Good Question

[JerrySeinfeld]

Grocery store analogy.

What would happen is that pretty soon, no cashier in there right mind will work for a non surcharge till. So they either get a till or move to another store where they can and pretty soon you run out of cashiers(since they have to go to school for 8-10 years) and there is a finite amount. Even if you get immigrants from SA or India.

Now the single mom making minimum wage has to buy 10% less groceries to feed her kids with.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're forgetting that hte single mom making minimum wage is getting a welfare cheque from the government, not to mention publicly funded foodstamps (health insurance) to help her buy groceries.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Which is still not enough for her to afford the surcharge all the cashiers are now charging (although I'd like to know how she can have a job and get a welfare cheque at the same time?)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What the heck? You guys kill me. You really do buy into all that hocus pocus don't you. oooooh the evils of private care. Never mind we're the only industrialized country left not accepting it. Even Sweden has private elements. I swear the Libs and their attack ads sure have you fooled.

You haven't provided any evidence for this. And the Supreme Court agrees with me: that there has been no empirical evidence brought forth that suggests the public system would be harmed in ANY WAY by a parallel private system.

[stubblejumper]

Has far as Europe goes, I have lived in the UK. For those that can't afford the £100+ per month for private insurance. Are forced to wait in longer lines then previous due to a shortage of dr., especially speacialist. There are even some specialaties that you can't access through public system.

Now the NHS is talking about paying private hosptials to take up the slack.

By the way £100 is about 12.5% of min wage earners gross salary.

[cybercoma]

Grocery store analogy.

What would happen is that pretty soon, no cashier in there right mind will work for a non surcharge till. So they either get a till or move to another store where they can and pretty soon you run out of cashiers(since they have to go to school for 8-10 years) and there is a finite amount. Even if you get immigrants from SA or India.

Now the single mom making minimum wage has to buy 10% less groceries to feed her kids with.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're forgetting that hte single mom making minimum wage is getting a welfare cheque from the government, not to mention publicly funded foodstamps (health insurance) to help her buy groceries.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Which is still not enough for her to afford the surcharge all the cashiers are now charging (although I'd like to know how she can have a job and get a welfare cheque at the same time?)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You don't understand how a mother making minimum wage gets welfare (not to mention housing) from the government?

With a two-tiered system she's not going to be left out in the rain any worse than what's happening now. First of all, any critical care is paid for through your public insurance plan...which amazingly enough still works in private clinics/hospitals. Secondly, if she has a job that pays her benefits (which is probably not the case with a minimum wage job...however, we've already noted any critical care her or her kids need is covered), the company is probably paying into a private insurance plan that covers things like prescriptions, eye exams, dental appointments, etc. That private insurance currently works with our public system and will work the same way in a private system.

Medical care TODAY is not entirely accessible to everyone. It's NOT free, in fact a lot of families pay a lot of money every year for things like having their teeth cleaned, eyes examined, buying prescriptions, etc.

[cybercoma]

Has far as Europe goes, I have lived in the UK. For those that can't afford the £100+ per month  for private insurance. Are forced to wait in longer lines then previous due to a shortage of dr., especially speacialist. There are even some specialaties that you can't access through public system.

Now the NHS is talking about paying private hosptials to take up the slack.

By the way £100 is about 12.5% of min wage earners gross salary.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh...you mean a shortage like we have today in our strictly public system?

[JerrySeinfeld]

Has far as Europe goes, I have lived in the UK. For those that can't afford the £100+ per month  for private insurance. Are forced to wait in longer lines then previous due to a shortage of dr., especially speacialist. There are even some specialaties that you can't access through public system.

Now the NHS is talking about paying private hosptials to take up the slack.

By the way £100 is about 12.5% of min wage earners gross salary.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well I live in Canada. And I pay the government thousands every month for a system that made me wait in the emergency room strapped to a spinal board waiting for xrays and ct scan on my head and neck. What a disgrace.

You have conveniently chosen an anecdotal example of the worst health care system in all of europe.

