• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: Politics & News... Have at it.

TheCountofMonteCristo said:
be honest Krust, do you believe that the US system prior to Obamacare was better than the rest of the western world's one payer system?
Click to expand...
Depending on where u live in the U.S. - Bay Area, metro Pacific Northwest, and large northeastern metro locales have way way way superior systems, it's not even close. No country in the world has come close to creating Noble laureates in science & medicine, and that ability to lure top UFAs from around the world, and provide them with the plethora of resources to focus on leading edge research does pay dividends - specifically in terms of innovation.

Example: basic testing during pregnancy, no longer need to inject into the mothers womb to draw amniotic fluid, thanks to a bio tech firm in San Diego, can simply take a regular blood test to detect any chromosomal flaws in the fetus - no potential harm to mother or baby, with a 99.99997% accuracy rating.

Where was this innovation created? The U.S. Cost in Connecticut, with insurance...$200.
 
The US has superior health care to Canada...provided, of course, that you make enough money to avail yourself of all that superiority. So if, like Krusty, you're a high fallutin' lawyer with a six-figure income and a gold-plated health plan, you'd be crazy to want to seek out health care north of the border. Unfortunately, if you're just Joe Sixpack like the vast majority of people are on both sides of the 49th parallel, the for-profit healthcare system used in the US is going to ruin you one way or the other. You'll either be denied all those fancy medical procedures outright because you don't have insurance or the insurance you have doesn't cover anything more expensive than aspirin and band-aids, or you'll be bankrupted.

My ex was diagnosed with breast cancer a few years back. She got the diagnosis in late October and was on the operating table 4 weeks later for a double mastectomy. After a couple of weeks to recover from surgery she started six rounds of chemotherapy followed by another 2 months of radiation. She's been cancer-free ever since. The entirety of her care cost $0. Unlike women similarly afflicted in the US, she didn't have to choose her treatment options based on what she could afford. That's why she was able to opt for a full double mastectomy instead of merely a lumpectomy. Not to say that one is necessarily more effective than the other but the point is that she was able to choose from the options available based on her medical needs rather than being forced to choose the only option that she might be able to afford. And her treatment didn't prevent her from being able to buy a house a couple of years later or pay bills or put away money for retirement because she didn't have to go broke paying for it. If she had lived in the US she would have been in the hole to the tune of about $250K.

Bottom line: monetizing medicine is inherently immoral. Sick people shouldn't be denied proper care or receive inadequate, unequal care simply because they are poor or otherwise lack the financial wherewithal to pay for the best. We aren't talking about private rooms and cable TV by your bedside. This is life and death stuff.
 
WeHaveMoreCupsThanYou said:
The US has superior health care to Canada...provided, of course, that you make enough money to avail yourself of all that superiority. So if, like Krusty, you're a high fallutin' lawyer with a six-figure income and a gold-plated health plan, you'd be crazy to want to seek out health care north of the border. Unfortunately, if you're just Joe Sixpack like the vast majority of people are on both sides of the 49th parallel, the for-profit healthcare system used in the US is going to ruin you one way or the other. You'll either be denied all those fancy medical procedures outright because you don't have insurance or the insurance you have doesn't cover anything more expensive than aspirin and band-aids, or you'll be bankrupted.

My ex was diagnosed with breast cancer a few years back. She got the diagnosis in late October and was on the operating table 4 weeks later for a double mastectomy. After a couple of weeks to recover from surgery she started six rounds of chemotherapy followed by another 2 months of radiation. She's been cancer-free ever since. The entirety of her care cost $0. Unlike women similarly afflicted in the US, she didn't have to choose her treatment options based on what she could afford. That's why she was able to opt for a full double mastectomy instead of merely a lumpectomy. Not to say that one is necessarily more effective than the other but the point is that she was able to choose from the options available based on her medical needs rather than being forced to choose the only option that she might be able to afford. And her treatment didn't prevent her from being able to buy a house a couple of years later or pay bills or put away money for retirement because she didn't have to go broke paying for it. If she had lived in the US she would have been in the hole to the tune of about $250K.

Bottom line: monetizing medicine is inherently immoral. Sick people shouldn't be denied proper care or receive inadequate, unequal care simply because they are poor or otherwise lack the financial wherewithal to pay for the best. We aren't talking about private rooms and cable TV by your bedside. This is life and death stuff.
Click to expand...

That's a different issue than which system, in their current forms, I prefer.
 
Sal_Butera said:
Depending on where u live in the U.S. - Bay Area, metro Pacific Northwest, and large northeastern metro locales have way way way superior systems, it's not even close. No country in the world has come close to creating Noble laureates in science & medicine, and that ability to lure top UFAs from around the world, and provide them with the plethora of resources to focus on leading edge research does pay dividends - specifically in terms of innovation.

Example: basic testing during pregnancy, no longer need to inject into the mothers womb to draw amniotic fluid, thanks to a bio tech firm in San Diego, can simply take a regular blood test to detect any chromosomal flaws in the fetus - no potential harm to mother or baby, with a 99.99997% accuracy rating.

