Oprah 2020

[ValleyGal]

Sometimes the so-called universal health care isn't as good as it seems from afar. It's nice to know that if you need major treatment you won't get a horrendous bill at the end of it. But it's also nice to know that if you need care you'll get it before you die of the condition, which isn't always the case under universal health care systems. An elderly couple I knew in the UK had to basically empty their savings account when he needed major heart surgery. He could get it free of charge on the NHS but the estimated waiting time was six months. Without the treatment it was far from certain he'd live six months, so they paid for him to have it done privately. The supposedly universal healthcare system failed them when they needed it the most, and it cost them tens of thousands.

That is very sad. I'm sure we get our fair share of deaths while patients wait for their surgeries, but for a large part, Canada (well, BC at least) provides care based on triage, so those more urgent needs are met more quickly. Of course as you are waiting for surgery, your own needs become more urgent so you have to be pretty sick to access care. And for those who have money, they can access care whenever they want, wherever they want. Our system isn't perfect, and the more the aging population needs healthcare, the less perfect it will be, since there are fewer citizens paying taxes to cover healthcare and other social programs.

[Albion]

It seems as though the average person thinks that universal health care, or even Obamacare, is supposed to make health care affordable for everyone. What it actually is doing is insuring the poor at the expense of everyone else; and when the whole world is invited here to take advantage of that policy, not having contributed much if anything into the system, of course the cost will be high for everyone else. No, you will not be able to keep your own doctor or be treated by a surgeon or specialist whenever you need one.

[Albion]

Spoken like a true Republican. Fact is that many who did not have insurance now do and by the way we are the only industrial nation that doesnt have some form of universal health care. 11 million people might disagree with you, the number that the CBO estimates would lose coverage if it is done away with

Shall we reply with a "Spoken like a true Socialist?? " Let's cut that sort of stuff out.

[ValleyGal]

It seems as though the average person thinks that universal health care, or even Obamacare, is supposed to make health care affordable for everyone. What it actually is doing is insuring the poor at the expense of everyone else; and when the whole world is invited here to take advantage of that policy, not having contributed much if anything into the system, of course the cost will be high for everyone else. No, you will not be able to keep your own doctor or be treated by a surgeon or specialist whenever you need one.

This is true for the American system. When it was first talked about, I thought it was going to be similar to the Canadian system, using funds from federal and provincial taxes, and giving oversight to those in the medical profession - iow, doctors make the decisions as to what is medically required to diagnose and treat patients. But... that didn't happen. I learned that the full medical cost for the poor is actually paid for by those who are not, and that oversight is still in the hands of the insurance companies. That does not work, and is an unfair system.

I have socialist leanings. Jesus said to give to the poor, feed the hungry, don't neglect those who are imprisoned, he healed those who were sick, etc. Iow, take care of those who are marginalized in society. Since we live in such an individualistic and egocentric society, those who are marginalized were suffering and needed someone to step up and take care of them. The general public does not contribute enough to the church, so imo, the government had to step up to the job and use taxes to do it.

So I don't mind if Oprah wants to help out a few people who are in need, but I do question her motives. Everyone sees her as generous, but her giving is a mere token (likely for tax write off, so giving is now motivated by saving money), when it could be much more than that.

[Albion]

This is true for the American system. When it was first talked about, I thought it was going to be similar to the Canadian system, using funds from federal and provincial taxes, and giving oversight to those in the medical profession - iow, doctors make the decisions as to what is medically required to diagnose and treat patients. But... that didn't happen. I learned that the full medical cost for the poor is actually paid for by those who are not, and that oversight is still in the hands of the insurance companies. That does not work, and is an unfair system.

I have socialist leanings.

Yes, well, that's the point here, isn't it? The USA resists going the way of Socialism...because it doesn't work in addition to being immoral. Canadians talk about their health system as though it is the ultimate, but it actually isn't working and is no more sustainable than the British model that is on the verge of collapse with the authorities saying, outright, that they simply will not take care of tens of thousands of people that they are supposed to be insuring.

[ValleyGal]

Well, Canada's system has worked for us for what? Fifty years? It has sustained us for a long time, and efforts are being made to figure out how to continue sustaining it in the future. Yes, there will be changes. No, it does not work for everyone. But I will say this. It is preferable to the American system which doesn't work for anyone.

There has to be a balance in government, and it is like walking a tightrope. They have to be liberal enough to give everyone the same rights and freedoms (this includes recognizing and addressing multicultural issues as well as other forms of marginalization such as poverty), they must be conservative enough to meet the political needs of everything from people to infrastructure, and they must be socialist enough to support those who truly need support. They need to balance public demand with research. All of this is difficult to do, especially when dealing with capitalism, individualistic society, and political/religious radicals. I'd never want to be a politician, that's for sure, and I think the country would be crazy to vote in Oprah.

I'm proud to be a Canuck! Go Canucks! lol

[Albion]

Well, Canada's system has worked for us for what? Fifty years?

