RE: Government Controlled Heath Care

RE: Government Controlled Heath Care (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Sinergy -> RE: Government Controlled Heath Care (6/6/2007 2:06:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Keeping my eye on Sinergy, as I do, Its the kilt, but you are not the gender I am interested in seeks. Thank you for the compliment. quote: I too was a little suspicious of his m/cycle story on the grounds that in the UK a person when booking a test ride signs a waiver (a) to cover the costs of any damage to the bike and (b) to absolve the dealer of any responsibilites during the test ride. I read this case in 1986. quote: Only my experienced right hand got me out of trouble ! There are any number of ways this can be taken. Especially worrisome to me is that it came on the heels of you leering at me in my kilt. Sinergy

LadyEllen -> RE: Government Controlled Heath Care (6/6/2007 2:30:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave I told you you had knocked me for six lol Seeks: Translation please. thompson Philosophy has given the translation already. The translation however is only half the story. It is in the interpretation that the detail lies. Seeks' comment relates to an exchange of mails on the other side of the site earlier today, whereby I (yet again) managed to astound my good friend Seeks with my intimidating nature, which may be described as "knocking him for six". Neither I nor Seeks were wearing a kilt at the time, and no Gaelic folk costume was harmed in the exchange. E

seeksfemslave -> RE: Government Controlled Heath Care (6/6/2007 2:46:11 PM)
LadyE did not intimidate me she rattled my emotions in a way that surprised me, a very pleasant way I might add. A wimp like me was not up to the challenge . Hence I was knocked for six, hit in the heart with a cricket bat lol

seeksfemslave -> RE: Government Controlled Heath Care (6/6/2007 3:41:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: seeks Keeping my eye on Sinergy, as I do, Its the kilt, but you are not the gender I am interested in seeks. Thank you for the compliment. A precautionary observation MrS. My hormones are under control. quote: ORIGINAL Sinergy quote: seeks Only my experienced right hand got me out of trouble There are any number of ways this can be taken. Especially worrisome to me is that it came on the heels of you leering at me in my kilt.Sinergy In the this case hard acceleration meant I didnt drop the machine, a valuable BMW , in other cases my hard has succumbed to the right acceleration.. I hope you have got the legs to wear a kilt MrS What does MsJO think ?

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Government Controlled Heath Care (6/6/2007 6:52:28 PM)
Here in the states they are pretty meaningless when the municipality is beyond a certain size. Even if a city is dissolved there is always a county, state or fed that will gladly take over. So how meaningful is municipal deficits? What happens when a municipality goes bankrupts or dissolves? Who ultimately pays for it? As long as there are workers and consumers to tax, there will always be money, even if it is not worth much. Orion quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf Governments have an infinite amount of money ...patently untrue. Otherwise budget deficits would be meaningless.

bbw2switch -> RE: Government Controlled Heath Care (6/6/2007 10:20:32 PM)
*aaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh!!!!! ~ runs around the forum with my hands over my eyes~~* my god!!!!! ((sorry didn't mean to scream ....just all the gab about the American version of "universal health care" scared the crap out of me.... ~ whew ~~~ )) ok i feel better now. ok .... look people, here's the skinny. addictions suck. getting over them isn't a snap of the finger. one needs surgery, medical care or just a doctor's appointment let the dude/dudette in there to chat. who knows? maybe that will make them feel better about pursuing a healthier lifestyle than being told what they can't have. trust me, i know this. living in such a liberal city as Toronto, we have an addictions and mental health hospital. o, the things they "allow" there. most repub's would faint dead away if they only knew! for example, they have a safe injection site for heroin addicts. does it work? yup. all the time? nope. but at least the people involved in the program where using the drug safely, not infecting others with hep a b or c, the are under the watch of people who cared, and had a chance to get off the sh*t slowly. exercise in order to have surgery? i have a disconnect. is it because its the ONLY way the surgery is to happen as that's what will make it successful? OR is it the insurance company just being jerks and watching a bottom line? i like my universal health care. it covers me, and it doesn't ask questions. i may have to wait a bit of time before i get what i need. pardon my reaction if it seems out of line. i don't mean to, good people.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Government Controlled Heath Care (6/10/2007 6:12:37 PM)
So why do some of the wealthier Canadians fly south and pay cash for some of their health care needs? Orion

philosophy -> RE: Government Controlled Heath Care (6/11/2007 9:05:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf So why do some of the wealthier Canadians fly south and pay cash for some of their health care needs? Orion ...because they're snobs and don't want to share a waiting room with members of the great unwashed public? .....oh, and btw, if you judge any health care system on how the rich get treatment then you may have missed the point of universal health care.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Government Controlled Heath Care (6/11/2007 7:19:02 PM)
The point is so that everyone can get equally mediocre health care? Maybe if someone works hard enough so they can afford to pay for their own health care, they should still have that option? I have some Canadian friends and they paint a much different picture than you do of your health care system. One had two ruptured disc in their back and had to wait 7 months for an MRI, and over a year for the surgery. So the pain and suffering of the "less fortunate" (luck does not determine most of the middle class wealth) should be spread over those that have worked harder to achieve more? Orion quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf So why do some of the wealthier Canadians fly south and pay cash for some of their health care needs? Orion ...because they're snobs and don't want to share a waiting room with members of the great unwashed public? .....oh, and btw, if you judge any health care system on how the rich get treatment then you may have missed the point of universal health care.

