Non-Americans : Please Discuss Your Healthcare

One, ********, they get paid and better than the average US citizen.

So? They should be paid substantially more than the average US citizen. There is nothing wrong with current doctor salaries.

Two, they are high callings, they just are. You're assuming almost god like power over life and death in certian situations, to compare that to what's required of a janitor is laughable.

Three, if all they want is that dollar and their that smart and dedicated there are other jobs that pay BETTER and require less. So why the **** would you be a doctor if that's the mentality?

I am not saying there are not higher callings - what I am saying is that a higher calling enough is does not warrant the difficulty it takes to enter the medical field. Scratching some righteous itch is not enough pay back. There needs to be substantial reward: both financially and (for lack of a better word) spiritually.

Four, the average canadian has better overall health and gets sick less than the average US citizen. A lot of that has to do with crappy diet.

Yes.

Five, part of being a doctor is that you want to help people. It's not all about the money or you will make one crappy doctor (or fantastic plastic surgeon). There's something doctors get that bankers will never know, a different type of payment. You ever save another man's life? I have and I wouldn't trade that experience or that life for a million dollars, you shouldn't devaluate that and put it akin to doing a job well, there's something in that moment and the look in that person's eyes afterward that is the closest anyone will ever experience to directly seeing God (or science). Some people like that, they used to call them doctors.

I never said it was solely about the money. I have said, however, that the money must be very very high, along with whatever personal satisfaction you get.
 
So? They should be paid substantially more than the average US citizen. There is nothing wrong with current doctor salaries.



I am not saying there are not higher callings - what I am saying is that a higher calling enough is does not warrant the difficulty it takes to enter the medical field. Scratching some righteous itch is not enough pay back. There needs to be substantial reward: both financially and (for lack of a better word) spiritually.



Yes.



I never said it was solely about the money. I have said, however, that the money must be very very high, along with whatever personal satisfaction you get.

Point one, they treat undocuments anyway so how is them putting some money in rather than no money gonna have them getting paid less? Though if they stopped getting bonus' for prescribing medications and just prescribed based on what's best for the patient, I'd be down with that.

Two, they're getting paid well plus they get that bonus in human nature. They get paid less than CEO's and they do something much more important, I wouldn't mind them getting paid appropriately, but you make it sound like doctors are scrapping by, they aren't. I know several and they make twice what I make easily.

Three, we're agreed. Their should be a better emphasis on physical fitness and basic understanding of health in this country.

Four, why must the money be very very high? When did being pretty rich and having a job you know makes a difference that makes your parents, children and community proud stop being enough? The value of saving a life is greater than any amount of money. Life is more important. That said they still bank very well, if they got paid like teachers then you might have something. But I'm not feeling bad for anyone in one of the most prestigeous professions on earth that gets 200,000 a year and gets a job which truly makes the world a better place, sorry but that's asking alot for me to say oh the poor poor doctors.
 
By that logic it would be fair enough if a hypothetical country with 1% of people having private health care and each having their own in-house doctor be higher than 38... sure, 99% of the country are pretty much screwed and have to go through hell to be seen to, but the quality of care and responsiveness would be awesome!
Do you not understand the difference between Quality of Care and Coverage:huh:

No, because your country's become a half-step short of extreme capitalism.
I would take capitalism over socialism any day. Where the hell do you live? With Chavez:huh:

I find it funny all of the negative stigma surrounding socialism whilst capitalism gets none of that. Both extremes aren't exactly desirable...
Or are you Chavez? What extreme is ever desirable besides energy drinks?


I fail to see how what I'm suggesting kills competition. In fact I think the option I'm suggesting would keep the private options honest and working harder... they've gotten lazy and greedy and its an epidemic that has spread right through the health industry beyond just the insurance companies and sees doctors pumping unnecessary drugs down their patients throats.
The government equals one entity. That entity would have no competition. No competition leads to a decrease in quality and efficiency. Economics 101 there.


Yes... he will.
They would be on salary. They would get payed for 8 hours a day because overtime is expensive. It is cheaper to have 3 doctors work a day than 2 doctors fill the same hours. Once again, kind of common sense stuff.

See this is the problem, the majority of people who are against a proposal of a decent public health system see this as a black and white issue... It's not socialism. Socialism would be bringing in that option and dissolving the private sector.
I am not against a public option. I could put it in huge letters like you did down there but I'm not childish. However, with the current administration, it would lead into universal healthcare and the dissolving of the private sector. Obama is even on the record saying exactly that.

If you can find ANYWHERE that I've suggested that, let me know...
If you could find ANYWHERE where I've suggested you said that, let me know...


Duh. Tell me where I've said otherwise.