That all depends on what we define as works, doesn't it? If the system worked as well as you want us to think, there would not be people having to go to other countries to get medical help that would be readily available in the USA. And this has been going on for most of the fifty years you speak of.

I'm proud to be a Canuck! Go Canucks! lol

I know. That's why you felt you had to speak well of the Canadian health care system.

[Josiah]

This is true for the American system. When it was first talked about, I thought it was going to be similar to the Canadian system, using funds from federal and provincial taxes, and giving oversight to those in the medical profession - iow, doctors make the decisions as to what is medically required to diagnose and treat patients. But... that didn't happen. I learned that the full medical cost for the poor is actually paid for by those who are not, and that oversight is still in the hands of the insurance companies. That does not work, and is an unfair system.

I have socialist leanings. Jesus said to give to the poor, feed the hungry, don't neglect those who are imprisoned, he healed those who were sick, etc. Iow, take care of those who are marginalized in society. Since we live in such an individualistic and egocentric society, those who are marginalized were suffering and needed someone to step up and take care of them. The general public does not contribute enough to the church, so imo, the government had to step up to the job and use taxes to do it.

So I don't mind if Oprah wants to help out a few people who are in need, but I do question her motives. Everyone sees her as generous, but her giving is a mere token (likely for tax write off, so giving is now motivated by saving money), when it could be much more than that.

IMO, in the USA, the essential difference is this....


CONSERVATISM:

+ Encourage all to be successful, productive, achieving "The American Dream" Reward productivity and responsibility.

+ Those who NEED help should receive such..... but Bill Gates doesn't need government supplied health care or taxpayer subsidies for his fleet of Testas; health subsides for example should be only for those who genuinely NEED it, not socialize care that equally helps Bill Gates, Donald Trump, etc. Focus of help should be on those who need it, not on "universal rights" regardless of need.

+ "Teach a man to fish and you've fed him for life" The goal should be to give those in need a hand up, not a hand out. Government should liberate, not make people dependent on it.

+ People should largely govern their own lives (people are smart enough to do that); "government that governs least governs best," government is a necessary evil to be kept carefully in check. Government needs to stay out of people's way, as much as possible.



LIBERALISM:

+ Take from the responsible, the successful, the productive.... and give to those who aren't, as a way of punishing success and maintaining failure.

+ Deal with the poor and needy by giving them just enough handouts so they can stay poor and needy (and hopefully look to government as their daddy, on whom they depend)

+ Give them a fish each day.

+ People are dumb and incapable; left on their own they will do stupid things. People NEED the government, government needs to keep people in check. Government alone is smart and capable. Bigger government is always better government. Government must wage war against the greed and selfishness and stupidity of its citizens.


They are very different philosophies. And it's not easy to find common ground and policies.



- Josiah

[Imalive]

Its unchristian and antisocial to let someone die cause they're too poor. Rich man and Lazarus.
Not that our system is so fantastic. Ppl can now get pills to kill themselves and you pay for someone elses abortion and ppl get pumped full of drugs and get antichristian psychological help for free.

[tango]

This is true for the American system. When it was first talked about, I thought it was going to be similar to the Canadian system, using funds from federal and provincial taxes, and giving oversight to those in the medical profession - iow, doctors make the decisions as to what is medically required to diagnose and treat patients. But... that didn't happen. I learned that the full medical cost for the poor is actually paid for by those who are not, and that oversight is still in the hands of the insurance companies. That does not work, and is an unfair system.

I have socialist leanings. Jesus said to give to the poor, feed the hungry, don't neglect those who are imprisoned, he healed those who were sick, etc. Iow, take care of those who are marginalized in society. Since we live in such an individualistic and egocentric society, those who are marginalized were suffering and needed someone to step up and take care of them. The general public does not contribute enough to the church, so imo, the government had to step up to the job and use taxes to do it.

So I don't mind if Oprah wants to help out a few people who are in need, but I do question her motives. Everyone sees her as generous, but her giving is a mere token (likely for tax write off, so giving is now motivated by saving money), when it could be much more than that.

I think the key thing is that the universal healthcare system as practised in the UK is badly broken as it is ripe for abuse and riddled with waste and inefficiency. The healthcare system in the U is badly broken and Obamacare fixed it for some while making it far worse for others.

What would seem to make sense, if it could be defined and enforced (which is a huge if), would be some kind of system that would treat life threatening illnesses courtesy of a centrally funded insurance scheme while providing much more choice for things that were essentially elective or low-level. If you want to see the doctor because you've got a headache, be ready to pay their bill. If the headache turns out to be brain cancer you don't have to worry about finding deductibles and copayments and all that other ugly stuff.

Where such a scheme is likely to break is down to the definition of what is treated centrally and what is not. Before long the chances are someone is going to want IVF, or gender realignment, or cosmetic surgery, claiming that their quality of life is ruined by not having whatever treatment they seek.

To be honest I think what the US system needs most of all is a sensible discussion of just what insurance actually means, and why it's so expensive to get such basic medical treatment. Insurance is clearly a part of the problem, as well as potentially a part of the solution.