Shopsmith Forums

davebodner wrote:Don't bet on the, Skou. It happens all the time. Remember that brave girl in Pakistan who spoke out against the Taliban until they nearly killed her? She was flown for care to London to save her life, not here. Medical "tourism" happens in all directions.

Besides, having the best of the best in any particular field is not a good overall measure of a health-care system. Averages are a much better measure.

Unless YOU need that speciality.

Dave, that is a skewed example. That case was VERY MUCH in the news. Did you actually think the doctors in London were going to enroll her in the socialized health care system, and make her wait the 4 or 5 MONTHS to get help?

I used to live in Marina Del Rey, and currently live in Phoenix. Both have a LARGE amount of winter visitors, on account of the weather, and the AVAILABLE GOOD health care, but it is at a price. A LOT of visitors at both places, are from Canada, just because they could pay their way into a private doctor, and get the procedures they needed, NOW.

Think about it. They have PAID health care in Canada, and came to the USA to PAY AGAIN, for health care they are ALREADY PAYING FOR, with their Canadian taxes.

Care to guess why?

steve

Quality health care is now available to everyone. Depending on where you are when you need that care, it may be almost immediate, to a couple hours away.
That may or may not change under a universal system. If it did change, I suspicion it would be for the worse. Some hospitals would necessarily close, Many doctors would quit practicing or be located in a clinic serving a large area and population. PAs would proliferate, several working under one physician, often supervising from a remote location. The only purchaser of many health related devices would be the government. The hospitals would all be using equipment from the lowest bidder.
On occasion I find it convenient to use my VA Health benefits. It's adequate (barely) for my limited needs. But, if I ever have any major health problems, I'll hightail it to the Mayo Clinic. An option that might not be "available" under a single payer scheme.
We pay gasoline taxes and license fees to maintain the interstates and state roads. The theory is that users pay. That's fair. Even better would be a system of toll roads.
It's also fair that those of us who choose to, buy insurance as we feel we need it. It's not fair to force it on everyone and, at a higher price AND pay taxes to subsidize it for those who can't afford the higher price.

skou wrote:Dave, the reason most people are being told that they can't keep their existing policies, and have to PAY MORE for a different policy, is because their old policy doesn't have the REQUIRED benefits.

Like having pap smears for men, or prostate exams for women.

Yes, I won't EVER need a pap smear, but I HAVE to pay for that coverage, according to Obamacare.

Words too big? Print too small?

steve

The features that DO cost more are things like coverage not being denied for pre-existing conditions, or no more lifetime benefits ceilings. These things, not pap smears for men, are what's costing more money. But, I'm done with that point.

skou wrote:Unless YOU need that speciality.

Dave, that is a skewed example. That case was VERY MUCH in the news. Did you actually think the doctors in London were going to enroll her in the socialized health care system, and make her wait the 4 or 5 MONTHS to get help?

I used to live in Marina Del Rey, and currently live in Phoenix. Both have a LARGE amount of winter visitors, on account of the weather, and the AVAILABLE GOOD health care, but it is at a price. A LOT of visitors at both places, are from Canada, just because they could pay their way into a private doctor, and get the procedures they needed, NOW.

Think about it. They have PAID health care in Canada, and came to the USA to PAY AGAIN, for health care they are ALREADY PAYING FOR, with their Canadian taxes.

Care to guess why?

steve

I don't know who you're talking to in Phoenix. I don't know if they're making special medical trips there, or if they need services while escaping the Canadian winter. Funny, every time I hear complaints about the Canadian health system, it's from an American. I've never heard a Canadian complain. And I've heard some nice stories from Americans who've received excellent healthcare from overseas. Considering how little Canada, as a nation, pays for healthcare, it ought to be a lot worse than ours. I don't think it is.

I'm guessing there a certain non-essential services that the snowbirds can get quicker here than at home. But, there are a lot of folks here who can't get nonessential services, here.

Oh, and BTW, the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Birmingham (where Malala was sent) is part of the National Health Service in UK. Thanks for making me look it up. Off topic: if you didn't see her speech to the UN, Youtube it. She kicks ass.

You know, I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

Maybe, someone else can.

steve

fredsheldon wrote:Heath, so maybe I used the wrong word. Maybe I should have said we should have the 'expectation' of having available health care just like you might have an expectation of the State repairing that washout on the road to your house or the Fire Department coming to put out a fire at your house. These are not rights, but services provided to you even if you don't want them. You pay taxes so that these services are available to you and everybody else in your State even if you don't need them. Can't the same logic be applied to Universal Health Care for everybody? Wouldn't that be the right thing to do?
Fred

I have no problem with that approach to the debate, Fred!

heathicus wrote:I have no problem with that approach to the debate, Fred!

Me neither! Just keep the insurance folks out of the loop!;)

fredsheldon wrote:Heath, so maybe I used the wrong word. Maybe I should have said we should have the 'expectation' of having available health care just like you might have an expectation of the State repairing that washout on the road to your house or the Fire Department coming to put out a fire at your house. These are not rights, but services provided to you even if you don't want them. You pay taxes so that these services are available to you and everybody else in your State even if you don't need them. Can't the same logic be applied to Universal Health Care for everybody? Wouldn't that be the right thing to do?
Fred

I don't think a better argument can be made. For good or bad, we don't get to pick which public services (most of which I'll never use) to opt out of. If we follow the logic of not being forced to buy a service and should be able to opt out, we would have citizens opting out of healthcare, then police, then fire, then schools, etc until they have opted out of all government entirely.

I don't think anyone wants government run healthcare for all, like the VA has. In this system the government owns all the hospitals, ambulances, etc. and all healthcare workers are government employees.

The better system is what Canada and Europe do...everything is still private and the insurance company is paid through taxes at a non-profit rate. The administrative costs in Canada are less than 1% vs. over 30% of the total here. The high administrative costs are a big reason Obamacare attempted to limit plan variations (pap smears for guys). If I cover pap smears for every policy, I save the administrative costs to determine if the service was covered or not. Everywhere else if a medical procedure was done, the government pays. They go after fraud afterwards if needed, but the patient doesn't suffer in the meantime.


My last 2¢: We all hate when folks bash Shopsmith when they have never used or owned one. That's kinda like Americans bashing systems with universal health insurance. Ill believe it's a better system because costs are lower, and care is higher (proven with actual metrics about infection rates, survival rates, infant mortality, etc). Anytime I get patients from other countries, most are simply shocked at how inefficient and wasteful our system is.
The patient is put first everywhere else. Here the patient is put first...right after the insurance company...

joshh wrote:I don't think a better argument can be made. For good or bad, we don't get to pick which public services (most of which I'll never use) to opt out of. If we follow the logic of not being forced to buy a service and should be able to opt out, we would have citizens opting out of healthcare, then police, then fire, then schools, etc until they have opted out of all government entirely.

I wish I had the liberty to opt out. I might not actually opt out of some things, but I wish I had the choice. To me, liberty is more important than healthcare, police and fire departments, public schools, or just about anything else. The amount of liberty we have is inversely proportional to the amount of government we have. And we have a LOT of government.

heathicus wrote:The amount of liberty we have is inversely proportional to the amount of government we have. And we have a LOT of government.

I think we can all agree with that. Good morning by the way