Re: OT Health care

On Apr 2, 9:50�am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldin...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"BillB" <bo...@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:gqvfrc$pts$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



"Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldin...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:CoFAl.960$6n.302@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Shithead,
She said she'd need to pay for it in the United States.

No, she didn't.'

Yes, she did, you fucking imbecile.

Tell you what, reread this : Fact: We would never have financially recovered
from this one catastrophic> > illness if our son had been born in the United States.

You want to explain, dear *** for brains, the meaning of this statement if
you DENY she'd be paying for it in the United States?

�r Regardless, you were previously asserting with an abundance> of ignorance that poor people in Canada paid for their medical care
through sales taxes. Are you now abandoning that absurd position?

Hell no. I'm stating thatv SHE paid for her health care through taxes.
You, being the lying shithead that you are, tried to hypothesize some
situation where she paid no taxes, that would be inconsistent with her
claims.

You lose AGAIN, retard.







Care is freely available here.
It isn't rationed. The choice is a willingness to pay for it.

LOL it is not "freely" available. It is rationed by ability to pay. Many
people have a "willingness" to pay, but lack the money to do so. That is
rationing my friend:

Nope.
They MUST treat you.
They can go after you for payment, and take your house.
They cannot let you die because you don't have cash on you.

Uhhh.....you are talking about emergency care. Perhaps you were not aware
of this, but there is much more to medical care than emergency treatment
to keep you alive. Do you really believe a middle aged poor person can
walk into a medical facility in the US and demand a colonoscopy

No, he can go into the emergency room and get one.

? If so, you are

an idiot. The answer is no, even though the procedure can easily save his
life.

Or kill him.
Again, you're spouting off about *** you �know nothing about. Colonoscopies
are over-requested as it is in this country.

And regardless, why are you falling back on Medicaid to prop up your

advocacy of free market medicine? Medicaid *is* socialized medicine.

No, Medicaid is a safety net.
I'm in favor of safety nets.

�I> thought you were against that? The fact of the matter is that Medicaid
only exists because free market medicine does not work

No, you fucking retard.
Medicaid exists because some people are destitute or disabled.
For the same reason Welfare and Foodstamps exist.
Or are you retard enough to claim food distribution is a failure because
foodstamps exist?

Are you now saying you

are in favor of everyone being able to receive medical care (emergency,
routine, and preventative) regardless of their ability to pay?

No, fuckhead.
I'm stating the fact that they can all receive NEEDED care.

�If so,

congratulations, you are a proponent of one form or another of socialized
medicine.

You were born an idiot. You'll die an idiot. And you'll remain an idiot
between the two periods.



And why in the world would you think it's a good system for a sick person
to have to lose everything they own before they qualify for assistance?

Because it allows the system itself to improve the fastest.;
A lack of money is easily corrected.
A lack of a cure isn't.

That is

not a reasonable burden to put on the middle class and poor.

And letting them die because we don't know how to save them is better?
Brilliant!

�Why not spread

the insurance risk over the entire population so critically ill people
*don't* lose their homes?

Because then there's no incentive to discover new cures and better
techniques.
When we can extend the lifespan indefinitely, THEN talk to me about free
care for all.

�Don't you think that's a better solution? Not

putting critically ill people out of their homes? That is the very purpose
of insurance: to spread large risks over a large enough population base so
you can painlessly eliminate the risk of financial catastrophe for
everyone.

Structuring the cost to eliminate the profit motive stagnates the system.
If they did it 100 years ago, how many millions would have died decades
younger?

Why was the CAT scan developed? What motivated the PET scan's inventor?

I'd like to thank them both.



I don't know why I am even bothering with you. You are such a phony. If
you had worked for 25 years to pay for your home and were at risk of
losing everything because you had the bad luck to contract a critical
illness you'd be singing a completely different tune

Shithead.

I've worked 25 years.
�I own a house I haven't finished paying for yet.
My dearest love was JUST diagnosed with stage one lung cancer. A CAT scan
allowed the doctors to SUSPECT she might have it, and a PET scan just
confirmed it to more than a 95% likelihood.
Ten years ago (one simple decade) the Cat scan would have missed the spot on
her lungs because the technology was literally too slow when it scanned, and
breathing confused it.
Advancing medicine saves far more lives than giving it away free to everyone
would.

