forum Politics and Society ›› Tea Party movement ›› new reply Post Reply
G uNiT UgLy
g@unit.cum
3,234 Posts
32/M/PA


offline   (4)
September 25 2011 5:17 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
Kadesh
Kadesh
37,478 Posts
35/M/PA


offline     (26)
September 25 2011 7:28 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
what's wrong with forming an ideology where people take care of their fellow man in a community like they should and not forced by law? your mixing politics with our ability to live. no one should do that. that means you are helpless if they want policies changed. it's some guys safe and sound making decisions with lives. it's putting just one more thing in the power of the government. obviously nobody here has ever been to the dmv. check out some stories from canada.








In Canada, a move toward a private healthcare option
In British Columbia, private clinics and surgical centers are capitalizing on patients who might otherwise pay for faster treatment in the U.S. The courts will consider their legality next month.
September 27, 2009|Kim Murphy
VANCOUVER, CANADA — When the pain in Christina Woodkey's legs became so severe that she could no long hike or cross-country ski, she went to her local health clinic. The Calgary, Canada, resident was told she'd need to see a hip specialist. Because the problem was not life-threatening, however, she'd have to wait about a year.

So wait she did.

In January, the hip doctor told her that a narrowing of the spine was compressing her nerves and causing the pain. She needed a back specialist. The appointment was set for Sept. 30. "When I was given that date, I asked when could I expect to have surgery," said Woodkey, 72. "They said it would be a year and a half after I had seen this doctor."



Peripheral Neuropathy?
End Nerve Pain Today... Fast, Safe! DRX 9000: Takes The Pressure Off
www.ChicoBackAndNeckPain.com
Low Cost Kaiser Plans
Free instant quotes on Kaiser Permanente. Plans from $75 a month!
KaiserQuotes.com
So this month, she drove across the border into Montana and got the $50,000 surgery done in two days.

"I don't have insurance. We're not allowed to have private health insurance in Canada," Woodkey said. "It's not going to be easy to come up with the money. But I'm happy to say the pain is almost all gone."

Whereas U.S. healthcare is predominantly a private system paid for by private insurers, things in Canada tend toward the other end of the spectrum: A universal, government-funded health system is only beginning to flirt with private-sector medicine.

Hoping to capitalize on patients who might otherwise go to the U.S. for speedier care, a network of technically illegal private clinics and surgical centers has sprung up in British Columbia, echoing a trend in Quebec. In October, the courts will be asked to decide whether the budding system should be sanctioned.

More than 70 private health providers in British Columbia now schedule simple surgeries and tests such as MRIs with waits as short as a week or two, compared with the months it takes for a public surgical suite to become available for nonessential operations.

"What we have in Canada is access to a government, state-mandated wait list," said Brian Day, a former Canadian Medical Assn. director who runs a private surgical center in Vancouver. "You cannot force a citizen in a free and democratic society to simply wait for healthcare, and outlaw their ability to extricate themselves from a wait list."

Yet the move into privatized care threatens to make the delays -- already long from the perennial shortage of doctors and rationing of facilities -- even longer, public healthcare advocates say. There will be fewer skilled healthcare workers in government hospitals as doctors and nurses are lured into better-paying private jobs, they say.

"What it means is that people who have no money, who are chronically ill, disabled, who require medical attention frequently, are going to suffer dramatically," said Leslie Dickout of the B.C. Health Coalition, which is involved in the lawsuit to determine whether the Canadian Constitution guarantees citizens the right to choose their own care.

"There's so much money to be made by the insurance industry," she said. "If this [legal] case succeeds, what we would have is a system of U.S.-style healthcare -- along with a public system that is decimated."

Indeed, an investment group backed by Arizona businessman Melvin J. Howard this year filed a $160-million challenge under the North American Free Trade Agreement, demanding that U.S. healthcare companies gain access into Canada. The consortium hopes to build Canada's largest private health center in Vancouver, offering orthopedics, plastic surgery, general surgery and other services.


ADS BY GOOGLE
Precision-Fit Data Center
Servers w/ Intel Xeon Processors Energy Efficient & Cost Effective!
ZTSystems.com

In many ways, the prospect of private investment is alluring in British Columbia, where the provincial government, like those all across Canada, funds the healthcare system. Provincial officials recently announced a $360-million shortfall in the $15.7-billion healthcare budget for the fiscal year that ends in March.

