Collarchat.com

Join Our Community
Collarchat.com

Home  Login  Search 

RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care Page: <<   < prev  20 21 [22] 23 24   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citiz... - 10/11/2013 9:50:15 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83
he already said that's immoral that our governament is also health care provider because it's not a natural right, so I think it makes him feel less corrupted.

Where did I say it was immoral?

apology... you stand correct you never used that words... let say it's an interpretation of sentences as "health care is not a right" and "it's against the usa costitution that governament provides health care" this in combination with the 9th amendament and "you can't force people to give you something like health care"... I don't want to look and quote but it's from sentences like those.


Our Constitution is not a moral compass, though. It's entirely a legal document.

Charity care, that is, providing care for someone that can't afford to pay for it, is a great thing. I don't believe it is within the limited authorities granted to the US Federal Government. For it to be within their authority, it would take an Amendment to the Constitution.

The US Constitution originally had Senators determined by their respective State legislative branches. Senators are now directly elected by the people of the State. How is that not unConstitutional? There was an Amendment passed. I still believe, wholeheartedly, that Senators shouldn't be directly elected by the population, but by the State legislatures, as originally written. But, there is no complaint that direct elections are unConstitutional.

Constitutionality does not define an action as moral or immoral.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to eulero83)
Profile   Post #: 421
RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citiz... - 10/11/2013 10:06:10 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Charity care, that is, providing care for someone that can't afford to pay for it, is a great thing. I don't believe it is within the limited authorities granted to the US Federal Government. For it to be within their authority, it would take an Amendment to the Constitution.



Well then your mind may be put at ease.
The US federal government has that authority in the Constitution.

little snip for ya:

make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 422
RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citiz... - 10/11/2013 10:07:43 AM   
freedomdwarf1


Posts: 6845
Joined: 10/23/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
The %GDP cost of the NHS has gone from, roughly, 3½%GDP in 1950/1 to, roughly, 7¼% in 2007/8.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/files/2012/07/nuffield.jpg (the image comes out huge here, so I'm linking to it instead)

This shows the NHS costs rising from 3½% GDP to 9%GDP from 1949/50 to 2009/10.

What proof is there that US costs will go from roughly 17%GDP to 9%GDP, based on the experience of the UK?

No proof at all because nobody can provide a guesstimate of future events as proof.
But we have admitted that our costs are rising to do with the nation having an aging demographic and requiring more care.
Considering our GDP is a lot lower in recent years (relatively) and the NHS budget has only risen by 5% in SIXTY years - that's shitloads less than the spiralling costs that have happened in the US in just the last decade. And on a cost per person, we are still only paying around 8% from wages so in real terms it hasn't risen at all for those that pay into the system.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Since 1970, everyone's health care expenditures are rising. Where is there any proof that going to a national care model will cut costs? Where is there any proof that going to a national care model has cut costs?

Just take a look at your graph.
The cost% of GDP has more than doubled for the US compared to the others.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
You're still only talking about the 20% (less, actually because there are still administrative costs associated with national health care systems) of the costs.

But there's the clincher. lol.
The costs are irrelevant to what is charged to the patient in a single-payer system.
Under a private system, rising costs are borne by the patient in rising premiums. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
At what cost (with regards to R&D, jobs, etc.)? Is the cost actually a negotiated cost or a mandated cost?
quote:

None whatsoever.
The difference is, the CEO's and shareholders don't get to make such fat profits when dealing with a whole nation rather than individuals.


Have any proof of that?

Look at my later post Re cost of the same drug in different countries.
The manufacturers don't get to dictate the costs to the single-payer country so they take a huge cut in order to get their drugs used outside the US and that cut has to come from profits they would otherwise have made. Ergo, shitloads less money to line the pockets of CEO's and shareholders.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri 
The restrictions are there. There is a monopoly on the licensing of physicians. It's a government sanctioned monopoly, too. Is Medicare a buyer's market? Medicare has Government negotiating the reimbursements for services. They are lower than private insurance reimbursements. Lowering them will have more of a negative effect than anything, as physicians would either reduce the number of Medicare patients they see, reduce the amount of time they spend with Medicare patients, or stop seeing Medicare patients altogether. The costs of providing care are high enough that reducing Medicare reimbursements is not a popular stance. Even politicians aren't in support of it, as proven by the continuing passage of "Doc Fix" bills (which are passed to prevent legislated reductions in reimbursements enacted during Clinton's Presidency).
quote:


There are some restrictions, yes.
But the whole system is based on profiteering, not providing a decent, affordable service.
You say there is a government monopoly on the licensing of physicians.
I don't see that anywhere - not even in the US.


