Members oneinchshawn Posted June 10, 2005 Members Share Posted June 10, 2005 Originally posted by src053 P.S. Just because I agree with a inbred cunuc doesn't mean I like them AMERICA RULES CANADA DROOLS!!! WHOOOO HOOOOO USA! USA! USA! USA! Took me about 2 reads to figure out that you were trying to say canuck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mudbass Posted June 10, 2005 Members Share Posted June 10, 2005 Originally posted by Bonoman I think making it a two-tiered system is ridiculous and unneccesary. First of all, we'd still be paying the same in taxes that we are now, so it wouldn't save the population money on that aspect. Second of all, a lot of the doctors would go to be on the paid portion of the system, making it even harder for the people who need help and can't afford it to get it. Third of all, if people really have that much of a problem with getting the treatment they seek, the US is right next door and I'm sure the American doctors would be more than happy to take their money. Why Bonoman, you're not saying that a socialized system can't compete with a free market system are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Thunderbroom Posted June 10, 2005 Author Members Share Posted June 10, 2005 Originally posted by Thrash Jazz Me too... but doesn't it seem as though being sent home less than a day after major surgery is a bit much? Or could it be that with the improvements in technology, less time is required in the hospital atmosphere. With the litigious nature of the US, my guess is that folks aren't being sent home after major surgery if there's a good chance that something could happen to them while they're recovering at home. Is it about the Benjamins? Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members src053 Posted June 10, 2005 Members Share Posted June 10, 2005 Originally posted by oneinchshawn Took me about 2 reads to figure out that you were trying to say canuck. :mad: Godamnit I am an AMERICAN if I spell cunuc c-u-n-u-c then that is how you spell cunuc. godamn oneinchshawn always trying to make me out to be an ass. YOU SUCK! just jokes my man just jokes;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members beam Posted June 10, 2005 Members Share Posted June 10, 2005 Originally posted by src053 :mad: Godamnit I am an AMERICAN if I spell cunuc c-u-n-u-c then that is how you spell cunuc. godamn oneinchshawn always trying to make me out to be an ass. YOU SUCK! just jokes my man just jokes;) Rage Bass Junior? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Bonoman Posted June 10, 2005 Members Share Posted June 10, 2005 Originally posted by Thunderbroom While I don't know if it's true or not, your Supreme Court says that is the case. Wouldn't building in incentives go against the whole socialized medicine kinda thing. Doctors aren't equal if you do this. Some doctors will make more than others. Capitalism! Won't that prompt some doctor's to take short cuts to make more money... It may, but doctors aren't equal to me and I already know that. They went to school for eight years whereas I only went for four. If doctors were equal to me then I would just self-diagnose. As for my solution, I guess that's why I'm not a politician - I have ideas, but they're not always the best ones. There has to be a middle-ground, though, where the two ideologies can meet. And again, the red-tape of the administration is the real problem - if there was a way to stream-line the process (ie., trying to make people care about their jobs enough to actually work and push the papers through in a timely manner), then things would be exponentially better. That's the problem with government jobs in any country, though. There is a ton of job security and not a lot of incentive to do a good job if you know you're going to get paid - and get paid well - either which way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Bonoman Posted June 10, 2005 Members Share Posted June 10, 2005 Originally posted by Mudbass Why Bonoman, you're not saying that a socialized system can't compete with a free market system are you? In a way, yeah, I guess I am. But at the same time, I'm not. I'm talking about more of a cross between the two. I don't know if that's possible, but it's the best solution I can come up with on only one cup of coffee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Thrash Jazz Posted June 10, 2005 Members Share Posted June 10, 2005 Originally posted by Thunderbroom Or could it be that with the improvements in technology, less time is required in the hospital atmosphere. With the litigious nature of the US, my guess is that folks aren't being sent home after major surgery if there's a good chance that something could happen to them while they're recovering at home. Is it about the Benjamins? Yes. No offense intended, but can you name me one technology that is used in U.S. hospitals that we don't have? Also, I'm no doctor, but technology or not, isn't there always a certain observation time required after surgery? All I know is, when I talked to her after it was done, from what she described she was NOT ready to be let out and she would have considered legal action if anything went wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Thunderbroom Posted June 10, 2005 Author Members Share Posted June 10, 2005 Originally posted by Thrash Jazz No offense intended, but can you name me one technology that is used in U.S. hospitals that we don't have? I'm not sure what you mean by this. I never meant to suggest that Canada does not have similar technology to the US. My point is is that in the US, folks get sent home pretty quickly from the hospital. I guess this is not the same in Canada. When there is no real reason to watch the bottom line, why should they be sent home "early". The suggestion has been made that this can't be a good idea to send folks home so early after a major surgery. I'm no doctor either, but with the litigious nature of the US you better bet that US doctors are not sending folks home if there is a good chance their condition could worsen. There is an incentive to get people out of the hospital early...money. I guess this maybe driven by the insurance companies as well. People may call this greed on the part of the insurance company. It could be that they trying to be efficient (as opposed to the government-run system in Canada). