The South Carolina Primary page 1
oblivion
11th January 2012, 02:11 PM
if Mitt wins this one, is the republican nomination sealed? it would be a shame, because the republican race has been highly entertaining.
nostrum
12th January 2012, 03:35 AM
When will you know?
Jerome
13th January 2012, 01:30 PM
if Mitt wins this one, is the republican nomination sealed? it would be a shame, because the republican race has been highly entertaining.
No, a couple may drop out after SC and FLA, but it certainly will continue to be entertaining.
Politics is the best reality show on the market!
No, a couple may drop out after SC and FLA, but it certainly will continue to be entertaining.
Politics is the best reality show on the market!
Jerome
13th January 2012, 01:31 PM
When will you know?
Probably after super Tuesday, March 6, 2012.
Probably after super Tuesday, March 6, 2012.
Zigmen
15th January 2012, 05:19 AM
Man, I'll miss the cheering crowds that light up whenever the candidates mention death in any form; war, death penalty, failing to heal the uninsured, etc.
It's hard to watch without a grief counselor, though.
It's hard to watch without a grief counselor, though.
Jerome
15th January 2012, 01:50 PM
Sure would be nice to have an anti-war guy in office.
Zigmen
16th January 2012, 04:15 AM
Sure would be nice to have an anti-war guy in office.
We already do.
We already do.
Jerome
16th January 2012, 04:20 AM
Sure would be nice to have an anti-war guy in office.
We already do.
Do we?
http://patdollard.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/5t5665hy6u8yj.png
We already do.
Do we?
http://patdollard.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/5t5665hy6u8yj.png
Grumps
16th January 2012, 04:26 AM
Sure would be nice to have an anti-war guy in office.
We already do.
Do we?
http://patdollard.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/5t5665hy6u8yj.png
Must have forgotten that recent troop withdrawal already.
We already do.
Do we?
http://patdollard.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/5t5665hy6u8yj.png
Must have forgotten that recent troop withdrawal already.
Jerome
16th January 2012, 04:40 AM
Nope, he added troops to where they are pissing on dead people.
Adenosine
16th January 2012, 05:15 AM
In the wake of the news that Stephen Colbert is currently polling with 6% of the SC Primary, Jon M. Huntsman Jr. has withdrawn. Apparently only having 5% and coming second to someone taking the piss is demoralising.
Izdaari
20th January 2012, 05:12 AM
Yes, if Mitt wins SC, he'll be very, very hard to stop. If he is the nominee (and right now I give that about 85%), I'll probably vote for him. I have not been happy with Obama. Nothing personal, I think he's a decent guy. I just don't like his ideology (I am libertarian right) or the job he's been doing.
Zigmen
20th January 2012, 04:41 PM
Yes, if Mitt wins SC, he'll be very, very hard to stop. If he is the nominee (and right now I give that about 85%), I'll probably vote for him. I have not been happy with Obama. Nothing personal, I think he's a decent guy. I just don't like his ideology (I am libertarian right) or the job he's been doing.
Newt has baggage. He's a racist, thieving swinger with acute megalomania.
But, if you round up all the other racists who will vote against Obama, add in the sheeple who have been swayed big big-money corporate superpacs, and the stubborn old paleo-conservatives who vote Republican regardless of the facts, yes, you don't need too many more votes for Newt to beat Obama.
And don't forget all the Christian Supremacists who think the bible is a book about excusing all manner of hatred, though many of them are already listed in the three categories I previously listed.
Newt has baggage. He's a racist, thieving swinger with acute megalomania.
But, if you round up all the other racists who will vote against Obama, add in the sheeple who have been swayed big big-money corporate superpacs, and the stubborn old paleo-conservatives who vote Republican regardless of the facts, yes, you don't need too many more votes for Newt to beat Obama.
And don't forget all the Christian Supremacists who think the bible is a book about excusing all manner of hatred, though many of them are already listed in the three categories I previously listed.
Izdaari
21st January 2012, 12:19 PM
Yes, if Mitt wins SC, he'll be very, very hard to stop. If he is the nominee (and right now I give that about 85%), I'll probably vote for him. I have not been happy with Obama. Nothing personal, I think he's a decent guy. I just don't like his ideology (I am libertarian right) or the job he's been doing.
Newt has baggage. He's a racist, thieving swinger with acute megalomania.
But, if you round up all the other racists who will vote against Obama, add in the sheeple who have been swayed big big-money corporate superpacs, and the stubborn old paleo-conservatives who vote Republican regardless of the facts, yes, you don't need too many more votes for Newt to beat Obama.
And don't forget all the Christian Supremacists who think the bible is a book about excusing all manner of hatred, though many of them are already listed in the three categories I previously listed.
My above comments were about Mitt, not Newt, but yes, Newt has some moral problems, though I don't get the impression he's a racist. I'm not greatly concerned with his moral failures, though some of his personality traits are not ideal for a president. I like him as a thinker, always have even before he was nationally prominent, because I had read his books and liked them. I think he has a lot of good ideas and some bad ones. And I don't think I fit into any of the categories you mentioned. I am a multiracial bisexual feminist libertarian-conservative, with a lot of political experience as an activist in both the Republican and Libertarian parties.
If I were voting in SC tomorrow, I'm not sure how I'd vote, except definitely not for Santorum (much too socially conservative) or Ron Paul (love his domestic policies, but can't accept his isolationist foreign policy). Incidentally, the latest Rasmussen poll has Newt leading Romney 33 to 31 in SC, with Paul in 3rd place at 15%.
Newt has baggage. He's a racist, thieving swinger with acute megalomania.
But, if you round up all the other racists who will vote against Obama, add in the sheeple who have been swayed big big-money corporate superpacs, and the stubborn old paleo-conservatives who vote Republican regardless of the facts, yes, you don't need too many more votes for Newt to beat Obama.
And don't forget all the Christian Supremacists who think the bible is a book about excusing all manner of hatred, though many of them are already listed in the three categories I previously listed.
My above comments were about Mitt, not Newt, but yes, Newt has some moral problems, though I don't get the impression he's a racist. I'm not greatly concerned with his moral failures, though some of his personality traits are not ideal for a president. I like him as a thinker, always have even before he was nationally prominent, because I had read his books and liked them. I think he has a lot of good ideas and some bad ones. And I don't think I fit into any of the categories you mentioned. I am a multiracial bisexual feminist libertarian-conservative, with a lot of political experience as an activist in both the Republican and Libertarian parties.
If I were voting in SC tomorrow, I'm not sure how I'd vote, except definitely not for Santorum (much too socially conservative) or Ron Paul (love his domestic policies, but can't accept his isolationist foreign policy). Incidentally, the latest Rasmussen poll has Newt leading Romney 33 to 31 in SC, with Paul in 3rd place at 15%.
oblivion
22nd January 2012, 05:43 PM
With Newt's win, the republican nomination is anything but sealed.
Izdaari
22nd January 2012, 05:52 PM
With Newt's win, the republican nomination is anything but sealed.
For sure. Before SC, I gave Mitt about an 85% chance of being the nominee. Now I think it's about 50 Mitt/40 Newt/10 somebody else. And it won't be settled until after Super Tuesday, if then.