BTW I'm not sure about UK, but most employers pay their employees premiums in the USA.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Has far as Europe goes, I have lived in the UK. For those that can't afford the £100+ per month  for private insurance. Are forced to wait in longer lines then previous due to a shortage of dr., especially speacialist. There are even some specialaties that you can't access through public system.

Now the NHS is talking about paying private hosptials to take up the slack.

By the way £100 is about 12.5% of min wage earners gross salary.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well I live in Canada. And I pay the government thousands every month for a system that made me wait FOR OVER 6 HOURS in the emergency room strapped to a spinal board waiting for xrays and ct scan on my head and neck. What a disgrace.

You have conveniently chosen an anecdotal example of the worst health care system in all of europe.

BTW I'm not sure about UK, but most employers pay their employees premiums in the USA.

[Melanie_]

Cybercoma's response implies a resentment that this single mom would receive anything from the government to help her afford health care. It's the underlying attitude that she doesn't deserve help that I am concerned about - I have read several posts in this thread and others that blatantly state that if you can't afford private health care you are lazy, don't work hard enough, etc. The problem is our economy needs worker bees, who may not make a great deal but still perform necessary jobs - how much can the market bear to pay them enough to afford private care?

I know you have stated we will still require public care, but if that single mom's kid is in need of surgery, is it fair to tell that child that the service would be available quicker if her mother only worked harder, made more money?

If I'm misunderstanding you, Cybercoma, I apologize.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Cybercoma's response implies a resentment that this single mom would receive anything from the government to help her afford health care. It's the underlying attitude that she doesn't deserve help that I am concerned about - I have read several posts in this thread and others that blatantly state that if you can't afford private health care you are lazy, don't work hard enough, etc. The problem is our economy needs worker bees, who may not make a great deal but still perform necessary jobs - how much can the market bear to pay them enough to afford private care?

I know you have stated we will still require public care, but if that single mom's kid is in need of surgery, is it fair to tell that child that the service would be available quicker if her mother only worked harder, made more money?

If I'm misunderstanding you, Cybercoma, I apologize.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You miss the point. Private care is about IMPROVING the syetm. Why is it so hard for people to accept that. Look back at the original poll question. Those obsessed with "fairness" or "equality" are doing so at the expense of this child's health.

Who cares if someone else gets quicker treament in a private system? It ultimately makes the line shorter for the welfare mom's child. Ultimately isn't it more important to get this kid onto the operating table as soon as possible?

Yet the lefties would rather see the welfare mom's child suffer extensively in the name of "fairness".

[cybercoma]

Cybercoma's response implies a resentment that this single mom would receive anything from the government to help her afford health care. It's the underlying attitude that she doesn't deserve help that I am concerned about - I have read several posts in this thread and others that blatantly state that if you can't afford private health care you are lazy, don't work hard enough, etc. The problem is our economy needs worker bees, who may not make a great deal but still perform necessary jobs - how much can the market bear to pay them enough to afford private care?

I know you have stated we will still require public care, but if that single mom's kid is in need of surgery, is it fair to tell that child that the service would be available quicker if her mother only worked harder, made more money?

If I'm misunderstanding you, Cybercoma, I apologize.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're obviously putting words into my mouth.

What I did say is that the mother will have public coverage and private coverage should her employer provide it.

Really it's quite simple, if her employer doesn't offer her the money or benefits she needs, then find another job. If she doesn't have the necessary skills to get a better job then she needs to upgrade them and take responsibility for her life and the life of her children.

Your example is the problem with these kinds of debates. If the child needed lifesaving surgery, he or she would have it immediatly and paid for by the public health insurance. If it's surgery that could be put off and not cause the kid to die, then hell yeah it's fair to tell the kid that his mother doesn't make enough money or doesn't have enough benefits to get the care quicker. It's not going to kill him or her and chances are the child will learn a valuable lesson about taking responsibility for your life and making something better of yourself.

I have no resentment for the mother whatsoever. Your implication is that the public system is crippled in the sense that it takes too long for care to be administered and I agree with you. What I resent is the increasing amount of funding the health care system is getting while our services continue to decrease year after year. (Thanks a lot Dalton McGuinty...asshole)

It is not the government's inherent RIGHT to take my money and do with it as they please. I pay them for service and I expect that in return, it's just too bad I'm not getting that. That's what I resent.