. You know it. I know it. Everybody

reading this knows it.

Bill, what everyone knows is that you're a complete idiot.

If all it took were money, I'd sell the house and everything I own to save
her, or me, at any time.

�And you'd be right. Because it's *not right* to do

that to a critically ill person, and, further, it's totally unnecessary..
The only reason anyone would even contemplate such lunacy is if he is a
slave to ideology over common sense.

No, idiot.
And the system doesn't require it, if you're intelligent. If you're
critically ill, you can place the assets in the spouses name, get divorced,
and qualify for medicaid.







"In economics, it is often common to use the word "rationing" to refer
to one of the roles that prices play in markets. Using prices to ration
means that those with the most money (or other assets) and who want a
product the most are first to receive it. Such rationing happens daily
in a market economy. Non-price rationing follows other principles of
distribution."
When they get medical care to save their life, then work the rest of it
to pay for it, they still got it.
In the US, medical services are rationed by price. In Canada, medical
services are rationed my medical necessity.

Wrong, shithead.
But you like to lie, so why stop?
Bill, clearly you're a retard. Price is only a form of rationing if
you're denied it if you have no money.
Care MUST be provided.
Payment is an issue AFTER the fact.
You fucking idiot.

No, EMERGENCY care must be provided. Do you *really* not understand the
distinction between medical care in general and emergency medical care?

Needed vs wanted.
If you get what you need regardless, it isn't rationed.

There is much more to medicine than emergency care. In the US medical care
it is RATIONED by price. That is a fact. The end result is that the price
of medical services are bid up to the point you are at now where tens of
millions of your fellow citizens (who you seem to care little or nothing
about) cannot afford insurance.

Retard, I have friends who opt to go without insurance by choice.
I know people who can't afford it. And they're ALL better off with the
advances in medicine being AVAILABLE to them.







It's "documented", is it? � Rather than making empty (headed) assertions
that it's "documented", please *explain* how the government acting in
the *exact same capacity* as an insurance company for *medical services*
will limit R&D for *medical products.* �You can't, because there is no
direct relation.

Shithead,
The government controls the market.
SETTING prices nationwide is far different than brokering prices with
institutions that can say NO if they wish. You drunk, overtired, or
REALLY fucked in the head tonight, Bill?
Government says "You must".
Insurance companies say "We'd like you to"

I note that you were completely non-responsive here, which I understand,
because you have no answer.

You note that you were too stupid to understand my very intelligent
response.
Let's try it simpler, so even a *** for brains like you can understand it :
Governments say "You must sell your service for this price or you can't
offer it at all."

Insurance companies say "If you sell it to us at this price, we'll send our
clients to you".
The former is a mandate. The latter is a negotiated deal. The provider can
say "No, we can't pay our bills at that price and still improve our product,
so we'll pass".

Do you get it yet?



Uhhhh....private insurance companies do all those things too.

You think my insurance company lets me go anywhere I want?
Of course not. But the PROVIDERS can charge whatever they feel they need
to.

This is a distinction without a difference for the vast majority of
Americans.

No, it isn't.

�For most people, they must accept what their insurance company> will offer because it is financially impossible to foot the bill
themselves, especially after having spent most of their disposable income
on exorbitant insurance premiums

I pay $1500 a year.
Define "exhorbitant"





Now try to read and *understand* this next part. How much per capita is
spent in the US on medical R&D? Pick any number for the sake of
argument. Now, keeping that number in mind, whatever it may be, what is
it about the various provincial *medical services* plans that prevents
the government from investing the exact same amount in R&D in Canada?
I'll give you a hint: nothing. If the government (i.e. the Canadian
people through the political process) wanted to invest DOUBLE per capita
what the US does, there is

...

read more �- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

A lot of the machinery (like PET scans) were developed by engineers
and scientists who earn a LOT less than doctors, sometimes just for
the 'coolness' factor. In fact, I worked on sharpening CAT scan and
MRI images many years ago, for a very small Summer pay.
.

Loading