For sure. Before SC, I gave Mitt about an 85% chance of being the nominee. Now I think it's about 50 Mitt/40 Newt/10 somebody else. And it won't be settled until after Super Tuesday, if then.
Zigmen
22nd January 2012, 09:55 PM
My above comments were about Mitt, not Newt, but yes, Newt has some moral problems, though I don't get the impression he's a racist. I'm not greatly concerned with his moral failures, though some of his personality traits are not ideal for a president. I like him as a thinker, always have even before he was nationally prominent, because I had read his books and liked them. I think he has a lot of good ideas and some bad ones. And I don't think I fit into any of the categories you mentioned. I am a multiracial bisexual feminist libertarian-conservative, with a lot of political experience as an activist in both the Republican and Libertarian parties.
If I were voting in SC tomorrow, I'm not sure how I'd vote, except definitely not for Santorum (much too socially conservative) or Ron Paul (love his domestic policies, but can't accept his isolationist foreign policy). Incidentally, the latest Rasmussen poll has Newt leading Romney 33 to 31 in SC, with Paul in 3rd place at 15%.
Right you are. I was unfocussed.
If I were voting in SC tomorrow, I'm not sure how I'd vote, except definitely not for Santorum (much too socially conservative) or Ron Paul (love his domestic policies, but can't accept his isolationist foreign policy). Incidentally, the latest Rasmussen poll has Newt leading Romney 33 to 31 in SC, with Paul in 3rd place at 15%.
Right you are. I was unfocussed.
Jerome
22nd January 2012, 10:16 PM
What are the chances for Ron?
Izdaari
23rd January 2012, 02:03 AM
What are the chances for Ron?
Ron Paul? As the GOP nominee? Pretty much nil, because his base of support within the party is about 15% (a rock solid 15% that seems to neither grow nor shrink within this campaign season). But he is having a big influence on the party, and on the nation's conversation about the issues. He'll bring a substantial number of delegates to the convention, and may influence the ticket and the platform. And if he were to make an independent run or be the Libertarian Party nominee again, I think many of his present supporters would follow him.
Ron Paul? As the GOP nominee? Pretty much nil, because his base of support within the party is about 15% (a rock solid 15% that seems to neither grow nor shrink within this campaign season). But he is having a big influence on the party, and on the nation's conversation about the issues. He'll bring a substantial number of delegates to the convention, and may influence the ticket and the platform. And if he were to make an independent run or be the Libertarian Party nominee again, I think many of his present supporters would follow him.
Brother Daniel
23rd January 2012, 08:29 PM
Man, I'll miss the cheering crowds that light up whenever the candidates mention death in any form; war, death penalty, failing to heal the uninsured, etc.
Booing the Golden Rule was pretty awesome, too.
Booing the Golden Rule was pretty awesome, too.
Izdaari
24th January 2012, 05:42 AM
Man, I'll miss the cheering crowds that light up whenever the candidates mention death in any form; war, death penalty, failing to heal the uninsured, etc.
Booing the Golden Rule was pretty awesome, too.I wasn't too thrilled with that myself. There are some barbarians in the party for sure. :sadyes:
Booing the Golden Rule was pretty awesome, too.I wasn't too thrilled with that myself. There are some barbarians in the party for sure. :sadyes:
Jerome
24th January 2012, 06:24 AM
failing to heal the uninsured
Should government provide you shelter if you have the means and choose not to?
Should government provide you shelter if you have the means and choose not to?
Jerome
23rd February 2012, 01:11 AM
if Mitt wins this one, is the republican nomination sealed? it would be a shame, because the republican race has been highly entertaining.
last debate of this season is on now
last debate of this season is on now
Grumps
23rd February 2012, 03:18 AM
failing to heal the uninsured
Should government provide you shelter if you have the means and choose not to?
And what if you don't have the means?
Should government provide you shelter if you have the means and choose not to?
And what if you don't have the means?
Jerome
23rd February 2012, 03:18 AM
And what if you don't have the means?
That is a different thing entirely.
That is a different thing entirely.
Grumps
23rd February 2012, 03:25 AM
And what if you don't have the means?
That is a different thing entirely.
You didn't answer my question.
What happens when you don't have the means?
What happens when the insurance chosen for you by your workplace doesn't cover the procedure you need done, and you can't afford to have it done?
That is a different thing entirely.
You didn't answer my question.
What happens when you don't have the means?
What happens when the insurance chosen for you by your workplace doesn't cover the procedure you need done, and you can't afford to have it done?
Jerome
23rd February 2012, 03:27 AM
first
Should government provide you shelter if you have the means and choose not to?
Should government provide you shelter if you have the means and choose not to?
Grumps
23rd February 2012, 03:29 AM
You didn't answer my question. I suggest you do so.
Jerome
23rd February 2012, 03:31 AM
What happens when the insurance chosen for you by your workplace doesn't cover the procedure you need done, and you can't afford to have it done?
those are the same questions asked if it is state provided
those are the same questions asked if it is state provided
Jerome
23rd February 2012, 03:33 AM
Didn't a sitting cabinet Minister of Canada just fly to the US for breast cancer treatment, she paid for it herself, or did the taxpayer of Canada pay for it.
Does Canada pay for every citizen to fly to California and get breast cancer treatment?
Does Canada pay for every citizen to fly to California and get breast cancer treatment?
Grumps
23rd February 2012, 03:43 AM
Why are you avoiding the question? It's a simple question.
What happens when you don't have the means?
What happens when you don't have the means?
Jerome
23rd February 2012, 03:44 AM
You tell me Grumps, what happens when there are no means.
Grumps
23rd February 2012, 03:46 AM
You ignored the question.
Answer the question,
What happens if you don't have the means?
Answer the question,
What happens if you don't have the means?
Jerome
23rd February 2012, 03:48 AM
I go get the means.
Grumps
23rd February 2012, 03:51 AM
Wrong! Anybody with a basic comprehension of a capitalist society will know that it is impossible for every person to "have the means".
Try again, what happens if you don't have the means?
Try again, what happens if you don't have the means?
Jerome
23rd February 2012, 03:58 AM
Wrong! Anybody with a basic comprehension of a capitalist society will know that it is impossible for every person to "have the means".
you are an idiot
all societies require capital
the society that honors the labor capital of the individual encourages societal production
without labor there will only be a generation or two of society
(depending upon the initial resources supplies at the initiation)
.
you are an idiot
all societies require capital
the society that honors the labor capital of the individual encourages societal production
without labor there will only be a generation or two of society
(depending upon the initial resources supplies at the initiation)
.
Grumps
23rd February 2012, 06:34 AM
Oh god, you're talking about Labour (There's a U in there) and you still don't understand the problem.
The lower the standards for a particular job, the lower it's value.
The higher the number of applicants, the lower it's value.
Capitalism 101.
It's impossible for every person to have "the means", because that's how capitalism runs.
Are you done being wrong? Or do you want to continue?
The lower the standards for a particular job, the lower it's value.
The higher the number of applicants, the lower it's value.
Capitalism 101.
It's impossible for every person to have "the means", because that's how capitalism runs.
Are you done being wrong? Or do you want to continue?
