Universal Health Care

[Maria]

Sorry. Since you posted it, it would appear that you are in agreement. So i guess that means that you don't think that access to health care is the right of all people, including poor children.

No, I would just leave it for others to read and share what they think or perspect. Sometimes, I just leave it as that without my comments. If, I have anythin' to say, I would post it.

 

[Jiro]

No, I would just leave it for others to read and share what they think or perspect. Sometimes, I just leave it as that without my comments. If, I have anythin' to say, I would post it.

oh ok. for sharing then. Just making sure what your intention was.

 

[Maria]

oh ok. for sharing then. Just making sure what your intention was.

Okay, no problem.

 

[skm4441]

I don't know if I support Universal Health Care because first off, I am on Medicare and it is a major joke. It's a huge pain in the bleep. Life is great with Medicare because co-pays are sooooo cheap. BUT I have seen some private health insuracne companies that provide pretty cheap co-pays...

Then, Universal Health Care would mean more taxes. Things are more expensive in Canada because of taxes..... And the government will take out more money out of your paychecks if there is an one for all Universal Health Care.

With UHC, doctors probably will move somewhere else to look for a better opportunity, therefore, we would lose quality services and treatments if excellent doctors moved elsewhere for better paying jobs. Sad but true.

 

[Banjo]

I don't know if I support Universal Health Care because first off, I am on Medicare and it is a major joke. It's a huge pain in the bleep. Life is great with Medicare because co-pays are sooooo cheap. BUT I have seen some private health insuracne companies that provide pretty cheap co-pays...

Then, Universal Health Care would mean more taxes. Things are more expensive in Canada because of taxes..... And the government will take out more money out of your paychecks if there is an one for all Universal Health Care.

With UHC, doctors probably will move somewhere else to look for a better opportunity, therefore, we would lose quality services and treatments if excellent doctors moved elsewhere for better paying jobs. Sad but true.

I suggest that you refrain from making assumptions about Canada regarding taxes. We use a progressive taxing system like the Americans. Are you aware that the government of Canada spends less per person in comparison to the US government when it comes to healthcare? We don't have to fill out insurance forms every time we go to the emergency room. Thank god for that. No need for that bureaucracy crap.

Things are more expensive in Canada because of taxes

Such as? You need to be aware that our currency is different from yours. Often, the American exporters force the retailers to base their prices on the currency differences. The taxes has nothing to do with it. However, Canadians are able to live comfortably. I don't have much to complain about.

Some things are cheaper in Canada while some things are more expensive. It varies. If you want to see how expensive things can get, go to either Alaska or any Canadian territories and see how much it will cost you to get a quart of milk. You'll soil yourself.

 

[jillio]

I suggest that you refrain from making assumptions about Canada regarding taxes. We use a progressive taxing system like the Americans. Are you aware that the government of Canada spends less per person in comparison to the US government when it comes to healthcare? We don't have to fill out insurance forms every time we go to the emergency room. Thank god for that. No need for that bureaucracy crap.



Such as? You need to be aware that our currency is different from yours. Often, the American exporters force the retailers to base their prices on the currency differences. The taxes has nothing to do with it. However, Canadians are able to live comfortably. I don't have much to complain about.

Some things are cheaper in Canada while some things are more expensive. It varies. If you want to see how expensive things can get, go to either Alaska or any Canadian territories and see how much it will cost you to get a quart of milk. You'll soil yourself.

Medications are certainly less expensive. Hence, the number of older Americans that either cross the border to purchase, or have their medications shipped from Canadian pharmacies.

 

[Banjo]

Medications are certainly less expensive. Hence, the number of older Americans that either cross the border to purchase, or have their medications shipped from Canadian pharmacies.

Right, and didn't some states make the move to ban prescription drugs being imported from Canada due to the so-called safety concerns? Obviously, it was lobbied by the pharmaceutical corporations, otherwise, they wouldn't have banned it.

 

[jillio]

Right, and didn't some states make the move to ban prescription drugs being imported from Canada due to the so-called safety concerns? Obviously, it was lobbied by the pharmaceutical corporations, otherwise, they wouldn't have banned it.

Yes, they did, and it was, as you say, purely an economical move by the parmaceutical companies.

 

[skm4441]

I suggest that you refrain from making assumptions about Canada regarding taxes. We use a progressive taxing system like the Americans. Are you aware that the government of Canada spends less per person in comparison to the US government when it comes to healthcare? We don't have to fill out insurance forms every time we go to the emergency room. Thank god for that. No need for that bureaucracy crap.

First off, it was not me that making the assumptions. I am only summarizing to what I read a couple of months ago. Yes, I realize that the healthcare system is way cheaper in Canada. But well-qualified physicians are hard to find because there is shortage of them because a lot of them moved to USA to make more money. Remember, it was from what I read a couple of months ago. I would rather have a well-qualified physician on the spot instead of waiting and waiting because if it was something serious, then I'm and everyone else is doomed...