philosophy -> RE: Government Controlled Heath Care (6/12/2007 10:31:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf The point is so that everyone can get equally mediocre health care? Maybe if someone works hard enough so they can afford to pay for their own health care, they should still have that option? I have some Canadian friends and they paint a much different picture than you do of your health care system. One had two ruptured disc in their back and had to wait 7 months for an MRI, and over a year for the surgery. So the pain and suffering of the "less fortunate" (luck does not determine most of the middle class wealth) should be spread over those that have worked harder to achieve more? Orion ......oh come on....do you really think that i have a desire to see equally mediocre health care for all? That, somehow, i detest the idea of some people paying for their own health care if they can afford it? If you really think that, then you utterly misunderstand my position. If one is poor, it is surely better to have to wait a bit for hospital care than to have no hope and no access at all. If one is rich, then one can opt out, i don't really care. What i do care about is that no-one ought to be disqualified from health care by reason of lack of personal wealth. As a relatively new visitor in Canada, i base my comments about universal health care on the UK, rather than the Canadian one.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Government Controlled Heath Care (6/12/2007 9:27:26 PM)
The problem would not be with health care, but the poverty level. If it is all government run, then the advantage of choice for those that wish to pay is excluded. If everyone must wait, regardless of their income level then everyone is getting mediocre health care. Here in the US, if they just turned the money over to an HMO, it would be less expensive and the savings could be used to spread the health care to those that cannot afford it. Remove the frivilous lawsuits, with a law that states the loser of a civil action must pay court and attorneys costs, and you will see the frivilous lawsuits that drop. Insurance companies would not have to pay as much for malpractice or liability claims, to settle out of court because it costs less. Reduce the costs of medical care and the prices will drop, then the amount for insurance will drop. Allow Physicans assistance and Nurse practioners to do much of the rudimentary exams, at a very cheap price and you have less visits of the uninsured to the emergency rooms. There are many options to government run health care. Here in the US the government has one successful program they have accomplished in the last century. Why give them another program they can use to waste money and cause problems to the citizens. Government controlled healthcare is not the answer, it is a dependency upon government. Orion

bbw2switch -> RE: Government Controlled Heath Care (6/12/2007 9:58:35 PM)
i believe the point i was trying to make is simply that we do have health care. it doesn't ask questions. it is just there. there are flaws in this system. people do wait a terribly long time for any number of health concerns. Orion, your explanation of how to make the universal health care system more effective seems to be quite the task! do you really think all of this could happen? what would happen in the short term while this is being established? You mentioned "frivolous lawsuits." i thought that was an American "right" to sue whomever they chose for whatever reason. how would that come into play as a variable. how would you convince the average American not to sue? i think no matter how you look it, there isn't one answer to this question. if we could take the good of each health care system, it would serve the people much more effectively.

SilverK -> RE: Government Controlled Heath Care (6/12/2007 10:16:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf The point is so that everyone can get equally mediocre health care? Maybe if someone works hard enough so they can afford to pay for their own health care, they should still have that option? I have some Canadian friends and they paint a much different picture than you do of your health care system. One had two ruptured disc in their back and had to wait 7 months for an MRI, and over a year for the surgery. So the pain and suffering of the "less fortunate" (luck does not determine most of the middle class wealth) should be spread over those that have worked harder to achieve more? Orion quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf So why do some of the wealthier Canadians fly south and pay cash for some of their health care needs? Orion That's interesting. The longest I had to wait for an MRI when I was getting one for migraine issues was around 3-4 weeks. When they were concerned I might be having 'mini strokes' (turned out to be a false alarm but better safe then sorry) they had me in a CT scanner in a little over an hour. Of course, each province does do things slightly differently. I guess those who live in Manitoba shouldn't biatch - as, having lived half my life in the US and half in Canada, I'd much rather the Canadian system. Because, let's face it, in the US some insurance company might just have decided he's not eligible for an MRI because it would hurt their quarter end profits too much. There really are two sides to the coin. The Canadian system is NOT perfect - but in these days of HMOs etc. it seems to far exceed the US one in performance. My American friends tell me all manner of horror stories too.

meatcleaver -> RE: Government Controlled Heath Care (6/13/2007 1:25:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf So why do some of the wealthier Canadians fly south and pay cash for some of their health care needs? Orion If people have the money to jump a queue they will. It is not unusual in Britain for wealthier people to go private for many complaints. Why put up with a little discomfort if you don't have to? However, if they are seriously ill they rely on the National Health Service because that is where the expertise, experience and expensive equipement is and they won't be bankrupted by expenseive medical bills. I have little time for such people because they undermine the very service they rely on in their greatest need and undermine it for everyone and its just out of selfishness.