Jerome
23rd February 2012, 05:08 PM
You still have not answered the initial question, here it is again for you:
Should government provide you shelter if you have the means and choose not to?
Should government provide you shelter if you have the means and choose not to?
dug
23rd February 2012, 05:21 PM
i got this one grumps
YES
YES
Jerome
23rd February 2012, 05:54 PM
Government provided housing for all, interesting.
dug
23rd February 2012, 06:01 PM
you know you're interested
Grumps
23rd February 2012, 08:18 PM
You still have not answered the initial question, here it is again for you:
Should government provide you shelter if you have the means and choose not to?
When has Government-provided welfare ever been for those who can reasonably afford to do so? Nobody who advocated for welfare argues that.
Unless, of course, you happen to be a big business or wealthy individual, then there's all sorts of subsidies and tax breaks we can give you.
Right, Jerome?
Now, answer my question: What happens when you don't have the means?
Should government provide you shelter if you have the means and choose not to?
When has Government-provided welfare ever been for those who can reasonably afford to do so? Nobody who advocated for welfare argues that.
Unless, of course, you happen to be a big business or wealthy individual, then there's all sorts of subsidies and tax breaks we can give you.
Right, Jerome?
Now, answer my question: What happens when you don't have the means?
Jerome
23rd February 2012, 08:34 PM
Noted, once again, that you Grumps, refuse the answer the initial question.
Grumps
23rd February 2012, 08:41 PM
Noted, once again, that you Grumps, refuse the answer the initial question.
I did answer the question:
When has Government-provided welfare ever been for those who can reasonably afford to do so? Nobody who advocated for welfare argues that.
Let me explain it in the common tongue for you:
Nobody has argued for that, you pulled it out of your arse. Try again.
So, answer the question or admit you have no idea what you're talking about.
What happens if you don't have the means?
I did answer the question:
When has Government-provided welfare ever been for those who can reasonably afford to do so? Nobody who advocated for welfare argues that.
Let me explain it in the common tongue for you:
Nobody has argued for that, you pulled it out of your arse. Try again.
So, answer the question or admit you have no idea what you're talking about.
What happens if you don't have the means?
ksen
23rd February 2012, 09:14 PM
If I didn't have the means i would insist that jerome pay my way since he always does what people insist he do.
Jerome
23rd February 2012, 09:17 PM
Noted, once again, that you Grumps, refuse the answer the initial question.
I did answer the question:
Asking a question in response to a question is not answering a question.
I did answer the question:
Asking a question in response to a question is not answering a question.
dug
23rd February 2012, 09:37 PM
Questioning a response to a question asking a question in response to a question is not answering the question too.
Adenosine
23rd February 2012, 09:59 PM
Welfare is means tested.
However, let's say it wasn't. Let's say that the government will provide housing for all. First of all it will provide a huge boost to the economy as all these government houses are built. However, you may not like the house you get. The government will do a study and determine that three children or two adults can share a bedroom. They will also need a kitchen with a stove/oven, room for a fridge and one sink. Limited storage space.
Then there has to be one bathroom, for efficiency the toilet will be put in the bathroom, and a laundry. But the laundry can go in the bathroom too.
And they'll need a living room. Somewhere to put the TV. So everyone will get a little two bedroom dog box, crammed in with other dog boxes. As it is now with public housing. Here comes the free market! Those that can afford to upgrade or renovate their homes will do so and those that can afford to move will do that too.
So what's the problem?
However, let's say it wasn't. Let's say that the government will provide housing for all. First of all it will provide a huge boost to the economy as all these government houses are built. However, you may not like the house you get. The government will do a study and determine that three children or two adults can share a bedroom. They will also need a kitchen with a stove/oven, room for a fridge and one sink. Limited storage space.
Then there has to be one bathroom, for efficiency the toilet will be put in the bathroom, and a laundry. But the laundry can go in the bathroom too.
And they'll need a living room. Somewhere to put the TV. So everyone will get a little two bedroom dog box, crammed in with other dog boxes. As it is now with public housing. Here comes the free market! Those that can afford to upgrade or renovate their homes will do so and those that can afford to move will do that too.
So what's the problem?
Jerome
23rd February 2012, 10:19 PM
Welfare is means tested.
State health-care is means tested? I thought everybody got it no matter what.
Let's say that the government will provide housing for all. First of all it will provide a huge boost to the economy as all these government houses are built.Government spending money must take that money from elsewhere. There is no boost to the economy, there is a transfer of capital as bureaucrats see fit. This is proven inefficient.
However, you may not like the house you get. The government will do a study and determine that three children or two adults can share a bedroom. They will also need a kitchen with a stove/oven, room for a fridge and one sink. Limited storage space.Most people would prefer getting the health-care they want, not what government decided they can have.
Government can decide that your life is too expensive to save.
Then there has to be one bathroom, for efficiency the toilet will be put in the bathroom, and a laundry. But the laundry can go in the bathroom too.
And they'll need a living room. Somewhere to put the TV. So everyone will get a little two bedroom dog box, crammed in with other dog boxes. As it is now with public housing. Here comes the free market! Those that can afford to upgrade or renovate their homes will do so and those that can afford to move will do that too.
So what's the problem?Quality reduction.
State health-care is means tested? I thought everybody got it no matter what.
Let's say that the government will provide housing for all. First of all it will provide a huge boost to the economy as all these government houses are built.Government spending money must take that money from elsewhere. There is no boost to the economy, there is a transfer of capital as bureaucrats see fit. This is proven inefficient.
However, you may not like the house you get. The government will do a study and determine that three children or two adults can share a bedroom. They will also need a kitchen with a stove/oven, room for a fridge and one sink. Limited storage space.Most people would prefer getting the health-care they want, not what government decided they can have.
Government can decide that your life is too expensive to save.
Then there has to be one bathroom, for efficiency the toilet will be put in the bathroom, and a laundry. But the laundry can go in the bathroom too.
And they'll need a living room. Somewhere to put the TV. So everyone will get a little two bedroom dog box, crammed in with other dog boxes. As it is now with public housing. Here comes the free market! Those that can afford to upgrade or renovate their homes will do so and those that can afford to move will do that too.
So what's the problem?Quality reduction.
ksen
23rd February 2012, 10:51 PM
I can't believe I'm doing this . . .
Welfare is means tested.
State health-care is means tested? I thought everybody got it no matter what.
He said "welfare" not "healthcare."
Government spending money must take that money from elsewhere. There is no boost to the economy,
Sure there is. If we went to a real UHC system like, say . . . France, there would be net savings. Yes the government would spend more and would need to get that extra money from taxes. However the population would spend a whole lot less for medical care.
per capita healthcare spending (http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/oecd042111.cfm):
http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/images/OECDChart1.gif
Also see:
http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/02/health-care-costs-opinions-columnists-reform.html
there is a transfer of capital as bureaucrats see fit. This is proven inefficient.
Proven in every case? Please provide the evidence.
Welfare is means tested.
State health-care is means tested? I thought everybody got it no matter what.
He said "welfare" not "healthcare."