The shortage will mean fewer surgeries and longer waits.

The Vancouver Island Health Authority has said it would reduce the number of nonemergency MRIs by 20%; nonemergency patients now are being booked for scans in March.

Vancouver Coastal Health, which serves a quarter of the province's population, said it would eliminate 450 elective surgeries, about 30% of the schedule, during the four weeks of the 2010 Winter Olympics.

And in the rapidly growing suburbs east of Vancouver, the Fraser Health Authority plans to close its spending gap by, among other things, holding the number of MRIs to last year's total, ending $550,000 in service programs for senior citizens and reducing elective surgeries by about 14%.

The authorities also are making administrative cost cuts and looking to pool resources for things like computers and laboratories.

"We need to be crystal-clear. . . . I'm not denying anybody access here to urgent or acute or immediate care," Nigel Murray, the Fraser authority's chief executive, said in an interview. "If our surgeons feel people need access to urgent care, they get it."
click here for link
G uNiT gUy
g@unit.com
41 Posts
29/M/NY


offline   (1)
September 25 2011 7:29 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
because in that society you encounter people like me that will shoot you for the thrill of it
Kadesh
Kadesh
37,478 Posts
35/M/PA


offline     (26)
September 25 2011 7:47 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
if you shoot for the thrill of it, thereby breaking the law, who is to say you're actually willing to pay this tax? the bad are bad no matter what, in any situation.
crunkmoose
Fuck Nazis.
24,526 Posts
61/M/MA


offline   (9)
September 25 2011 8:22 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
Originally posted by: Kadesh

what's wrong with forming an ideology where people take care of their fellow man in a community like they should and not forced by law? your mixing politics with our ability to live. no one should do that. that means you are helpless if they want policies changed. it's some guys safe and sound making decisions with lives. it's putting just one more thing in the power of the government. obviously nobody here has ever been to the dmv. check out some stories from canada.








In Canada, a move toward a private healthcare option
In British Columbia, private clinics and surgical centers are capitalizing on patients who might otherwise pay for faster treatment in the U.S. The courts will consider their legality next month.
September 27, 2009|Kim Murphy
VANCOUVER, CANADA — When the pain in Christina Woodkey's legs became so severe that she could no long hike or cross-country ski, she went to her local health clinic. The Calgary, Canada, resident was told she'd need to see a hip specialist. Because the problem was not life-threatening, however, she'd have to wait about a year.

So wait she did.

In January, the hip doctor told her that a narrowing of the spine was compressing her nerves and causing the pain. She needed a back specialist. The appointment was set for Sept. 30. "When I was given that date, I asked when could I expect to have surgery," said Woodkey, 72. "They said it would be a year and a half after I had seen this doctor."



Peripheral Neuropathy?
End Nerve Pain Today... Fast, Safe! DRX 9000: Takes The Pressure Off
www.ChicoBackAndNeckPain.com
Low Cost Kaiser Plans
Free instant quotes on Kaiser Permanente. Plans from $75 a month!
KaiserQuotes.com
So this month, she drove across the border into Montana and got the $50,000 surgery done in two days.

"I don't have insurance. We're not allowed to have private health insurance in Canada," Woodkey said. "It's not going to be easy to come up with the money. But I'm happy to say the pain is almost all gone."

Whereas U.S. healthcare is predominantly a private system paid for by private insurers, things in Canada tend toward the other end of the spectrum: A universal, government-funded health system is only beginning to flirt with private-sector medicine.

Hoping to capitalize on patients who might otherwise go to the U.S. for speedier care, a network of technically illegal private clinics and surgical centers has sprung up in British Columbia, echoing a trend in Quebec. In October, the courts will be asked to decide whether the budding system should be sanctioned.

More than 70 private health providers in British Columbia now schedule simple surgeries and tests such as MRIs with waits as short as a week or two, compared with the months it takes for a public surgical suite to become available for nonessential operations.

"What we have in Canada is access to a government, state-mandated wait list," said Brian Day, a former Canadian Medical Assn. director who runs a private surgical center in Vancouver. "You cannot force a citizen in a free and democratic society to simply wait for healthcare, and outlaw their ability to extricate themselves from a wait list."