Obviously I haven't made this clear enough...

THE DOCTORS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM.

YOU ARE RANKED 37TH DESPITE... *DESPITE*... THE QUALITY OF YOUR DOCTORS.

You liken our health care system to your crazy ER rooms...??? The small ER rooms which are THE ONLY WAY a HUGE number of people can receive treatment?
Can you tell me where I said othewise? Can you tell me where I said the doctors were the problem. I will just say 'duh' like you did.

You have socialized medicine. The ER rooms here are the closest resemblance to socialized medicine in this country. The waits in Canada and Europe for procedures is ridiculous. You have to wait to see a doctor and some people wait hours and hours just to get a checkup. That equates to our ERs.
 
How do you know the waits are ridiculous in Canada? Are you Canadian? Did you see that stat on Fox News?


Can we get some real Canadians or Europeans in here and tell us how long the wait is?



:thing: :doom: :thing:
 
I know, I was talking about the other U.S. citizens trying to inject their reality into the discussion.
When someone quotes you and doesn't answer a question but debates points, of course you are going to respond.
 
How do you know the waits are ridiculous in Canada? Are you Canadian? Did you see that stat on Fox News?


Can we get some real Canadians or Europeans in here and tell us how long the wait is?



:thing: :doom: :thing:
I believe the average wait time is 9 hours to see a doctor. The average wait time for an MRI is like 3 months, neurosurgery is like 15 months, and chemotherapy treatments are like 10 weeks.

I also would like to hear first hand but we don't need little backhanded comments:up:
 
Who gives a **** if Americans want to pay for there medical care, i don't...
 
Ok... I stopped looking at your sources once I checked out the Fraser Institute.


The Institute has been a source of controversy from the beginning. Some charge that Michael Walker, an economist from the University of Western Ontario, helped set up the institute after he received financial backing from forestry giant MacMillan-Bloedel, largely to counter British Columbia's NDP government.[4] then led by Premier Dave Barrett. The relationship, though, was short-lived as MacMillian-Bloedel broke ties with the Institute when it published a book opposing wage and price controls.[citation needed] The CEO of MacMillian-Bloedel at the time supported wage and price controls.

Critics of the Institute and other similar agenda-driven think tanks have claimed the Fraser Institute's reports, studies and surveys are usually not subject to standard academic peer review or the scholarly method. Institute supporters claims their research is peer-reviewed both by internal and external experts.[5] The Institute's Environmental Indicators (6th Ed) has an academic article devoted to its flaws: McKenzie and Rees (2007), "An analysis of a brownlash report", Ecological Economics 61(2-3), pp505-515.

In 2002, a study by Neil Brooks of the left-wing Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives claimed the Institute's widely promoted Tax Freedom Day, described as the date each year when the average Canadian's income no longer goes to paying government taxes, included flawed accounting. The Brooks study stated that the Institute's methods of accounting excluded several important forms of income and inflated tax figures, moving the date nearly two months later in the year.[6] The Institute counters that Professor Brooks confuses the aggregate tax burden with the tax burden borne by those who actually pay tax.[citation needed]

In 1999, the Fraser Institute was attacked by health professionals and scientists[citation needed] for sponsoring two conferences on the tobacco industry entitled "Junk Science, Junk Policy? Managing Risk and Regulation" and "Should government butt out? The pros and cons of tobacco regulation." Critics charged the Institute was associating itself with the tobacco industry's many attempts to discredit authentic scientific work



:doom: :doom: :doom:
 
Let me guess where that source is from? Did you not read any others? The Frasier Institute was one. I even posted a blog where Canadians were talking about their wait times.
 
Edit...n/m. You got all of that off of Wikipedia, the most trusted name in information.
 
As opposed to the Fraser Institute?


Come on dude. Any stats from Scientific Journals that aren't funded by anti-government think tanks?


And actually I got the info from Sourcewatch... which Wikki copied.



:thing: :doom: :thing:
 
Unlike those blogs, I've talked to these people for several years. I have the chance to question the new people who might leave a message. Unlike a two year old blog that I'm not a part of.

WIN.


:thing: :doom: :thing:
 
Unlike those blogs, I've talked to these people for several years. I have the chance to question the new people who might leave a message. Unlike a two year old blog that I'm not a part of.

WIN.


:thing: :doom: :thing:
Uh huh. I am sure you would present information in a non-biased format as to be fair and objective as possible. Lets question the new people and believe their every word but a blog about wait times in Canada is baaaaaddddd.
 
Ok. Leave my thread. You are neither non-American or productive.



I'll meet you over in the regular Healthcare thread.


:D



:thing: :doom: :thing:
 
Ok. Leave my thread. You are neither non-American or productive.