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Thunderbroom Posted June 10, 2005 Author Members Share Posted June 10, 2005 Originally posted by Bonoman It may, but doctors aren't equal to me and I already know that. They went to school for eight years whereas I only went for four. If doctors were equal to me then I would just self-diagnose. You definitely missed my point. I meant that doctors are equal with each other. By your admission, they are all paid the same and spend too much time on the golf course. What's their incentive to do more? That's my problem with socialist-type programs. It goes against human nature to improve your lot in life. If you start to offer incentives (your idea), then aren't you going against the very nature of socialism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members beam Posted June 10, 2005 Members Share Posted June 10, 2005 Originally posted by Thunderbroom If you start to offer incentives (your idea), then aren't you going against the very nature of socialism? Well, I don't think national health care is trying to embody the spirit of socialism. It is certainly socialist in it's inherent nature, but I don't think living up to a socialist standard is the point behind it. Socialism on the whole doesn't work well with humans, but it certainly wasn't totally worthless. There are some things that can be taken from it and modified to work better in our system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Thrash Jazz Posted June 10, 2005 Members Share Posted June 10, 2005 Originally posted by Thunderbroom I'm not sure what you mean by this. I never meant to suggest that Canada does not have similar technology to the US. My point is is that in the US, folks get sent home pretty quickly from the hospital. I guess this is not the same in Canada. When there is no real reason to watch the bottom line, why should they be sent home "early".The suggestion has been made that this can't be a good idea to send folks home so early after a major surgery. I'm no doctor either, but with the litigious nature of the US you better bet that US doctors are not sending folks home if there is a good chance their condition could worsen. There is an incentive to get people out of the hospital early...money. I guess this maybe driven by the insurance companies as well. People may call this greed on the part of the insurance company. It could be that they trying to be efficient (as opposed to the government-run system in Canada). Ah, my apologies Tbroom, I misunderstood. What I thought you meant that was since US hospitals had better technology, people didn't need to stay there as long. My mistake. I'm not saying it is necessarily greed on the part of the insurance company... but to me the line between efficiency and greed sometimes may get a little blurry, although it is impossible to really tell for sure. Personally I think I would prefer that a doctor have the final say in whether I should be in their care, not an insurance agent... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted June 10, 2005 Members Share Posted June 10, 2005 Originally posted by Bonoman I have ideas, but they're not always the best ones. Truth, incarnate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MistahMojoRyan Posted June 10, 2005 Members Share Posted June 10, 2005 Originally posted by Thunderbroom It's not in the best interest of the administration to improve things...they lose their power if the system is streamlined. It's all about self-preservation. This post really stands out for me; sums up the issue nicely. A monopoly will defend it's right to the power/control it has even if giving up some of that control would improve things. The federal gov't has the monopoly and won't let up easily....it's their biggest negotiation piece w/ the provinces (ie, transfer payments). Someone mentioned an incentive program. Doctors have an incentive program: The more people you push through your office the more $$$ you get ($50/head, I believe). That's why I make a 9:30 app't and don't get in until 12:00!!! ). It's not like they're going broke under this system. .02... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members james on bass Posted June 12, 2005 Members Share Posted June 12, 2005 Originally posted by Thunderbroom 3 weeks? Obviously not an emergency. Had been having back problems for a few months, they just wanted to see how bad the problem was. And to think, I'm still lugging around a 90lb cabinet to practice and gigs... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Joey Joe Joe Posted June 12, 2005 Members Share Posted June 12, 2005 I've never experienced any kind of long waiting lists or shortage of doctors, so I can't relate to what the article is talking about. Late last year I was getting some severe headaches so I called my doctor, he booked me for an appointment the next day. After seeing me, he booked a CAT Scan for me 2 business days later. At the hospital I had to wait 10 minutes before they called me into a brand new CAT Scan facility and then another 5 minutes while they scanned me. The next day I was at my doctor's office going over the results of the scan. Luckily there was nothing wrong with me, and from my experience, there is nothing wrong with our healthcare. Edit: And how much did all this cost me in hospital bills?? $0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.