Government spending money must take that money from elsewhere. There is no boost to the economy,
Sure there is. If we went to a real UHC system like, say . . . France, there would be net savings. Yes the government would spend more and would need to get that extra money from taxes. However the population would spend a whole lot less for medical care.
per capita healthcare spending (http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/oecd042111.cfm):
http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/images/OECDChart1.gif
Also see:
http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/02/health-care-costs-opinions-columnists-reform.html
there is a transfer of capital as bureaucrats see fit. This is proven inefficient.
Proven in every case? Please provide the evidence.
Adenosine
23rd February 2012, 11:01 PM
Welfare is means tested.
State health-care is means tested? I thought everybody got it no matter what.
Let's say that the government will provide housing for all. First of all it will provide a huge boost to the economy as all these government houses are built.Government spending money must take that money from elsewhere. There is no boost to the economy, there is a transfer of capital as bureaucrats see fit. This is proven inefficient.
However, you may not like the house you get. The government will do a study and determine that three children or two adults can share a bedroom. They will also need a kitchen with a stove/oven, room for a fridge and one sink. Limited storage space.Most people would prefer getting the health-care they want, not what government decided they can have.
Government can decide that your life is too expensive to save.
Then there has to be one bathroom, for efficiency the toilet will be put in the bathroom, and a laundry. But the laundry can go in the bathroom too.
And they'll need a living room. Somewhere to put the TV. So everyone will get a little two bedroom dog box, crammed in with other dog boxes. As it is now with public housing. Here comes the free market! Those that can afford to upgrade or renovate their homes will do so and those that can afford to move will do that too.
So what's the problem?Quality reduction.
You were talking about state provided housing. You want to talk about healthcare we can talk about healthcare after we're done talking about housing.
State health-care is means tested? I thought everybody got it no matter what.
Let's say that the government will provide housing for all. First of all it will provide a huge boost to the economy as all these government houses are built.Government spending money must take that money from elsewhere. There is no boost to the economy, there is a transfer of capital as bureaucrats see fit. This is proven inefficient.
However, you may not like the house you get. The government will do a study and determine that three children or two adults can share a bedroom. They will also need a kitchen with a stove/oven, room for a fridge and one sink. Limited storage space.Most people would prefer getting the health-care they want, not what government decided they can have.
Government can decide that your life is too expensive to save.
Then there has to be one bathroom, for efficiency the toilet will be put in the bathroom, and a laundry. But the laundry can go in the bathroom too.
And they'll need a living room. Somewhere to put the TV. So everyone will get a little two bedroom dog box, crammed in with other dog boxes. As it is now with public housing. Here comes the free market! Those that can afford to upgrade or renovate their homes will do so and those that can afford to move will do that too.
So what's the problem?Quality reduction.
You were talking about state provided housing. You want to talk about healthcare we can talk about healthcare after we're done talking about housing.
Jerome
23rd February 2012, 11:08 PM
I can't believe I'm doing this . . .
How about we go back to the original question: Should government provide you shelter if you have the means and choose not to?
State run health-care is government providing for those that can provide for themselves.
Try and stay on topic there Ksen.
How about we go back to the original question: Should government provide you shelter if you have the means and choose not to?
State run health-care is government providing for those that can provide for themselves.
Try and stay on topic there Ksen.
Jerome
23rd February 2012, 11:13 PM
Ksen, your chart is dishonest.
65% of the US spending is by government for only 16% of the population.
That means for over 80% of the population yearly average cost is $2,600 which is the lowest on your chart.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States
65% of the US spending is by government for only 16% of the population.
That means for over 80% of the population yearly average cost is $2,600 which is the lowest on your chart.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States
Jerome
23rd February 2012, 11:14 PM
You were talking about state provided housing. You want to talk about healthcare we can talk about healthcare after we're done talking about housing.
The initial question was should government provide for people that can provide for themselves.
The initial question was should government provide for people that can provide for themselves.
Jerome
23rd February 2012, 11:17 PM
there is a transfer of capital as bureaucrats see fit. This is proven inefficient.Proven in every case? Please provide the evidence.
Government spending 65% of all spending
Government coverage 16% of the population
Private spending 35% of all spending
Private coverage 80% of the population
This is inefficient.
Government spending 65% of all spending
Government coverage 16% of the population
Private spending 35% of all spending
Private coverage 80% of the population
This is inefficient.
ksen
24th February 2012, 04:54 AM
jesus christ you're an idiot. Hmmm, which demographic has the highest healthcare costs? Hmmm, which demographic is covered by government insurance programs.
Who'd of thunk that the healthiest demographic would spend less per capita than the least healthiest demographic.
Who'd of thunk that the healthiest demographic would spend less per capita than the least healthiest demographic.
Jerome
24th February 2012, 05:18 AM
jesus christ you're an idiot. Hmmm, did you calculate quality of care in your chart, higher rates of gunshot emergency surgeries, etc.?
If not, then you chart is a fraud on those counts also.
If not, then you chart is a fraud on those counts also.
Jerome
24th February 2012, 05:20 AM
Letting people die to reduce health-care costs is not a positive attribute.
Grumps
24th February 2012, 06:32 AM
Letting people die to reduce health-care costs is not a positive attribute.
Letting people die because they can't afford health-care costs is a douchebag attribute.
Letting people die because they can't afford health-care costs is a douchebag attribute.
Jerome
24th February 2012, 06:36 AM
Right, so that means the higher amount spent on health-care in the chart posted is better.
Grumps
24th February 2012, 06:37 AM
Right, so that means the higher cost of health-care in the chart posted is better.
lol. You didn't read the chart, yo.
lol. You didn't read the chart, yo.
Jerome
24th February 2012, 06:41 AM
So which is it, letting people die to save money is better or having low cost is better?
Grumps
24th February 2012, 06:45 AM
So which is it, letting people die to save money is better or having low cost is better?
You're pretty shit at this aren't you?
Your per capita cost is higher, but your coverage level is lower. People are unable to afford your blownout costs because the majority of coverage is private.
My country's is half that, and yet we have everything from GP visits, to drugs and medicine, to Specialised healthcare completely claimable against the Government's social healthcare scheme.
You're pretty shit at this aren't you?
Your per capita cost is higher, but your coverage level is lower. People are unable to afford your blownout costs because the majority of coverage is private.
My country's is half that, and yet we have everything from GP visits, to drugs and medicine, to Specialised healthcare completely claimable against the Government's social healthcare scheme.
Jerome
24th February 2012, 01:26 PM
There is no one in the US that does not have access to health-care. Sorry, but your meme is just not true.
Jerome
24th February 2012, 01:27 PM
What country do you live in Grumps?
ksen
24th February 2012, 01:31 PM
Jerome the studies are out there. We pay more per capita and get lower quality healthcare than most, if not all, countries with a UHC system.
ksen
24th February 2012, 01:31 PM
eta: and I'm sorry for calling you an idiot before. I'll blame the trying to lose weight thing for that post.
Jerome
24th February 2012, 01:37 PM
Jerome the studies are out there. We pay more per capita and get lower quality healthcare than most, if not all, countries with a UHC system.
Those are conclusions presented, but they are found false when one reads into the studies.
Those are conclusions presented, but they are found false when one reads into the studies.
Grumps
24th February 2012, 01:42 PM
There is no one in the US that does not have access to health-care. Sorry, but your meme is just not true.
Meme?
That words does not mean what you think it means.