[/quote] Such as? You need to be aware that our currency is different from yours. Often, the American exporters force the retailers to base their prices on the currency differences. The taxes has nothing to do with it. However, Canadians are able to live comfortably. I don't have much to complain about.

Some things are cheaper in Canada while some things are more expensive. It varies. If you want to see how expensive things can get, go to either Alaska or any Canadian territories and see how much it will cost you to get a quart of milk. You'll soil yourself.[/quote]

I went to Canada a couple of times... A meal in USA, is like $15 USD, while it is like $22 USD in Canada. I once bought a strawberry daiquiri that costed $19 USD IN Canada, while its like $9 USD here in USA. I can't remember how much I had to pay for that boat on Niagara Falls but I thought it was damned expensive on the Canada side. It was ridiculous... Maybe more than $10. I thought it was bullsh*t.

 

[Banjo]

I once bought a strawberry daiquiri that costed $19 USD IN Canada, while its like $9 USD here in USA. I can't remember how much I had to pay for that boat on Niagara Falls but I thought it was damned expensive on the Canada side. It was ridiculous... Maybe more than $10. I thought it was bullsh*t.

Alcoholic beverages are heavily taxed here and I mean heavily taxed. It's the same with cigarettes. They do it to discourage people from abusing it. Although I wouldn't say it is entirely successful. Alcoholic beverages are far cheaper to buy in NY state because it's not as heavily taxed. Also, we have a higher minimum wage in Canada which does affect the prices at restaurants sometimes.

Although $19USD for Strawberry Daiquiri is a tad too much even for here, you got ripped off.

It sounds like you bought the drink from the tourist-infested section of Niagara Falls. I live nearby in St. Catharines and I would never go to that area as it's a rip-off. Tourists always overpay for everything because they don't know where to go. There are plenty of places you can get good deals on meals, and some with not so great deals.

Canada and USA are two different countries with different standards of living. Same with UK and many other European countries. In some countries including UK, it is much more expensive to buy pretty much anything. At least to us when we go over there. We are used to big box store pricing. Europeans are used to it, they have different standards of living and they still live comfortably.

 

[skm4441]

Alcoholic beverages are heavily taxed here and I mean heavily taxed. It's the same with cigarettes. They do it to discourage people from abusing it. Although I wouldn't say it is entirely successful. Alcoholic beverages are far cheaper to buy in NY state because it's not as heavily taxed. Also, we have a higher minimum wage in Canada which does affect the prices at restaurants sometimes.

Although $19USD for Strawberry Daiquiri is a tad too much even for here, you got ripped off.

It sounds like you bought the drink from the tourist-infested section of Niagara Falls. I live nearby in St. Catharines and I would never go to that area as it's a rip-off. Tourists always overpay for everything because they don't know where to go. There are plenty of places you can get good deals on meals, and some with not so great deals.

Canada and USA are two different countries with different standards of living. Same with UK and many other European countries. In some countries including UK, it is much more expensive to buy pretty much anything. At least to us when we go over there. We are used to big box store pricing. Europeans are used to it, they have different standards of living and they still live comfortably.

Alright, you rest your case. Thanks for the hint on Niagara Falls.

 

[skm4441]

I am still not convinced by how marijuana would be helpful for the patients of cancers, AIDS/HIV, and all the sorts. There are no findings on the adverse effects of the pill form of marijuana. Smoking, whether it is marijuana, tobacco, etc, is still harmful no matter what....

A glass of wine benefits also because it increases appetitie. Alcohol increases appetite actually. So what's wrong with a bit of alcohol?

 

[jillio]

I am still not convinced by how marijuana would be helpful for the patients of cancers, AIDS/HIV, and all the sorts. There are no findings on the adverse effects of the pill form of marijuana. Smoking, whether it is marijuana, tobacco, etc, is still harmful no matter what....

A glass of wine benefits also because it increases appetitie. Alcohol increases appetite actually. So what's wrong with a bit of alcohol?

Alcohol has been shown for a number of years and in any number of studies to have more adverse effects than does marijuana. Additionally, alcohol is physically addictive, marijuana is not. Withdrawal from alcohol is so severe as to cause death in many cases. There has been a direct link established between alcohol and any number of diseases, most of which are terminal and cost billions to treat. No such causative link has been found with marijuana.

 

[Jiro]

Alcoholic beverages are heavily taxed here and I mean heavily taxed. It's the same with cigarettes. They do it to discourage people from abusing it. Although I wouldn't say it is entirely successful.

aka the Sin tax

 

[Jiro]

skm4441 - let me ask you this -

Red Pill
-has been proven to be beneficial to your health if taken moderately
-has proven to increase appetite
-is addictive and has severe withdrawal symptoms
-has adverse side effects
-has killed at least 80,000 people per year in USA

Blue Pill
-has proven to be beneficial to your health if taken moderately
-has proven to increase appetite
-is not addictive and has minuscule/no withdrawal symptoms
-has very very minimal side effects
-has killed 0 people per year

Choose your poison. The red pill or the blue pill.