I'll meet you over in the regular Healthcare thread.


:D



:thing: :doom: :thing:
 
Do you not understand the difference between Quality of Care and Coverage:huh:
Yes, I do. And those rankings address BOTH. You are ranking quality of care far too high, with little thought for coverage.

You have frigging support crews who normally would be over in 3rd world countries catering for your poor for god's sake. Name another developed nation that isn't in a war that does that???

I would take capitalism over socialism any day. Where the hell do you live? With Chavez:huh:
I'm not pushing socialism you d***head. If you had to give a leftist/rightist label to me I'm a frickin' centerist. Your country is pushed so far over to the right that its killing its citizens. I'm suggesting a left-ward nudge... that's not socialism. That's a nudge back towards the middle.

Or are you Chavez? What extreme is ever desirable besides energy drinks?
What have I said that makes you think I'm a socialist? At any point in time. The fact is that your country is so whacked out to the right that it looks at the middle like its an extreme.


The government equals one entity. That entity would have no competition. No competition leads to a decrease in quality and efficiency. Economics 101 there.
I'm not suggesting that public health care be the only option you imbecile... but its been clear for a loooooong time that you need a decent public option.

Why do you think the health system is becoming so corrupt? Because there's nothing there to keep them honest, they're pushing profit to the point where its harming the people through inefficiency.

I am not against a public option. I could put it in huge letters like you did down there but I'm not childish. However, with the current administration, it would lead into universal healthcare and the dissolving of the private sector. Obama is even on the record saying exactly that.
I put it in huge letters because you either weren't reading what I was saying, or you were ignoring it, or your comprehension skills were too poor to get the gist of what I was saying.

IF Obama is considering universal public health-care I wouldn't be as in favour of that. But I've heard nothing air-tight barring speculation from ultra-right conservatives saying that.

That said, universal public health is probably still a preferable to your current system from a utilitarian point of view. Even if it would be far from ideal.

If you could find ANYWHERE where I've suggested you said that, let me know...
Can you tell me where I said othewise? Can you tell me where I said the doctors were the problem. I will just say 'duh' like you did.
You didn't. But you WERE attempting to divert the discussion from being about health care in general to just discussing the quality of your doctors and saying that that alone should be enough to have you ranking higher than 38. It doesn't work that way and nor should it.

That thing up there which you questioned with whether I understand the difference between coverage and quality... that was an analogy, the point of which was to expose the flawed logic you're shovelling.

The quality of your doctors is great.

In terms of their ability to aid society, they're inefficient.

This is not the doctor's fault.

It IS the fault of your current health system.

You have socialized medicine. The ER rooms here are the closest resemblance to socialized medicine in this country. The waits in Canada and Europe for procedures is ridiculous. You have to wait to see a doctor and some people wait hours and hours just to get a checkup. That equates to our ERs.
We don't have socialized medicine.

We have a public option and people can also choose to go with a private option. I mean, for God's sake I said I have private health cover myself as well as the public option. (But I guess that's just another case of you not reading...)

Socialized medicine would involve the dissolvement of private health.

If you can point to an occasion where I've suggested that that be a good idea, feel free.

It also might go a long way towards making your "Chavez" remarks come of as something less than pure ignorance.

But that's the thing... you're not reading anything I'm saying. You've already formed your own opinion and I doubt very much if there's anything I can say to change it.
 
Last edited:
I respect Franklin enough to quit carrying this on in here, do the same.
 
Insurance and healthcare is too high and they typically deny any claim and make a sick person go through far more then they should just to be reinbursed for treatment already covered. I have an ex girlfriend over here that was in a major accident five years ago, ****ed up her back, it wasn't her fault and the other person's insurance was supposed to cover the operations. Well they never paid, she's in massive debt for the issue from medical bills which have acrued interest. They've recently given her lawyers (which she had to get) an offer to pay half. Her lawyers are taking the company to court and say this could very well be resolved as speedily as two to three short years.

I'd have to hear more about the details, but it can't be that simple. True, injury claims can take a long time, and legal battles can go on for a long time as well. However...

Insurance companies "typically" deny claims?

They get a bonus for denying your claim?

This is all news to me.

Also, where is this idea that doctors will suddenly make no money coming from?
 
I took it more as, there's no point in debating when someone tells you to get out of "their" thread. It's honestly a waste of time if you ask me.

And wrong? Seriously? This is a debate, there is no wrong opinion here and the biggest problem with the health care debate is a lot of people are too stubborn and close minded to see the view points of the other side. In order to successfully argue with someone, you need to have an open mind. And things like "Get out of my thread" and telling someone that they should admit that they are wrong is a sign of not having an open mind.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"