Also, you're ignoring the question:
What happens when you don't have the means? You have continued to avoid the quesiton. It's time you answer it.
Meme?
That words does not mean what you think it means.
Also, you're ignoring the question:
What happens when you don't have the means? You have continued to avoid the quesiton. It's time you answer it.
Brother Daniel
24th February 2012, 02:02 PM
Jerome the studies are out there. We pay more per capita and get lower quality healthcare than most, if not all, countries with a UHC system.
don't bother me with facts lalalalalalalalalalalala I can't heeeeeeeeear you
:nada:
don't bother me with facts lalalalalalalalalalalala I can't heeeeeeeeear you
:nada:
Jerome
24th February 2012, 02:06 PM
What happens when you don't have the means?
I will answer it for you again.
If I don't have the means I acquire the means.
I will answer it for you again.
If I don't have the means I acquire the means.
ksen
24th February 2012, 02:06 PM
Jerome the studies are out there. We pay more per capita and get lower quality healthcare than most, if not all, countries with a UHC system.
Those are conclusions presented, but they are found false when one reads into the studies.
:unsure:
Those are conclusions presented, but they are found false when one reads into the studies.
:unsure:
Jerome
24th February 2012, 04:58 PM
Present a study and I will show you it's flaws.
dug
24th February 2012, 05:03 PM
how do you know it is flaws?
Jerome
24th February 2012, 05:08 PM
I have never seen one that didn't. They have all had predetermined conclusions.
Brother Daniel
24th February 2012, 05:12 PM
And you know their conclusions are "predetermined" because they differ from your predetermined conclusions.
Jerome
24th February 2012, 05:20 PM
And you know their conclusions are "predetermined" because they differ from your predetermined conclusions.
No, by looking at the stated agendas of the organizations which publish the studies.
No, by looking at the stated agendas of the organizations which publish the studies.
Brother Daniel
25th February 2012, 09:18 PM
But you can't identify what is actually wrong with the studies.
Jerome
25th February 2012, 10:31 PM
I can do that also, you asked how I could figure that the organization had a predetermined conclusion.
Grumps
26th February 2012, 06:15 AM
What happens when you don't have the means?
I will answer it for you again.
If I don't have the means I acquire the means.
Which is nonsense, as I have already explain.
So answer the question, stop avoiding it:
What happens when you don't have the means?
I will answer it for you again.
If I don't have the means I acquire the means.
Which is nonsense, as I have already explain.
So answer the question, stop avoiding it:
What happens when you don't have the means?
Jerome
26th February 2012, 11:55 AM
Ring around the rosy
A pocketful of posies
"Ashes, Ashes"
We all fall down!
A pocketful of posies
"Ashes, Ashes"
We all fall down!
Grumps
26th February 2012, 01:18 PM
What happens when you don't have the means?
Jerome
26th February 2012, 02:38 PM
Poor Grumps is stumped.
Should government provide you shelter if you have the means and choose not to?
Should government provide you shelter if you have the means and choose not to?
Grumps
26th February 2012, 03:12 PM
You're avoiding the question again:
What happens when you don't have the means?
What happens when you don't have the means?
borealis
26th February 2012, 08:25 PM
There is no one in the US that does not have access to health-care. Sorry, but your meme is just not true.
That's bullshit Jerome, unless you mean access to the lowest level of health care, or healthcare that doesn't kick in until your disease is well beyond what it would have been if you had adequate healthcare available months or years before.
My Florida family members, who are mostly second gen Americans, aren't scrambling to claim their Canadian citizenship because the goddamn weather is better here.
Plus shit like 'you're old, yes we could fix your incontinence problem, but it won't kill you to piss yourself regularly, so we don't cover it'.
Not to mention 'pre-existing condition' rules applied by insurance providers on kids born with debilitating conditions.
Admit to yourself that you've been lucky, so far, and people can do all the right things and rah-rah the American way until they discover they can get poor and die just like the riffraff in the projects, and with the inadequate same level of care.
That's bullshit Jerome, unless you mean access to the lowest level of health care, or healthcare that doesn't kick in until your disease is well beyond what it would have been if you had adequate healthcare available months or years before.
My Florida family members, who are mostly second gen Americans, aren't scrambling to claim their Canadian citizenship because the goddamn weather is better here.
Plus shit like 'you're old, yes we could fix your incontinence problem, but it won't kill you to piss yourself regularly, so we don't cover it'.
Not to mention 'pre-existing condition' rules applied by insurance providers on kids born with debilitating conditions.
Admit to yourself that you've been lucky, so far, and people can do all the right things and rah-rah the American way until they discover they can get poor and die just like the riffraff in the projects, and with the inadequate same level of care.
Jerome
26th February 2012, 08:40 PM
Plus shit like 'you're old, yes we could fix your incontinence problem, but it won't kill you to piss yourself regularly, so we don't cover it'.
Government covers the old.
Not to mention 'pre-existing condition' rules applied by insurance providers on kids born with debilitating conditions.No, the clause is only for people that try to buy insurance after they get sick, otherwise no one would buy insurance until they got sick. You wouldn't expect to be able to purchase a fire insurance policy after your home had burnt to the ground, would you?
Admit to yourself that you've been lucky, so far, and people can do all the right things and rah-rah the American way until they discover they can get poor and die just like the riffraff in the projects, and with the inadequate same level of care.The poor are covered by government.
Basically you are very ignorant of how things work down here. Though I do know that here you don't have to wait in line for treatment. I also know we have better quality because you have had a cabinet minister flying to California for cancer treatment.
Government covers the old.
Not to mention 'pre-existing condition' rules applied by insurance providers on kids born with debilitating conditions.No, the clause is only for people that try to buy insurance after they get sick, otherwise no one would buy insurance until they got sick. You wouldn't expect to be able to purchase a fire insurance policy after your home had burnt to the ground, would you?
Admit to yourself that you've been lucky, so far, and people can do all the right things and rah-rah the American way until they discover they can get poor and die just like the riffraff in the projects, and with the inadequate same level of care.The poor are covered by government.
Basically you are very ignorant of how things work down here. Though I do know that here you don't have to wait in line for treatment. I also know we have better quality because you have had a cabinet minister flying to California for cancer treatment.
Jerome
26th February 2012, 08:45 PM
21% of Canadian hospital administrators, but less than 1% of American administrators, said that it would take over three weeks to do a biopsy for possible breast cancer on a 50-year-old woman; 50% of Canadian administrators versus none of their American counterparts said that it would take over six months for a 65-year-old to undergo a routine hip replacement surgery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_health_care_systems_in_Canada_an d_the_United_States#Wait_times
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_health_care_systems_in_Canada_an d_the_United_States#Wait_times
Grumps
26th February 2012, 09:01 PM
Two more posts and you still haven't answered the question.
What happens when you don't have the means?
What happens when you don't have the means?
Brother Daniel
27th February 2012, 02:34 PM
I can do that also
No, you can't. But go ahead and claim ad infinitum that you can.
you asked how I could figure that the organization had a predetermined conclusion.
No, I didn't. I presented a hypothesis.
No, you can't. But go ahead and claim ad infinitum that you can.
you asked how I could figure that the organization had a predetermined conclusion.
