of its population if this is such a huge problem, so we shouldn’t try to deny that it is.
Or, more accurately; died with it, at a horribly reduced quality of living. And no, it is not only offered to those with the resources for it, it is offered in some countries to those with the resources for it. In some companies theres a taxed population which supports its sick and ill, realizing that not all sick and ill people can work to the same level as other people.
Its a lower standard of living compared with a working biological hip or a replacement hip. No one said it was a lower standard of living forced on them by the government.
Determining a ‘standard’ of life requires a comparison, depending upon what THATcomparison is, determines whether or not a person is living a lower quality life. A person that has diabetes is living a lower standard of life than a person without diabetes(if its symptomatic and effects their life) a diabete has a higher quality life than a person who just got their face mauled by a tiger.
When talking about standards of living, its always a comparison to a ‘what if’ or ‘could be’
Yes and theft is wrong, but theft is less wrong than letting thousands of people suffer and die because people are to heartless to spare a few dollars a day on taxes for medical care. Its idiotic for you to try and appeal to people’s senses of right and wrong by bringing theft into it, no one gives a fuck because theft does not equate sitting back and doing nothing while you have the ability to help sick and dying people.
you’re talking about how its ‘theft’ to take care of the sick… because the average person shouldn’t be forced into it. On the contrary if the average person is such a sleaze-ball and lacks any sense of moral right/wrong they should be forced into it. Just like citizens are forceed to obey laws when they vote to say, make it illegal to work on sunday, or some other idiotic nonsense.
As to the walmart issue, we have plenty of chains/jobs that cover dental. These places like walmart do not meet anywhere close to all ‘lower income’ families needs to get themselves/children dental, it doesn’t even come close. Let alone, all of medical needs.
“Determining a ‘standard’ of life requires a comparison, depending upon what THATcomparison is, determines whether or not a person is living a lower quality life. A person that has diabetes is living a lower standard of life than a person without diabetes(if its symptomatic and effects their life) a diabete has a higher quality life than a person who just got their face mauled by a tiger.
When talking about standards of living, its always a comparison to a ‘what if’ or ‘could be’"
I am not using “what if” and “could be”. I am using diabetes before medication and after medication. Before medication all life was considered normal. Now that medications are offered at a value, it is those that have the resources have the opportunity to elevate their standard of living. The standard of living is not with medication it is without medications. The one living without medications is living a standard of living that is normal. It is the one with resources that has elevated theirs. Healthcare is a service provided to raise your standard of living, it is not a requirement for standard of living. Your standard is not lowered because you do not have it.
“Yes and theft is wrong, but theft is less wrong than letting thousands of people suffer and die because people are to heartless to spare a few dollars a day on taxes for medical care. Its idiotic for you to try and appeal to people’s senses of right and wrong by bringing theft into it, no one gives a fuck because theft does not equate sitting back and doing nothing while you have the ability to help sick and dying people.
you’re talking about how its ‘theft’ to take care of the sick… because the average person shouldn’t be forced into it. On the contrary if the average person is such a sleaze-ball and lacks any sense of moral right/wrong they should be forced into it. Just like citizens are forceed to obey laws when they vote to say, make it illegal to work on sunday, or some other idiotic nonsense.”
Theft is better than letting thousands of people die from natural causes? What a system of morals you have. I am heartless because I am willing to let people die from something they have been dying from for thousands of years. Wow, you do not give a fuck about a crime being committed as long as everyone follows your altruism.
Anyone not wiling to abide by your code of morals that require self-sacrificing devotion to the welfare of others is a sleaze ball. Not only are they sleaze balls, you want to use laws to enforce this twisted set of morals; claiming this non altruistic behavior is worse theft.
I am simply amazed. What the hell kind of morals and sense of right and wrong are they teaching in those fancy schools today.
Thats a comparison between two different states, like I mentioned, and certainly people could say the quality of life was lower or higher on the medication.
People develope diabetes (many many many people) as such they developed symptoms, if those symptoms existed for a long period of time, without medication, it effects the quality of life. Those who develope disorders, definatly experience a plunging quality of life.