Yet the move into privatized care threatens to make the delays -- already long from the perennial shortage of doctors and rationing of facilities -- even longer, public healthcare advocates say. There will be fewer skilled healthcare workers in government hospitals as doctors and nurses are lured into better-paying private jobs, they say.

"What it means is that people who have no money, who are chronically ill, disabled, who require medical attention frequently, are going to suffer dramatically," said Leslie Dickout of the B.C. Health Coalition, which is involved in the lawsuit to determine whether the Canadian Constitution guarantees citizens the right to choose their own care.

"There's so much money to be made by the insurance industry," she said. "If this [legal] case succeeds, what we would have is a system of U.S.-style healthcare -- along with a public system that is decimated."

Indeed, an investment group backed by Arizona businessman Melvin J. Howard this year filed a $160-million challenge under the North American Free Trade Agreement, demanding that U.S. healthcare companies gain access into Canada. The consortium hopes to build Canada's largest private health center in Vancouver, offering orthopedics, plastic surgery, general surgery and other services.


ADS BY GOOGLE
Precision-Fit Data Center
Servers w/ Intel Xeon Processors Energy Efficient & Cost Effective!
ZTSystems.com

In many ways, the prospect of private investment is alluring in British Columbia, where the provincial government, like those all across Canada, funds the healthcare system. Provincial officials recently announced a $360-million shortfall in the $15.7-billion healthcare budget for the fiscal year that ends in March.

The shortage will mean fewer surgeries and longer waits.

The Vancouver Island Health Authority has said it would reduce the number of nonemergency MRIs by 20%; nonemergency patients now are being booked for scans in March.

Vancouver Coastal Health, which serves a quarter of the province's population, said it would eliminate 450 elective surgeries, about 30% of the schedule, during the four weeks of the 2010 Winter Olympics.

And in the rapidly growing suburbs east of Vancouver, the Fraser Health Authority plans to close its spending gap by, among other things, holding the number of MRIs to last year's total, ending $550,000 in service programs for senior citizens and reducing elective surgeries by about 14%.

The authorities also are making administrative cost cuts and looking to pool resources for things like computers and laboratories.

"We need to be crystal-clear. . . . I'm not denying anybody access here to urgent or acute or immediate care," Nigel Murray, the Fraser authority's chief executive, said in an interview. "If our surgeons feel people need access to urgent care, they get it."
click here for link



And yet there are horror stories in our system as well... and tales of people having to wait long periods of time for surgery.
LEATHERFACE
Hail Caesar
3,756 Posts
35/M/NC


offline  mobile reply   (7)
September 25 2011 8:29 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
I don't think I would be mistaken in paraphrasing matt as just having said: "cut out pork barrel spending".

Please correct me if I'm wrong.
crunkmoose
Fuck Nazis.
24,526 Posts
61/M/MA


offline   (9)
September 25 2011 8:52 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
So, Matt... if we don't go for universal coverage, how do you propose we get health care to be affordable? Or do we just say something that vital to survival in many cases should just stay beyond the reach of poor people and should still be extremely expensive with ass-backwards concepts like having to deal and often fight with your insurance company WHILE you are sick, possibly gravely ill even for the non-poor who aren't actually wealthy?
Bashar al-Asad
In sha'Allah
38,210 Posts
46/M/PA


offline   (11)
September 25 2011 8:54 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
if you are poor and cant afford heathcare you are obviously gay, or have aids or something

what could you possibly contribute. people with jobs who help run our economy get healthcare, because they keep the nation running. some gay junkie that never did anything with their life should be left to rot from their own devices
crunkmoose
Fuck Nazis.
24,526 Posts
61/M/MA


offline   (9)
September 25 2011 11:32 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
Originally posted by: LEATHERFACE

I don't think I would be mistaken in paraphrasing matt as just having said: "cut out pork barrel spending".

Please correct me if I'm wrong.