No, I said there was a government sanctioned monopoly (the AMA).

quote:

Someone does the study, passes the exam, they can apply for a license in whatever field they passed in.


Where do they get that license? Here, it's the AMA.

quote:

When they have that license, they join a practice or setup shop themselves and charge what the fuck they like.
Where is the monopoly restriction? All I see is profit and greed.
In a state-funded system, you are paid a salary negotiated between the unions and the government body. You can't charge any more for treating existing pre-conditions or for someone coming twice a week for months on end and the prescription charges are the same regardless of the cost of the medication that is prescribed.


Are you saying that a healthy individual presents the same income for a practice as a chronically ill individual?

Yes!! That's precisely what I'm saying.
In a single-payer system, the physicians and staff are paid a set salary for the hours they work, not per patient visit.
So it doesn't matter to them if they do nothing all day or get flooded with patients all day - they are paid the same salary.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

Profit doesn't come into it - and there's the essential difference.
Private companies need to advertise against their rivals and they need to make a profit or they go bust. This is standard business practice - emphasis on making profits to re-invest (or line your CEO's nest egg).
State funded single payer systems don't nned to advertise (hence no advertising costs) and the emphasis is on providing the service, not making a profit. If you don't make a profit and more funds are needed, you just re-route taxes from another budget into the one that needs more funding.

That's the difference between the two systems.
Private systems are in it for profit and *that* is their main goal.
Single-payer systems are in it for basic salaries and providing the service they are contracted to provide by the state.


ETA:
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Charity care, that is, providing care for someone that can't afford to pay for it, is a great thing.

In single-payer systems, it is paid for in taxes and covers all those that cannot afford it.
Ergo, it isn't charity per se at all.
Under private systems, those people either suffer or die as a consequence of getting ill.


< Message edited by freedomdwarf1 -- 10/11/2013 10:12:08 AM >

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 423
RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citiz... - 10/11/2013 10:14:29 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
quote:


This shows the NHS costs rising from 3½% GDP to 9%GDP from 1949/50 to 2009/10.


My God!!!! a 5.5% increase in 61 years. We shall have to sort this out. What is our increase over the same period?


< Message edited by mnottertail -- 10/11/2013 10:15:52 AM >


_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to freedomdwarf1)
Profile   Post #: 424
RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citiz... - 10/11/2013 10:21:12 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Charity care, that is, providing care for someone that can't afford to pay for it, is a great thing. I don't believe it is within the limited authorities granted to the US Federal Government. For it to be within their authority, it would take an Amendment to the Constitution.

Well then your mind may be put at ease.
The US federal government has that authority in the Constitution.
little snip for ya:
make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof


Lots of people will disagree with you on that, MN. Even lots of people who are as well versed, if not more than you, in law.




_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 425
RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citiz... - 10/11/2013 10:29:38 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
Nah, not possible. Anyone can say anything 'versed' in law, and I don't give a shit. Lets see the fucking opinion out of the supreme court on their little masturabatory cases.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 426
RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citiz... - 10/11/2013 11:04:05 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
You're still only talking about the 20% (less, actually because there are still administrative costs associated with national health care systems) of the costs.

But there's the clincher. lol.
The costs are irrelevant to what is charged to the patient in a single-payer system.
Under a private system, rising costs are borne by the patient in rising premiums. 


Costs rise under a single-payer system, too.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
At what cost (with regards to R&D, jobs, etc.)? Is the cost actually a negotiated cost or a mandated cost?
quote:

None whatsoever.
The difference is, the CEO's and shareholders don't get to make such fat profits when dealing with a whole nation rather than individuals.

Have any proof of that?

Look at my later post Re cost of the same drug in different countries.
The manufacturers don't get to dictate the costs to the single-payer country so they take a huge cut in order to get their drugs used outside the US and that cut has to come from profits they would otherwise have made. Ergo, shitloads less money to line the pockets of CEO's and shareholders.