No, I didn't. I presented a hypothesis.
Brother Daniel
27th February 2012, 02:38 PM
Though I do know that here you don't have to wait in line for treatment.
If you can get it at all, that is.
I also know we have better quality because you have had a cabinet minister flying to California for cancer treatment.
Meanwhile, Sarah Palin has admitted crossing the border into Yukon to get medical treatment.
I'd bet Canada gets a lot more medical refugees from the US than vice-versa.
There's a reason why Canadians live 2-3 years longer on average than Americans do, and it isn't because rich Americans can get treatment faster.
If you can get it at all, that is.
I also know we have better quality because you have had a cabinet minister flying to California for cancer treatment.
Meanwhile, Sarah Palin has admitted crossing the border into Yukon to get medical treatment.
I'd bet Canada gets a lot more medical refugees from the US than vice-versa.
There's a reason why Canadians live 2-3 years longer on average than Americans do, and it isn't because rich Americans can get treatment faster.
ksen
27th February 2012, 02:53 PM
I also know we have better quality because you have had a cabinet minister flying to California for cancer treatment.
Oh Jerome you silly goose.
Americans and medical tourism (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1861919,00.html)
Oh Jerome you silly goose.
Americans and medical tourism (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1861919,00.html)
Jerome
27th February 2012, 09:18 PM
Though I do know that here you don't have to wait in line for treatment.
If you can get it at all, that is.
Emergency rooms are require by law to treat anyone that walks into them, so you are wrong again.
If you can get it at all, that is.
Emergency rooms are require by law to treat anyone that walks into them, so you are wrong again.
Jerome
27th February 2012, 09:23 PM
I also know we have better quality because you have had a cabinet minister flying to California for cancer treatment.
There's a reason why Canadians live 2-3 years longer on average than
That is because the stats are manipulated by a couple of facts. One is that the US defines a death at a lower weight for a still born than does Canada. This means there are more newborn deaths in the US solely based upon the lower weight of the child being defined as a child whereas Canada defines the event as a miscarriage, therefore a death at age 0 is not recorded. A second is the much higher gun violence.
There's a reason why Canadians live 2-3 years longer on average than
That is because the stats are manipulated by a couple of facts. One is that the US defines a death at a lower weight for a still born than does Canada. This means there are more newborn deaths in the US solely based upon the lower weight of the child being defined as a child whereas Canada defines the event as a miscarriage, therefore a death at age 0 is not recorded. A second is the much higher gun violence.
Jerome
27th February 2012, 09:24 PM
I'd bet Canada gets a lot more medical refugees from the US than vice-versa.
Are you here stating that in Canada one only needs to walk in and they are treated, there is no need to evidence citizenship?
Are you here stating that in Canada one only needs to walk in and they are treated, there is no need to evidence citizenship?
Jerome
27th February 2012, 09:25 PM
I also know we have better quality because you have had a cabinet minister flying to California for cancer treatment.
Oh Jerome you silly goose.
Americans and medical tourism (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1861919,00.html)
You missed the point. The Canadian Cabinet Minister came to the US because the US has better health-care.
Oh Jerome you silly goose.
Americans and medical tourism (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1861919,00.html)
You missed the point. The Canadian Cabinet Minister came to the US because the US has better health-care.
ksen
27th February 2012, 09:58 PM
I also know we have better quality because you have had a cabinet minister flying to California for cancer treatment.
Oh Jerome you silly goose.
Americans and medical tourism (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1861919,00.html)
You missed the point. The Canadian Cabinet Minister came to the US because the US has better health-care.
Then according to your logic nearly 200,000 americans go to Asia each year because India has better healthcare.
Oh Jerome you silly goose.
Americans and medical tourism (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1861919,00.html)
You missed the point. The Canadian Cabinet Minister came to the US because the US has better health-care.
Then according to your logic nearly 200,000 americans go to Asia each year because India has better healthcare.
Jerome
27th February 2012, 09:59 PM
Then according to your logic nearly 200,000 americans go to Asia each year because India has better healthcare.
No, they go there because it is cheaper and less regulated. The Canadian minister came to the US for BETTER care.
No, they go there because it is cheaper and less regulated. The Canadian minister came to the US for BETTER care.
Grumps
27th February 2012, 10:50 PM
5 more posts, and not a single one answered the question.
You really don't have an answer.
What happens when you don't have the means?
You really don't have an answer.
What happens when you don't have the means?
Brother Daniel
28th February 2012, 01:27 PM
Emergency rooms are require by law to treat anyone that walks into them, so you are wrong again.
Already dealt with (my bolding added):
There is no one in the US that does not have access to health-care. Sorry, but your meme is just not true.
That's bullshit Jerome, unless you mean access to the lowest level of health care, or healthcare that doesn't kick in until your disease is well beyond what it would have been if you had adequate healthcare available months or years before.
Already dealt with (my bolding added):
There is no one in the US that does not have access to health-care. Sorry, but your meme is just not true.
That's bullshit Jerome, unless you mean access to the lowest level of health care, or healthcare that doesn't kick in until your disease is well beyond what it would have been if you had adequate healthcare available months or years before.
Brother Daniel
28th February 2012, 01:43 PM
There's a reason why Canadians live 2-3 years longer on average than
That is because the stats are manipulated by a couple of facts. One is that the US defines a death at a lower weight for a still born than does Canada. This means there are more newborn deaths in the US solely based upon the lower weight of the child being defined as a child whereas Canada defines the event as a miscarriage, therefore a death at age 0 is not recorded. A second is the much higher gun violence.
I gotta hand it to you, that's a better answer than the excuses I usually get from the ra-ra-USA-number-one crowd.
But still (assuming you're telling the truth about the stillbirth/miscarriage thing, for which *citation needed*), how many stillbirths/miscarriages are there in that grey zone where our two countries would record them differently? Assuming that there's one such grey-zone event for every thousand live births or so (and I seriously doubt it's that high), that would account for a difference of about a month in the average life expectancy.
And your high rate of gun violence could possibly account for as much as a year in the difference in the averages.
You still have another year or two to account for.
That is because the stats are manipulated by a couple of facts. One is that the US defines a death at a lower weight for a still born than does Canada. This means there are more newborn deaths in the US solely based upon the lower weight of the child being defined as a child whereas Canada defines the event as a miscarriage, therefore a death at age 0 is not recorded. A second is the much higher gun violence.
I gotta hand it to you, that's a better answer than the excuses I usually get from the ra-ra-USA-number-one crowd.
But still (assuming you're telling the truth about the stillbirth/miscarriage thing, for which *citation needed*), how many stillbirths/miscarriages are there in that grey zone where our two countries would record them differently? Assuming that there's one such grey-zone event for every thousand live births or so (and I seriously doubt it's that high), that would account for a difference of about a month in the average life expectancy.
And your high rate of gun violence could possibly account for as much as a year in the difference in the averages.
You still have another year or two to account for.
Brother Daniel
28th February 2012, 01:48 PM
I'd bet Canada gets a lot more medical refugees from the US than vice-versa.
Are you here stating that in Canada one only needs to walk in and they are treated, there is no need to evidence citizenship?
No, but medical staff here are often not very picky in practice.