Where was this innovation created? The U.S. Cost in Connecticut, with insurance...$200.
Click to expand...

The most tangible benefit of a for-profit healthcare system: innovation.
 
Last edited:
I take it no one here has heard about "concierge medicine", that's what the rich fled to upon introduction of Obama care.
 
WeHaveMoreCupsThanYou said:
The US has superior health care to Canada...provided, of course, that you make enough money to avail yourself of all that superiority. So if, like Krusty, you're a high fallutin' lawyer with a six-figure income and a gold-plated health plan, you'd be crazy to want to seek out health care north of the border. Unfortunately, if you're just Joe Sixpack like the vast majority of people are on both sides of the 49th parallel, the for-profit healthcare system used in the US is going to ruin you one way or the other. You'll either be denied all those fancy medical procedures outright because you don't have insurance or the insurance you have doesn't cover anything more expensive than aspirin and band-aids, or you'll be bankrupted.

My ex was diagnosed with breast cancer a few years back. She got the diagnosis in late October and was on the operating table 4 weeks later for a double mastectomy. After a couple of weeks to recover from surgery she started six rounds of chemotherapy followed by another 2 months of radiation. She's been cancer-free ever since. The entirety of her care cost $0. Unlike women similarly afflicted in the US, she didn't have to choose her treatment options based on what she could afford. That's why she was able to opt for a full double mastectomy instead of merely a lumpectomy. Not to say that one is necessarily more effective than the other but the point is that she was able to choose from the options available based on her medical needs rather than being forced to choose the only option that she might be able to afford. And her treatment didn't prevent her from being able to buy a house a couple of years later or pay bills or put away money for retirement because she didn't have to go broke paying for it. If she had lived in the US she would have been in the hole to the tune of about $250K.

Bottom line: monetizing medicine is inherently immoral. Sick people shouldn't be denied proper care or receive inadequate, unequal care simply because they are poor or otherwise lack the financial wherewithal to pay for the best. We aren't talking about private rooms and cable TV by your bedside. This is life and death stuff.
Click to expand...

You're exaggerating the issue, upon the latest census, before the Obamacare, 15% of the US citizens were without health insurance. The average Joe does have insurance. Most working people have decent insurance. But there is still gaps and indeed if you are caught needing major care without insurance, it's going to cost you a fortune.

The real poor have access to Medicaid, with provides pretty decent coverage. The issue is more often with the elderly or those working poor benefits jobs that don't have insurance but make too much to qualify for medicaid and either can't afford or choose to not paid for insurance.
 
GrandWazoo said:
You're exaggerating the issue, upon the latest census, before the Obamacare, 15% of the US citizens were without health insurance. The average Joe does have insurance. Most working people have decent insurance. But there is still gaps and indeed if you are caught needing major care without insurance, it's going to cost you a fortune.

The real poor have access to Medicaid, with provides pretty decent coverage. The issue is more often with the elderly or those working poor benefits jobs that don't have insurance but make too much to qualify for medicaid and either can't afford or choose to not paid for insurance.
Click to expand...
Yup, and also one point of clarification, not all Canadian healthcare is "equal". Québéc's healthcare system, is far more stressed, unable to attract the best & brightest from around th world, thus mediocre than its counterparts in Ontario, and west bound. When u can't keep the top students u graduate, and experienced ones leave in droves, it's futility in the making. My wife who's a McGill med school alum, was showing me an interesting stat, only 22% of grads even practice 1-day in Quebecupon graduation.
 
Mc Gill med students are falling behind their francophone counterparts because when they do a stage in a hospital their options on the English side are far more limited and they wind up not getting the same level of quality practical experience. Once they graduate they have to go where they can practise in English. So naturally most of them have to move.

The system is working precisely the way the nationalists designed it to work 40 years ago. Slowly but surely they are removing all traces of Anglophone existence from Quebec in all facets of daily life.
 
Projection de sièges: chaude lutte entre le NPD et le PC

http://www.lactualite.com/actualite...ocial&utm_source=Twitter#link_time=1440101003


Projections-20-aout-2015-Actualite-pur-800x436.png
 
I don't think NPD will win....the PC will edge them at the finish line. Still lots of campaigning left to do.
 
Rolex said:
I don't think NPD will win....the PC will edge them at the finish line. Still lots of campaigning left to do.
Click to expand...

Who ever comes out on top looks like they will not have anywhere close to a majority. But as you say, it is a long campaign.
 
I think that even if the conservatives win, no other party would work with them. They burnt every bridge they ever had with the liberals with the attack ads and the NDP are ideological opposite of them in just about every conceivable way. Either another election would follow or the NDP would get their chance at governing.

The only hope for the conservatives is a majority and they won't get it.
 
TheCountofMonteCristo said:
Conservative vote is slipping.
Click to expand...

A terrible time for an election for the Conservs. The economy is collapsing, oil is dirt cheap and the Duffy trial has been messy for Steve.

He might get my vote but I'm in an NDP stronghold so it does nothing.

It's just a matter of time before Trump says something disparaging about Canada and that he intends on just taking our oil and water for free and then we will see how the political leaders here respond to that nudging.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top