And on the basic premise... cuts in needless spending... I will agree. Thing is, providing universal healthcare would not simply be spending, but would be an investment in our nation and would actually be cheaper on the whole than what we have now... and would provide wider coverage as well. Cut some spending, sure... we can start with the bloated defense budget including our nuclear stockpiles. Should we keep a few bombs around? Yes. The question we have, though, is who is actually a realistic threat to our military? The answer is... fucking NO ONE. Sure, a land war in unfamiliar terrain against a guerrilla force can possibly beat us as they did in Vietnam... but that was over 30 years ago, and despite huge spending and growth of our military... same deal today.
Mike M.
shred the gnar
455 Posts
33/M/MD


offline   (1)
September 26 2011 8:47 AM   QuickQuote Quote  
nailed it^

also, genuinely curious what the anti-healthcare people think about seatbelt laws, mandatory school attendance for children, vaccinations for school attendance, water treatment plants etc. All of which are just a few of many government mandated elements that either "better life" or "improve heath and well being". none of which receive the type of negative, fear mongering bullshit that healthcare receives.

all politics aside, it is fucking MENTAL to me that such an overwhelming amount of people in this country think that having universal health care in this country is a bad thing.
LEATHERFACE
Hail Caesar
3,756 Posts
35/M/NC


offline  mobile reply   (7)
September 26 2011 6:01 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
Originally posted by: crunkmoose

Originally posted by: LEATHERFACE

I don't think I would be mistaken in paraphrasing matt as just having said: "cut out pork barrel spending".

Please correct me if I'm wrong.




And on the basic premise... cuts in needless spending... I will agree. Thing is, providing universal healthcare would not simply be spending, but would be an investment in our nation and would actually be cheaper on the whole than what we have now... and would provide wider coverage as well. Cut some spending, sure... we can start with the bloated defense budget including our nuclear stockpiles. Should we keep a few bombs around? Yes. The question we have, though, is who is actually a realistic threat to our military? The answer is... fucking NO ONE. Sure, a land war in unfamiliar terrain against a guerrilla force can possibly beat us as they did in Vietnam... but that was over 30 years ago, and despite huge spending and growth of our military... same deal today.



The defense budget isn't the problem. The two wars combined have cost about 1.7 trillion over ten years. In that same amount of time, the Department of Homeland Security, by itself, had cost 8 trillion. The standards of living for DHS employees are above the national average as well. I trust these people with healthcare... So long as they don't have anything to do with it.
crunkmoose
Fuck Nazis.
24,526 Posts
61/M/MA


offline   (9)
September 26 2011 6:08 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
Originally posted by: LEATHERFACE

Originally posted by: crunkmoose

Originally posted by: LEATHERFACE

I don't think I would be mistaken in paraphrasing matt as just having said: "cut out pork barrel spending".

Please correct me if I'm wrong.




And on the basic premise... cuts in needless spending... I will agree. Thing is, providing universal healthcare would not simply be spending, but would be an investment in our nation and would actually be cheaper on the whole than what we have now... and would provide wider coverage as well. Cut some spending, sure... we can start with the bloated defense budget including our nuclear stockpiles. Should we keep a few bombs around? Yes. The question we have, though, is who is actually a realistic threat to our military? The answer is... fucking NO ONE. Sure, a land war in unfamiliar terrain against a guerrilla force can possibly beat us as they did in Vietnam... but that was over 30 years ago, and despite huge spending and growth of our military... same deal today.



The defense budget isn't the problem. The two wars combined have cost about 1.7 trillion over ten years. In that same amount of time, the Department of Homeland Security, by itself, had cost 8 trillion. The standards of living for DHS employees are above the national average as well. I trust these people with healthcare... So long as they don't have anything to do with it.



No, the defense budget AND the DHS are part of the problem. 1.7 trillion dollars would easily do so much for this nation.. far better than blowing up two nations and then rebuilding them.
LEATHERFACE
Hail Caesar
3,756 Posts
35/M/NC


offline  mobile reply   (7)
September 26 2011 6:21 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
Fair enough, but the fact that people always spring on the wars and neglect the DHS (always) points to a horribly ill-informed public.
Lament Configuration
your mistake
647 Posts
39/M/NA


offline   (1)
September 26 2011 6:31 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
Originally posted by: crunkmoose

Originally posted by: LEATHERFACE

Originally posted by: crunkmoose

Originally posted by: LEATHERFACE

I don't think I would be mistaken in paraphrasing matt as just having said: "cut out pork barrel spending".