 

[Maria]

skm4441 - let me ask you this -

Red Pill
-has been proven to be beneficial to your health if taken moderately
-has proven to increase appetite
-is addictive and has severe withdrawal symptoms
-has adverse side effects
-has killed at least 80,000 people per year in USA

Blue Pill
-has proven to be beneficial to your health if taken moderately
-has proven to increase appetite
-is not addictive and has minuscule/no withdrawal symptoms
-has very very minimal side effects
-has killed 0 people per year

Choose your poison. The red pill or the blue pill.

Ahhh, the MATRIX movie!!

 

[Jiro]

Ahhh, the MATRIX movie!!

hey you didn't answer the question. pick the pill

 

[sequoias]

I'll pick the blue pill.

 

[Reba]

An interesting twist to the debate:

Wal-Mart's support of mandate rankles others
By David Greising
Chicago Tribune
Monday, July 20, 2009

CHICAGO — The nation's love-hate relationship with Wal-Mart is taking an unexpected turn now that the "Beast from Bentonville" is endorsing a plan to require employers to provide health coverage for all workers.

The National Retail Federation last week directly criticized Wal-Mart for endorsing mandated health care. Such a plan, the retailers lobby said in a letter to members, "would be catastrophic for our industry."

The debate, then, shapes up something like this: The stridently anti-union Wal-Mart, which is not a member of the federation, has teamed with the Service Employees International Union to endorse the Obama administration's plan to require some form of employer-provided insurance. The rest of the retail industry is on the other side, arguing they have the right to not offer health coverage to millions of people in their employ.

"Mandates would drive up costs for retailers while doing nothing to address waste, inefficiencies and lack of competition" in the health-care system, wrote Tracy Mullin, president of the retail federation.

Sounds like a scary scenario. But then, Mullin is writing about Wal-Mart, a company that has defined itself like no other for its ability to squeeze out waste and inefficiency. Once Wal-Mart decided in 2005 to bear a fairer share of the cost of its employees' health-care expenses, the company began attacking some of the unnecessary costs and inefficiencies built into the system.

Today, more than 50,000 employees participate in a Wal-Mart program in which their health records are automated, searchable and even transferable, should they leave their jobs. Automation of record-keeping is a centerpiece of the Obama administration's health-care plans and is expected to deliver billions of dollars in savings.

For doctors and other health-care providers, Wal-Mart through its Sam's Club stores in April began selling a hardware and software package that automates record-keeping at doctors' offices.

It is a paradox of modern times that manila folders with hand-lettered notations still are the main method of record-keeping in thousands of doctors offices nationwide. For the people on the front lines of the health-care industry, automated record-keeping is a long-overdue step into the modern world of the information economy. Automation saves money in part by reducing duplicate testing and preventing costly errors.

Next, there is the question of the health-care plans Wal-Mart offers its employees. This, of course, is a touchstone of controversy, given Wal-Mart's reputation for denying decent benefits to employees through most of its history.

Wal-Mart boasts that its policies are accessible to all employees. The least expensive one costs a single employee with no dependents as little as $12 a month and has a $1,000 deductible.

A legion of critics argues that Wal-Mart's health-care plan is inadequate, with benefits that are not worth having. The retail federation says, for example, that only 43 percent of Wal-Mart's employees sign up for the company's health plans. The Food and Commercial Workers Union in a letter to President Barack Obama noted that Wal-Mart's employer contribution falls short of providing at least 75 percent of the cost of family coverage, an industry standard.

Wal-Mart, a big employer in South Carolina, claims that 51.8 percent of its workers participate in at least one of the company's health-care plans. That is higher than the 45 percent average participation rate reported in a study by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Wal-Mart is a handy villain. Whether it is battling to keep unions out, squeezing suppliers, putting mom-and-pop stores out of business or taking over the nation's grocery business, Wal-Mart is a magnet for controversy.

But Wal-Mart is not the world's largest retailer just because it has lots of stores. It has grown so large because Americans just can't resist the company's ability to roll back prices, by whatever means necessary.

Wal-Mart's competitors do not like the idea that the company is turning its attention to health care, and they're right that the move is a transparent effort by Wal-Mart to influence the debate and put itself at a competitive advantage while trying to keep unions at bay.

It is easy to talk about the need for change, and tempting to back away once someone puts specifics on the table. Wal-Mart and the SEIU at least are laying out an idea they think can work. The National Retail Federation cannot contribute to the debate simply by saying no.

Just because Wal-Mart is for the employer mandate does not make it a bad idea.

Wal-Mart's support of mandate rankles others - The Post and Courier

 

[Foxrac]

An interesting twist to the debate:


Wal-Mart's support of mandate rankles others - The Post and Courier

Does wal mart want everyone to require to obtain the health insurance?

If so then I'm very opposing because I never satisfy with option of health insurance from wal mart due price and prefer to sticking with government sponsored health program to cut my cost.

No way to mandatory health insurance to everyone.