No proof of fat profits. If you have proof of fat profits, please show them.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri 
The restrictions are there. There is a monopoly on the licensing of physicians. It's a government sanctioned monopoly, too. Is Medicare a buyer's market? Medicare has Government negotiating the reimbursements for services. They are lower than private insurance reimbursements. Lowering them will have more of a negative effect than anything, as physicians would either reduce the number of Medicare patients they see, reduce the amount of time they spend with Medicare patients, or stop seeing Medicare patients altogether. The costs of providing care are high enough that reducing Medicare reimbursements is not a popular stance. Even politicians aren't in support of it, as proven by the continuing passage of "Doc Fix" bills (which are passed to prevent legislated reductions in reimbursements enacted during Clinton's Presidency).
quote:


There are some restrictions, yes.
But the whole system is based on profiteering, not providing a decent, affordable service.
You say there is a government monopoly on the licensing of physicians.
I don't see that anywhere - not even in the US.

No, I said there was a government sanctioned monopoly (the AMA).
quote:

Someone does the study, passes the exam, they can apply for a license in whatever field they passed in.

Where do they get that license? Here, it's the AMA.
quote:

When they have that license, they join a practice or setup shop themselves and charge what the fuck they like.
Where is the monopoly restriction? All I see is profit and greed.
In a state-funded system, you are paid a salary negotiated between the unions and the government body. You can't charge any more for treating existing pre-conditions or for someone coming twice a week for months on end and the prescription charges are the same regardless of the cost of the medication that is prescribed.

Are you saying that a healthy individual presents the same income for a practice as a chronically ill individual?

Yes!! That's precisely what I'm saying.
In a single-payer system, the physicians and staff are paid a set salary for the hours they work, not per patient visit.
So it doesn't matter to them if they do nothing all day or get flooded with patients all day - they are paid the same salary.

So, the physicians and nurses don't see the rising overhead costs, either. Good for them.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

Profit doesn't come into it - and there's the essential difference.
Private companies need to advertise against their rivals and they need to make a profit or they go bust. This is standard business practice - emphasis on making profits to re-invest (or line your CEO's nest egg).
State funded single payer systems don't nned to advertise (hence no advertising costs) and the emphasis is on providing the service, not making a profit. If you don't make a profit and more funds are needed, you just re-route taxes from another budget into the one that needs more funding.

That's the difference between the two systems.
Private systems are in it for profit and *that* is their main goal.
Single-payer systems are in it for basic salaries and providing the service they are contracted to provide by the state.


Private systems are in it for the profit, but they are in it to provide for a need. That there is even the existence of a private market in the UK demonstrates that there are needs not being met by the NHS.

quote:

ETA:
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Charity care, that is, providing care for someone that can't afford to pay for it, is a great thing.

In single-payer systems, it is paid for in taxes and covers all those that cannot afford it.
Ergo, it isn't charity per se at all.
Under private systems, those people either suffer or die as a consequence of getting ill.


Charity care is given every day of the week.

_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to freedomdwarf1)
Profile   Post #: 427
RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citiz... - 10/11/2013 11:05:28 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
Nah, not possible. Anyone can say anything 'versed' in law, and I don't give a shit. Lets see the fucking opinion out of the supreme court on their little masturabatory cases.


I predict we will, and have said as much before.




_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 428
RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citiz... - 10/11/2013 11:26:28 AM   
freedomdwarf1


Posts: 6845
Joined: 10/23/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Costs rise under a single-payer system, too.

Not for the individual patient they don't.
It's still FREE at the point of delivery.
And for those paying into the system, it's still only about 8% - so not a real-term rise in costs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
So, the physicians and nurses don't see the rising overhead costs, either. Good for them.

That's the beauty and whole point of a single-payer system; those providing the service don't usually have to worry about the fiscal implications of providing that service or the cost of the drugs or other services they may need for their patient.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Private systems are in it for the profit, but they are in it to provide for a need. That there is even the existence of a private market in the UK demonstrates that there are needs not being met by the NHS.

I disagree.
Those 'needs' are expediency, not necessity.
As I explained earlier, it'll get you a private room and maybe less waiting for non-essential surgery; but not much else. Even under private health care, they don't supply drugs from prescriptions for free under your policy - you still have to pay for them via the NHS and what you pay goes into that single-payer system.
People here using private medicine rarely use it for essential healthcare and for the most part, those private health insurances are paid for by the employers (at least most, if not all of the premiums), not the employees.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Charity care is given every day of the week.