philosophy -> RE: Government Controlled Heath Care (6/13/2007 8:15:27 AM)
<fast reply> ...there seems to be a little confusion over the possibilities of going private in a state where a universal health care system is in place. It is not an either/or sort of situation. One can avail oneself of the universal system or can go private if the money is there. There is no conflict.........it is an example of a mixed economy. Some things benefit from competion, some systems don't. A society can have both, so long as ideological concerns don't prevent it.

dawntreader -> RE: Government Controlled Heath Care (6/13/2007 8:58:48 AM)
Greetings Mercnbeth, i have read the entire thread, seen it derail, and come back again! i have been in the medical field for over 20 years both in the hands on arena (primary) and the insurance aspect (hell). i have seen quite a bit and actually just left it 2 years ago because i became jaded...with healthcare, physicians, and most importantly patients. It is difficult treating those who refuse to take responsibility for their own health, who then rely on the system to try and put them back together or "save" them from a lifetime of detrimental habits. But i realised i cannot judge them nor alter my care of them based on my perceptions of them. When i realised that, i left because in good concious, i could no longer treat those who cared less for their quality of life and health than i, a stranger to them, did. Physicians take the Hippocratic Oath. It is not their place to judge but to treat, impart knowledge and hopefully save lives. i see this linked in a way to "service" even in this lifestyle of WIIWD. we agree to serve, when we make this commitment, it is our responsibility to do so to the best of our abilities without judgement - it is an "oath" we honor in the life of a submissive or a medical practitioner. When we cannot honor the oath, we take the path of "release".

Mercnbeth -> RE: Government Controlled Heath Care (6/13/2007 11:22:50 AM)
dawn, I appreciate your comments and agree with them. The original purpose of this thread was not to point out those issues you raise. They are correct. People want a 'magic pill' to cure them and correct the abuse they've heaped upon themselves. It happens all the time. I believe after John Phillips, of 'Mommas & Poppas' fame, received his liver transplant his response to criticism to drinking again was that he didn't want his new liver to outlive him. The concept being sold to US citizens in support of "universal health coverage" is its universality. Review the complaints about the current health care system. People complain about the difficulty of not being eligible because they have a pre-existing condition. Some are being denied coverage because of family history. There is no attempt on my part to say that the current system works. However, this situation indicates that "universal" coverage has conditions. They go for an easy target first - the smokers. History tells you it won't stop there. Next logical target the obese. A knee joint requiring replacement due to wear and tear from 50 extra pounds, may be required to loss weight before treatment. Why not? There are many diseases requiring treatments that have personal choice as a contributory cause. Who know, maybe in the future a condition of treating skin cancer will be that the patient doesn't go out in the sun? Assuming "universal health care" solves the problem of health care in the US is a false assumption. Should this trend represent the future, it will be universal health care as long as you fit the State's definition of a healthy lifestyle. If you are ready for one - be prepared for the other.

philosophy -> RE: Government Controlled Heath Care (6/13/2007 11:35:03 AM)
"Should this trend represent the future, it will be universal health care as long as you fit the State's definition of a healthy lifestyle." ...once again Merc, the decision you pointed to in the OP was not a state decision, but a medical one. Extrapolating the idea to a state-sponsered idea is scaremongering. Politicians may have backed up the concept, but shouldn't politicians listen to medical advice?

Mercnbeth -> RE: Government Controlled Heath Care (6/13/2007 12:08:28 PM)
quote: Extrapolating the idea to a state-sponsered idea is scaremongering. Politicians may have backed up the concept, but shouldn't politicians listen to medical advice? Philo, You argument is similar to separating "Church and State" in Iran. They may want to point the finger at the other, but at the end of the day policy is established and so is precedent. They are dictating policy with no other option after the fact of announcing "universal". I think people should be "scared". Just because this decision isn't pointed at them why assume immunity for similar future decisions? The response; "If they don't like this they can purchase additional coverage at additional expense."; would seem in opposition of the concept being sold - universal health care for everyone. In this case, in this instance, it is health care for this problem only if you are a non-smoker. That is the pragmatic reality of this action. I extrapolate from that action based upon history.

philosophy -> RE: Government Controlled Heath Care (6/13/2007 1:43:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth ..........They are dictating policy with no other option after the fact of announcing "universal". .......nope they're not. In the UK, which is the country we are speaking of with this news story, there is no question of not being allowed to pay for any procedures. quote: I think people should be "scared". Just because this decision isn't pointed at them why assume immunity for similar future decisions? The response; "If they don't like this they can purchase additional coverage at additional expense."; would seem in opposition of the concept being sold - universal health care for everyone. In this case, in this instance, it is health care for this problem only if you are a non-smoker. That is the pragmatic reality of this action. I extrapolate from that action based upon history. ...i have italicised that sentence because it is another inaccuracy. Health care is not being denied. A specific procedure is, because that procedure is materially affected by continuing to smoke. You state that people ought to be scared. That may be true of models of health care proposed in the US. However it is a distortion of what has happened in the UK. To be honest, you seem to be scaremongering, based on a misunderstanding of what is really being proposed.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125