This kind of scenario happens: Patient: "Oh, I forgot to bring my health card." Receptionist: "That's ok, just phone us with your health card number when you get home. Come on in, the doctor will see you now."
Moreover, there's a whole industry around creating phony IDs for Americans precisely for the purpose of getting Canadian medical treatment. Or so our newspapers tell us.
Are you here stating that in Canada one only needs to walk in and they are treated, there is no need to evidence citizenship?
No, but medical staff here are often not very picky in practice.
This kind of scenario happens: Patient: "Oh, I forgot to bring my health card." Receptionist: "That's ok, just phone us with your health card number when you get home. Come on in, the doctor will see you now."
Moreover, there's a whole industry around creating phony IDs for Americans precisely for the purpose of getting Canadian medical treatment. Or so our newspapers tell us.
Bobby Arthur
28th February 2012, 06:06 PM
I can't believe I'm doing this . . .
jer:owned:
jer:owned:
ksen
28th February 2012, 07:04 PM
I can't believe I'm doing this . . .
jer:owned:
yeah . . . big time
jer:owned:
yeah . . . big time
Jerome
28th February 2012, 07:18 PM
Hard not to as I have the facts on my side.
:yes:
:yes:
Jerome
28th February 2012, 07:48 PM
Daniel, also notice that the life expectancy is the number presented, not the life span. The life span number excluded babies that die before their first year (obvious bias against a country with better health-care that keeps babies alive longer). See, if you let them die or abort them then you don't have a stat(person) with a less than 1 year of life added into the whole.
There is a reason that walks are not counted as atbats when calculating a hitters average.
There is a reason that walks are not counted as atbats when calculating a hitters average.
Brother Daniel
28th February 2012, 08:38 PM
That was pure flail, Jerome. Try harder.
eta
obvious bias against a country with better health-care that keeps babies alive longer
So since Canada's infant mortality rate is only about 75% of the US's, you're saying that life-span stats are biased against Canada, and our life expectancy is even further ahead of yours than I thought it was?
eta
obvious bias against a country with better health-care that keeps babies alive longer
So since Canada's infant mortality rate is only about 75% of the US's, you're saying that life-span stats are biased against Canada, and our life expectancy is even further ahead of yours than I thought it was?
Jerome
28th February 2012, 08:48 PM
BD, not counting on the same scale makes your presentation invalid, and you know it.
Jerome
28th February 2012, 08:50 PM
BD, I am sure you would fully admit that the US has a much more violent society than does Canada.
Bobby Arthur
28th February 2012, 09:14 PM
BD, I am sure you would fully admit that the US has a much more violent society than does Canada.
I'm not BD, but I would not admit that.
I'm not BD, but I would not admit that.
Brother Daniel
29th February 2012, 01:48 PM
BD, not counting on the same scale makes your presentation invalid, and you know it.
If there's a quantifiable difference in how things are counted, then we can quantify the amount of bias in the results. Which is better than simply dismissing a result as meaningless.
BD, I am sure you would fully admit that the US has a much more violent society than does Canada.
Well, that's the impression I get. Your homicide rate is about three times ours. But the relative effect on life expectancy by violence is bounded by (and is actually considerably less than) the ratio of homicide rate to birth rate, and the difference between those ratios for our two countries is only about 0.02 (i.e. 0.035 for you guys versus 0.014 for us), meaning that that difference can't possibly account for more than about a year and a half out of the difference between the Canadian life expectancy and the US one, and probably only accounts for about a year (since a lot of homicide victims are adults). But the life expectancy difference is 2-3 years, so you're less than half way toward accounting for all of it.
If there's a quantifiable difference in how things are counted, then we can quantify the amount of bias in the results. Which is better than simply dismissing a result as meaningless.
BD, I am sure you would fully admit that the US has a much more violent society than does Canada.
Well, that's the impression I get. Your homicide rate is about three times ours. But the relative effect on life expectancy by violence is bounded by (and is actually considerably less than) the ratio of homicide rate to birth rate, and the difference between those ratios for our two countries is only about 0.02 (i.e. 0.035 for you guys versus 0.014 for us), meaning that that difference can't possibly account for more than about a year and a half out of the difference between the Canadian life expectancy and the US one, and probably only accounts for about a year (since a lot of homicide victims are adults). But the life expectancy difference is 2-3 years, so you're less than half way toward accounting for all of it.
ksen
29th February 2012, 01:53 PM
Waiting for Jerome to break out the "people in homogenous cultures tend to have longer lifespans than people in nonhomogenous cultures" card.
Jerome
29th February 2012, 02:21 PM
BD, someone murdered at age 20 doesn't live to age 80.
Birth rate has nothing to do with life expectancy or life span.
Birth rate has nothing to do with life expectancy or life span.
Brother Daniel
29th February 2012, 02:27 PM
One conservative American with whom I was once arguing sent me a link to an AEI article that tried to explain away these differences in life expectancy. The article undermined its own argument: The math included a sign-reversal error, which meant that if the argument was otherwise valid (doubtful), then the US disadvantage in life expectancy is really twice as bad as it appears, rather than being explained away entirely. For some reason, my correspondent stopped replying to me when I pointed out the error.
Brother Daniel
29th February 2012, 02:28 PM
BD, someone murdered at age 20 doesn't live to age 80.
Which is why I've been agreeing with you all along that a higher homicide rate will have some impact on life expectancy.
Birth rate has nothing to do with life expectancy or life span.
But it has much to do with figuring out the extent to which the homicide rate would impact life expectancy.
Which is why I've been agreeing with you all along that a higher homicide rate will have some impact on life expectancy.
Birth rate has nothing to do with life expectancy or life span.
But it has much to do with figuring out the extent to which the homicide rate would impact life expectancy.
Jerome
29th February 2012, 02:29 PM
BD, even if the life expectancy number is accurate you can not evidence this is due to state provided health-care.
Brother Daniel
29th February 2012, 02:36 PM
But I can point out the repeated failure of the ra-ra-USA-number-one crowd to evidence that it's not due to state-funded health-care, and in particular their repeated failure to account for the difference in any other way.
Jerome
29th February 2012, 08:13 PM
But I can point out the repeated failure of the ra-ra-USA-number-one crowd to evidence that it's not due to state-funded health-care, and in particular their repeated failure to account for the difference in any other way.
Dude, if you think waiting in line for restricted care is a good thing then have at it. I prefer being able to get the best treatment in the world whenever needed.
Apparently a lot of Canadian citizens are jumping to the US to jump the Canadian lines.
Full to capacity hospitals and long wait times for specialists is prompting more Canadians to shop for their health care in the United States these days. It’s a case of supply and demand, coupled with a strong Canadian dollar and limping American one. Even average wage earning Canadians can now jump health care waiting lines by looking south of the border. Shopping in America for cars and vacation homes already, Canucks have added heart bypasses and hip replacements to their wish lists.
Strained Canadian System
The issue goes beyond which system provides superior care, settling on the more important issue of access. With Canadian hospitals operating at capacity, and specialists unable to meet demands for their services, people with means turn to health care brokers. These agencies hook them up with hospitals in the States with beds to fill, and doctors willing to oblige patients who often pay upfront and in cash.