Same as it is here.
But here it's where other things involved in the system aren't catered for - not the actual healthcare itself.
Anyone can go and see a doctor for free - even a visitor to the country or an illegal immigrant.
You couldn't do that under a private system unless you have a valid insurance policy.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 429
RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citiz... - 10/11/2013 11:32:21 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
quote:

ORIGINAL: NoBimbosAllowed
If someone had to resort to threats or insults against another poster's family,
If someone could read and understand english they would know who gratutitously injected their family into the discussion.
If someone could read and understand english they would know that no threat or insult was posted.

and those posts got pulled, it would be ample proof that the person's arguments held no water.
No, that would be ample proof that the mods felt it was inappropriate.
Like someone pulling a rusty switchblade during a regional political debate.
They'd lose immediately by dint of such an action.
That would be faulty analogy...
all of which is off topic


Just an FYI, my mentioning my son in no way allows the comment made. The fact that the insult was made is a demonstration of a person who merits none of my attention.

And, another FYI, I did not report anything. I simply used the "hide" feature. Someone else may have reported the post, or the mods saw it on their own.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 430
RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citiz... - 10/11/2013 11:39:27 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Costs rise under a single-payer system, too.

Not for the individual patient they don't.
It's still FREE at the point of delivery.
And for those paying into the system, it's still only about 8% - so not a real-term rise in costs.


Either there was "profit" in the system before prices rose, or other things are now not being funded as money is shifted towards rising NHS costs.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
So, the physicians and nurses don't see the rising overhead costs, either. Good for them.

That's the beauty and whole point of a single-payer system; those providing the service don't usually have to worry about the fiscal implications of providing that service or the cost of the drugs or other services they may need for their patient.


It is a good thing that providers can concentrate on the patient more, but, at some point, someone will have to face the fiscal implications.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Private systems are in it for the profit, but they are in it to provide for a need. That there is even the existence of a private market in the UK demonstrates that there are needs not being met by the NHS.

I disagree.
Those 'needs' are expediency, not necessity.
As I explained earlier, it'll get you a private room and maybe less waiting for non-essential surgery; but not much else. Even under private health care, they don't supply drugs from prescriptions for free under your policy - you still have to pay for them via the NHS and what you pay goes into that single-payer system.
People here using private medicine rarely use it for essential healthcare and for the most part, those private health insurances are paid for by the employers (at least most, if not all of the premiums), not the employees.


I mis-spoke. Please allow me to correct my comment thus: "That there is even the existence of a private market in the UK demonstrates that there are wants not being met by the NHS."

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Charity care is given every day of the week.

Same as it is here.
But here it's where other things involved in the system aren't catered for - not the actual healthcare itself.
Anyone can go and see a doctor for free - even a visitor to the country or an illegal immigrant.
You couldn't do that under a private system unless you have a valid insurance policy.


Charity care can be gained every day of the week if you're a visitor, legal or illegal.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to freedomdwarf1)
Profile   Post #: 431
RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citiz... - 10/11/2013 11:51:37 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
Nah, not possible. Anyone can say anything 'versed' in law, and I don't give a shit. Lets see the fucking opinion out of the supreme court on their little masturabatory cases.


I predict we will, and have said as much before.





I don't know what they would be or when they will occur. But it is much ado about nothing. No senator or congressman can file, and I don't know who has standing to file in states now, pretty much all that has been settled, and there aint much to pick at. Certainly nothing violating the constitution unless some very technical point can be raised on equal protections.


_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 432
RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citiz... - 10/11/2013 11:54:07 AM   
eulero83


Posts: 1470
Joined: 11/4/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

the whole talk you are making sounds like:
"Mercedes is way too expensive for all of us having one of their cars"... "So buy a toyota"... "No! I will never consider a car if it's not a merceds, it's mercedes that must lower it's prices"... "but mercedes has no intention to produce cheap cars"... "I'll walk till mercedes won't do it"

I have a merceds s class...it cost me $300...yes I drove it home and drive it regularly.
No it is not new.



in italy your car would be victim of racial profiling

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 433
RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citiz... - 10/11/2013 12:01:19 PM   
freedomdwarf1


Posts: 6845
Joined: 10/23/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Either there was "profit" in the system before prices rose, or other things are now not being funded as money is shifted towards rising NHS costs.

This is where you're missing the label.
The rises in costs are met by shifting taxes from one pot into the NHS where needed.
The burden to the tax payer doesn't rise.
ETA: Profit is not required in a single-payer system like there needs to be for a private one.
Ergo, whether there is profit or not is irrelevant in a single-payer system - it is all funded by taxes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
It is a good thing that providers can concentrate on the patient more, but, at some point, someone will have to face the fiscal implications.

