I want to type something snarky, but I'll stay my fingers.
Nevermind, I will anyway:
Is it really that hard, folks, to look at the posts quoted in posts? Even if you do not trust the information quoted (thinking the replier edited it) then just click the "post" hyperlink.
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
Oh yes, you are right there, you were just completely wrong when you said single payer creates the best results. It does not, hybrid versions of UHC do.
Yes, they do. It should be understood that what I meant was that primary care should be single payer... whether there are hybrids that are "supplemental" makes no difference to me.
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
Well, now that you defined what you meant initially, fair enough, however perhaps you should keep to accepted definitions in conversation, for clarities sake.
I actually don't know, and I could see it going either way... My guess? no, because health insurance is state run.
not exactly. It was, but then courts ruled that it was against the constitution to exclude private care, in Quebec, and lots of places sprung up across the country based on that decision. There were private clinics in Toronto before it was, if it ever has been, made legal for private clinics to exist in Ontario.
i think that if uninsured individuals who use the emergency rooms is the main economic downfall of the 'private' system we have in place, then addressing this concern directly is the only way to approach.
hospitals that accept medicaid and medicare, as a condition of them receiving those forms of payment, are required to accept any patient regardless of their ability to pay. since there are so many old sick people who use those government subsidized insurance programs, it's not profitable for the hospitals to turn them down.
you can implement tort reform, you can allow purchases across state lines, and we probably should do both of these. but these are separate issues altogether. they will not address the hospitals which are closing down due to emergency rooms filled with uninsured patients. and the fact of the matter is that when hospitals do manage to stay in business, the costs are passed on to the 'customer.'
the fact is we have to make a choice. either government funded health care is a right or it isn't. if it's not a right then how do you justify the claim that hospitals should never turn anyone away? if it is a right, then lets drop the fabricated notion of private system which serves only as a way for a few people to turn health care into a vastly lucrative industry.
Then in that case, I may be confusing Canada for a hybrid system. A hybrid system has both state run insurance and privatized insurance. That is what I meant by hybrid. Almost always, private healthcare goes hand in hand with private insurance. What I'm getting from you is that Canada would be an exception: private healthcare without private insurance. That was too as sumptuous on my part.
I agree. KK and I were talking about that and Norway: both have much better systems than all European countires (they always rank higher, lol) and especially the US's. See, you and KK actually agree on something. But just like myself, KK and you do not agree on the path to get there.
KMC Community Forums
Nov 27th, 2010 04:30 AM