Long Wait Times
Wait times that still average between a year and 18 months for hip and knee replacements drive some to seek care in the U.S. This in spite of the recent $5.5 billion dollars the Canadian federal government initiative to decrease waitng lists. However, heart and spinal surgery increasingly draws patients south too.
For U.S. health care, the tourism is a welcome relief (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canadians-buy-us-health-care-as-weak-economy-pushes-down-prices/article1931073/page1/)in troubled economic times. Because insurance paperwork drives much of the cost for healthcare, Canadian patients who pay cash eliminates this expense. They also fill idle hospital beds that make no money for institutions when they are empty.
http://www.care2.com/causes/weak-u-s-economic-lures-canadian-medical-tourists.html
Dude, if you think waiting in line for restricted care is a good thing then have at it. I prefer being able to get the best treatment in the world whenever needed.
Apparently a lot of Canadian citizens are jumping to the US to jump the Canadian lines.
Full to capacity hospitals and long wait times for specialists is prompting more Canadians to shop for their health care in the United States these days. It’s a case of supply and demand, coupled with a strong Canadian dollar and limping American one. Even average wage earning Canadians can now jump health care waiting lines by looking south of the border. Shopping in America for cars and vacation homes already, Canucks have added heart bypasses and hip replacements to their wish lists.
Strained Canadian System
The issue goes beyond which system provides superior care, settling on the more important issue of access. With Canadian hospitals operating at capacity, and specialists unable to meet demands for their services, people with means turn to health care brokers. These agencies hook them up with hospitals in the States with beds to fill, and doctors willing to oblige patients who often pay upfront and in cash.
Long Wait Times
Wait times that still average between a year and 18 months for hip and knee replacements drive some to seek care in the U.S. This in spite of the recent $5.5 billion dollars the Canadian federal government initiative to decrease waitng lists. However, heart and spinal surgery increasingly draws patients south too.
For U.S. health care, the tourism is a welcome relief (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canadians-buy-us-health-care-as-weak-economy-pushes-down-prices/article1931073/page1/)in troubled economic times. Because insurance paperwork drives much of the cost for healthcare, Canadian patients who pay cash eliminates this expense. They also fill idle hospital beds that make no money for institutions when they are empty.
http://www.care2.com/causes/weak-u-s-economic-lures-canadian-medical-tourists.html
Jerome
29th February 2012, 08:17 PM
You may be unaware, but Canada is running short of doctors.
When stacked up against countries with similar health care goals, namely universal coverage, it quickly becomes apparent that Canada’s health care system is not worth emulating. While we’re a top spender, we have among the longest waiting lists, low levels of medical technologies and perhaps the problem that hits closest to home, a short supply of doctors.
If you think it’s bad now, just wait. Over the next decade, the physician shortage will become more severe. Even if government imposed restrictions on the number of doctors being trained in Canada are immediately removed, it won’t have an impact for much of the next decade given the time it takes to train a new doctor. The only short-term solution is to recruit more foreign-trained doctors.
In 2006, the most recent year for which data is available, Canada’s physician-to-population ratio (age-adjusted) ranked 26th among 28 developed nations that maintain universal access health care. It’s not surprising then that some 6.6 per cent of Canadians reported being unable to find a family doctor in 2010. Canada’s physicians are unable to meet the demand for health care services because there are simply too few of them.
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research-news/news/display.aspx?id=17360
When stacked up against countries with similar health care goals, namely universal coverage, it quickly becomes apparent that Canada’s health care system is not worth emulating. While we’re a top spender, we have among the longest waiting lists, low levels of medical technologies and perhaps the problem that hits closest to home, a short supply of doctors.
If you think it’s bad now, just wait. Over the next decade, the physician shortage will become more severe. Even if government imposed restrictions on the number of doctors being trained in Canada are immediately removed, it won’t have an impact for much of the next decade given the time it takes to train a new doctor. The only short-term solution is to recruit more foreign-trained doctors.
In 2006, the most recent year for which data is available, Canada’s physician-to-population ratio (age-adjusted) ranked 26th among 28 developed nations that maintain universal access health care. It’s not surprising then that some 6.6 per cent of Canadians reported being unable to find a family doctor in 2010. Canada’s physicians are unable to meet the demand for health care services because there are simply too few of them.
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research-news/news/display.aspx?id=17360
Jerome
29th February 2012, 08:19 PM
Canadian Health-care by the numbers:
4 million
the number of Canadians who can’t find a family doctor.
49%
Percentage of nurses who retire before age 65.
113,000
the number of nurses we will be short in Canada within ten years.
41,314
Number of nursing students that will need to be enrolled in nursing school in order to replace the nurses retiring soon. Canada only has space for 12,000 students.
7%
the increase in the chance of patient mortality for every extra patient added to a nurse’s workload.
1,551
the difference between the number of physicians we will have (36,357) and the number we will need (37,908) by the year 2012.
4 million
the number of Canadians who can’t find a family doctor.
49%
Percentage of nurses who retire before age 65.
113,000
the number of nurses we will be short in Canada within ten years.
41,314
Number of nursing students that will need to be enrolled in nursing school in order to replace the nurses retiring soon. Canada only has space for 12,000 students.
7%
the increase in the chance of patient mortality for every extra patient added to a nurse’s workload.
1,551
the difference between the number of physicians we will have (36,357) and the number we will need (37,908) by the year 2012.
dug
29th February 2012, 10:14 PM
lol
dug
29th February 2012, 10:15 PM
And it's cold up there too.
Brother Daniel
1st March 2012, 01:00 PM
Dude, if you think waiting in line for restricted care is a good thing then have at it.
I didn't say that the long wait times were a good thing, nor did I say that the Canadian system is better for every individual in every possible set of circumstances. You seem to have trouble discussing these things in good faith.
I prefer being able to get the best treatment in the world whenever needed.
An awful lot of your fellow countrymen do not have anything resembling what you just described.
You may be unaware, but Canada is running short of doctors.
Which is a separate issue from the pros and cons of government-funded healthcare as an alternative to the inefficient and complicated patchwork of systems that you guys have.
I didn't say that the long wait times were a good thing, nor did I say that the Canadian system is better for every individual in every possible set of circumstances. You seem to have trouble discussing these things in good faith.
I prefer being able to get the best treatment in the world whenever needed.
An awful lot of your fellow countrymen do not have anything resembling what you just described.
You may be unaware, but Canada is running short of doctors.
Which is a separate issue from the pros and cons of government-funded healthcare as an alternative to the inefficient and complicated patchwork of systems that you guys have.
Jerome
1st March 2012, 01:18 PM
4 million Canadians do not have access to a primary care doctor, that is 12% of the population.
Tell me about access to care in Canada again.
Tell me about access to care in Canada again.
Brother Daniel
1st March 2012, 03:31 PM
If I wanted to adopt JEROME-style reasoning, I'd just say "well, I had no problem finding a doctor" and that would be good enough to dismiss that concern.
More seriously, though, I don't think you really want to get into a comparison of the horror stories that can be found on both sides of the border. That wouldn't work in your favour.
More seriously, though, I don't think you really want to get into a comparison of the horror stories that can be found on both sides of the border. That wouldn't work in your favour.
Nhận xét
Đăng nhận xét