That's why we have a health minister - that's their responsibility.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I mis-spoke. Please allow me to correct my comment thus: "That there is even the existence of a private market in the UK demonstrates that there are wants not being met by the NHS."

And I'll give you the same answer.
Those wants are to beat waiting lines for non-essential surgery or for the luxury of having a private room.
It is for expediency, not essential healthcare.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Charity care can be gained every day of the week if you're a visitor, legal or illegal.

Only here, in the single-payer system, it's not charity.
It's the same regular service that everyone gets regardless of wealth or position in society.
In a private system, you seek charity. Which from my understanding of things, is often inferior service to what you might have received under a fully-paid insurance scheme.

< Message edited by freedomdwarf1 -- 10/11/2013 12:06:36 PM >

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 434
RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citiz... - 10/11/2013 12:06:30 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
Wharf:

Here we go. What is the GDP of the UK (I assume NHS is UK wide and not just GB or England) if I am incorrect, I beg pardon.

How many blokes in the uk? do me a div.

DS:

What is the GDP of the US? How many blokes in the US? do me a div so we can get normalization of percapitas and percapita gdp percentages.

I am betting we will have to loan the UK a good 20% normalization to compare apples to apples.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to freedomdwarf1)
Profile   Post #: 435
RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citiz... - 10/11/2013 12:11:15 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
No, that people actually believe that lack of health care causes death is what is absurd.


""Lack of healthcare" is recognised as a cause of death by the US Institute of Medicine, as has been pointed out to you previously. "The New York Times calls the IOM the United States' "most esteemed and authoritative adviser on issues of health and medicine, and its reports can transform medical thinking around the world."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Medicine

Do you really think that you are correct and that the "most esteemed and authoritative" medical body in the US is wrong?"

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 436
RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citiz... - 10/11/2013 12:12:58 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
Ah, they got you huntie, dammit!!!!

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 437
RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citiz... - 10/11/2013 12:14:54 PM   
freedomdwarf1


Posts: 6845
Joined: 10/23/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Wharf:

Here we go. What is the GDP of the UK (I assume NHS is UK wide and not just GB or England) if I am incorrect, I beg pardon.

How many blokes in the uk? do me a div.

DS:

What is the GDP of the US? How many blokes in the US? do me a div so we can get normalization of percapitas and percapita gdp percentages.

I am betting we will have to loan the UK a good 20% normalization to compare apples to apples.

I'm not sure why you need these figures MN.

The costs per GDP are irrelevant when it comes to a single-payer system like our NHS.
It's all paid for by the general taxes even if we run into a recession.

I can't see that you can draw any sort of sensible equal comparison except for the cost of the healthcare at the point of delivery where it counts most to the people needing it.

Simple stuff like -
Cost of having a baby... UK: FREE. US:??
Cost of fixing a broken leg... UK: FREE. US:??
Cost of seeing your physician for a health check... UK:FREE. US: about $50 on average?

Average cost of healthcare... UK:8%. US:35%?? More?
For those on benefits or uninsured... UK: FREE. US: No healthcare available except at charity hospitals.
For children under 18... UK: FREE. US:???
For pensioners... UK: FREE. US:??


< Message edited by freedomdwarf1 -- 10/11/2013 12:20:26 PM >

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 438
RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citiz... - 10/11/2013 12:20:11 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

Just an FYI, my mentioning my son in no way allows the comment made. The fact that the insult was made is a demonstration of a person who merits none of my attention.

You brought your son to the conversation...wear your own hat.

And, another FYI, I did not report anything. I simply used the "hide" feature. Someone else may have reported the post, or the mods saw it on their own.

Wll of course you didn't

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 439
RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citiz... - 10/11/2013 12:21:21 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
quote:
No matter what the merits of an issue are, if it's not authorized by the US Constitution, there is no authority for the Federal Government to provide it.
What should be done about those unauthorized actions?
Nullification.
For which actions would you seek nullification?

The ones not authorized by the US Constitution.

Which ones are they?


I'm not getting into this with you, thompson. At what point is that going to become clear to you?



(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 440
Page:   <<   < prev  20 21 [22] 23 24   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care Page: <<   < prev  20 21 [22] 23 24   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094