A standard of living is a comparison between two states, thats it, get it through your head.
A standard of living is a comparison, someone living without a leg has a lower quality of life than they did before losing the leg (most times) people who develope symptoms, can deal with lower quality of life than they previously experienced without symptoms. Its only a comparison between TWO states.
Which has nothing to do with what people mean when they talk about a standard of living, no one is saying or claiming what you apparently think they are. When someone claims person A has a reduceed quality or standard of living, they mean compared to an average american or compared to someone with free healthcare or compared to their life before the symptom. Its an easy point to understand, obvious, even.
Yes you are heartless to talk about a few dollars daily from individuals is theft like its a big deal when it could save thousands of lives, and when you appealing to the way nature normally works, or what is ‘natural’ you come across as even more heartless and idiotic. If we still cared about whats ‘natural’ you wouldn’t be clicking on a computer, you’d probably have died in childbirth, or gotten eaten by a predatory megafauna. Its idiotic to talk about whats ‘natural’ as if it makes one bit of difference, its hypocritical and stupid to talk about whats natural (talking about condemning the sick) while you sit on a computer and talk to people likely hundreds of miles away from you.
No, I never claimed it was worse theft, I claimed it was worse than theft. Recently idiots in canada voted to make it illegal to work some places on sunday, the vote was ruthlessly struct down because it was immoral and idiotic, for the same reasons that people wanting to make it illegal to work on sunday should be told to shut the fuck up, you should be told to shut the fuck up for being so mindlessly careless.
Yes, it makes you a sleazeball to suggest that someone ‘stealing’ a few dollars from you is a bigger crime than a national health crisis where the poor get shitty access to health-care, where people born with disabilities such as predispositions to brutal joint wear-down in early age are fucked. So what right? They’re naturally prediposed, let them die?
I am simply amazed. What the hell kind of morals and sense of right and wrong are they teaching in those fancy schools today.
[/quote]
You’re talking about massive amounts of people dying because they don’t have access to brain, heart, lung, kidney, or whatever surgery. Many of these conditions which people eventually need surgery for, complicate their ability to work earlier in life (racing heart, etc) and you think the moral solution is to let all these people die, many many many more suffer, because its not your responsibility to help them, at a cost of a few dollars (IF THAT, per day) to you?
its sickening that people are so concerned with those few extra dollars that they’d rather see this massive death/suffering toll. I’d say your inhuman, but its more human than i’d ever care to be.
Do you know whats also ‘natural’ people at the head of hiearchies forcing you to do things you don’t personally want to do, if you think its okay because people are dying and thats naturally, well its just as natural for some government body to force you into doing things you don’t want to do, so in reality, even that arguement is pathetic.
The reason it’s barbaric and the reason that prices are so outrageously high is because the government regulates the medical industry creating monopoly conditions where doctors and hospitals charge outrageous prices. Once the industry opens up to the competition of the free market we’ll be able to watch prices drop verrry quickly.
I’m not sure where the “moral” arguments go here. The fact is, in the US, we can easily afford health care for everyone - especially if we can afford protracted wars to bring democracy to foreign lands. As to who pays for it, well, people who don’t own cars pay for roads, people who have no children pay for schools, people who live in the country pay for mass transit. The whole idea of “theft” is a red herring.
People pay taxes, for services. And no, you don’t always get a dollar’s worth of services for every single dollar you are taxed. Go figure. We set up public utilites where it makes the most economic sense to do so. We pay utilities for electricity - even though the lights go out sometimes. We pay for roads, even though bridges collapse sometimes.
If you take out the emotionalism (that I simply cannot understand) you are left with a single payer medical system. Hardly revolutionary. Almost impossible to be more expensive than the system we have. Compared to the present system, it will have both strengths and weaknesses.
I’ve lived with health insurance and without it. I’m not sure why people think that the average person with insurance gets such great health care. People come here from other countries for private pay doctors, not HMO doctors accross the street from the local mall.
d’oh!