Please correct me if I'm wrong.




And on the basic premise... cuts in needless spending... I will agree. Thing is, providing universal healthcare would not simply be spending, but would be an investment in our nation and would actually be cheaper on the whole than what we have now... and would provide wider coverage as well. Cut some spending, sure... we can start with the bloated defense budget including our nuclear stockpiles. Should we keep a few bombs around? Yes. The question we have, though, is who is actually a realistic threat to our military? The answer is... fucking NO ONE. Sure, a land war in unfamiliar terrain against a guerrilla force can possibly beat us as they did in Vietnam... but that was over 30 years ago, and despite huge spending and growth of our military... same deal today.



The defense budget isn't the problem. The two wars combined have cost about 1.7 trillion over ten years. In that same amount of time, the Department of Homeland Security, by itself, had cost 8 trillion. The standards of living for DHS employees are above the national average as well. I trust these people with healthcare... So long as they don't have anything to do with it.



No, the defense budget AND the DHS are part of the problem. 1.7 trillion dollars would easily do so much for this nation.. far better than blowing up two nations and then rebuilding them.
.



also, wrong number. the iraq war alone will cost $4 trillion and that's according to the congressional budget office, not some illiterate redneck website trying to whitewash the bush presidency/fiasco. afghanistan is $1.5 trillion and counting. then there's the cost of our military footprint around the world in various countries including allies, military research, much of which is blacked out so we'll never know exactly how much is spent there. and then there's all those $900 dollar hammers and $12 dollar nails we pay out to defense contractors like halliburton to keep the wheels of graft greased.
crunkmoose
Fuck Nazis.
24,526 Posts
61/M/MA


offline   (9)
September 26 2011 8:47 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
Originally posted by: Lament Configuration

Originally posted by: crunkmoose

Originally posted by: LEATHERFACE

Originally posted by: crunkmoose

Originally posted by: LEATHERFACE

I don't think I would be mistaken in paraphrasing matt as just having said: "cut out pork barrel spending".

Please correct me if I'm wrong.




And on the basic premise... cuts in needless spending... I will agree. Thing is, providing universal healthcare would not simply be spending, but would be an investment in our nation and would actually be cheaper on the whole than what we have now... and would provide wider coverage as well. Cut some spending, sure... we can start with the bloated defense budget including our nuclear stockpiles. Should we keep a few bombs around? Yes. The question we have, though, is who is actually a realistic threat to our military? The answer is... fucking NO ONE. Sure, a land war in unfamiliar terrain against a guerrilla force can possibly beat us as they did in Vietnam... but that was over 30 years ago, and despite huge spending and growth of our military... same deal today.



The defense budget isn't the problem. The two wars combined have cost about 1.7 trillion over ten years. In that same amount of time, the Department of Homeland Security, by itself, had cost 8 trillion. The standards of living for DHS employees are above the national average as well. I trust these people with healthcare... So long as they don't have anything to do with it.



No, the defense budget AND the DHS are part of the problem. 1.7 trillion dollars would easily do so much for this nation.. far better than blowing up two nations and then rebuilding them.




also, wrong number. the iraq war alone will cost $4 trillion and that's according to the congressional budget office, not some illiterate redneck website trying to whitewash the bush presidency/fiasco. afghanistan is $1.5 trillion and counting. then there's the cost of our military footprint around the world in various countries including allies, military research, much of which is blacked out so we'll never know exactly how much is spent there. and then there's all those $900 dollar hammers and $12 dollar nails we pay out to defense contractors like halliburton to keep the wheels of graft greased.



Another point, of course.. we really don't need so damned many bases around the world. Sure, some... but we don't need bases absolutely fucking everywhere. For example.. get the fuck out of Okinawa already! What are we actually doing there besides giving our soldiers the opportunity to rape japanese pre-teens (at least two cases of soldiers raping 12 year old girls)
forum Politics and Society ›› Tea Party movement ›› new reply Post Reply

Quick Reply - RE: Tea Party movement

Connect with Facebook to comment: Login w/FB

or Sign up free! - or login:







Subject


wrap selection with italics
wrap selection with bold
insert less than symbol
insert greater than symbol


google image Insert Google Images
Share a Band



Your ad here?