My solution is to take it out of the hands of the government. The FULLY control the healthcare industry here and are obviously too irresponsible with our money to handle it. The government can collect our money and cover critical care, so people aren't dying in the streets because they have no mone, and the other most commonly used services that OHIP and other public insurance cover. Outside of that they need to get their grubby hands out of the pot.

[Melanie_]

If the child needed lifesaving surgery, he or she would have it immediatly and paid for by the public health insurance.  If it's surgery that could be put off and not cause the kid to die, then hell yeah it's fair to tell the kid that his mother doesn't make enough money or doesn't have enough benefits to get the care quicker.  It's not going to kill him or her and chances are the child will learn a valuable lesson about taking responsibility for your life and making something better of yourself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What a way to teach a kid a lesson! No surgery for you, your mom is an irresponsible parent and hasn't made something better of herself! Pretty harsh.

[cybercoma]

What a way to teach a kid a lesson! No surgery for you, your mom is an irresponsible parent and hasn't made something better of herself! Pretty harsh.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Who said anything about NO surgery? You said he had to wait a bit longer for a non-critical surgery. You're changing your analogy altogether.

[Argus]

Nope!!!!

Private care would eventually get "some" funding , which would take bucks from medicare. Eventually the funding would be fifty fifty and medicare would be left in the dust.

Your argument is silly. The government already pays private health care providers such as doctors and clinics. If I go to the clinic and see a doctor, then go downstairs and have an X-ray, then go upstairs to the lab (private) for blood tests, OHIP cuts cheques for all of them.

There are several ways to introduce private health care. For one, the same group (private doctors, labs and clinics) could introduce a surcharge on top of their medicare payment. This would allow them to bring in more equipment and serve people faster. The added cost to the system would be zero. Another way would be for these clinics to be wholly private. You would have to pay 100% of the bill yourself, or get yourself private medical insurance which would foot all or part of it. Possibly your present company or union insurance might be expanded to do that

In neither case does there seem to be any way that the government would be putting additonal money into a private system. The whole purpose of a private system, after all, is to be outside the rules and regulations and funding formula of the present system.

Look at education. Catholic full funding now which took funds from Public education so that it is no longer sustainible, yet Catholics are still allowed in public schools while we cannot attend theirs.

That is not true. You can go to Catholic school. The rules changed when they got full funding. And the Catholics tend to educate kids better than the public system does - and for less money.

[The Terrible Sweal]

For no reason should the public system ever be cancelled, let's make that perfectly clear right now. As a moral and responsible nation critical care for citizens should be provided for us.

Coming from you, this comment is supremely illogical. Why would you wat t bother preserving a semblance of the public system at the same time you obviously don't care whether it provides effective care? You give lip service to the public good while really supporting purely private benefit.

[Argus]

Has far as Europe goes, I have lived in the UK. For those that can't afford the £100+ per month  for private insurance. Are forced to wait in longer lines then previous due to a shortage of dr., especially speacialist. There are even some specialaties that you can't access through public system.

Now the NHS is talking about paying private hosptials to take up the slack.

By the way £100 is about 12.5% of min wage earners gross salary.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The UK is simply not a good comparison. Their health care system was destroyed by socialism in the sixties seventies and became something of a joke. Like all their other government and union agencies groups and departments it has a bloated, overpaid staff with high pay and benefits and lots of holidays, not to mention a horrifice, Stalinisque bureaucracy. Thatcher tried to reform it somewhat, but ultimately failed. The UKs system is probably worse even than the Americans, and certainly far worse than other European nations.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Well I live in Canada.  And I pay the government thousands every month for a system that made me wait in the emergency room strapped to a spinal board waiting for xrays and ct scan on my head and neck.  What a disgrace.

Thousands every month for health care? You're not credible.

You have conveniently chosen an anecdotal example of the worst health care system in all of europe.

Your aspersion there is disingenuous. He chose it from experience, not 'conveniently'. Why can't you debate fairly, I wonder? Ideology probably.

[cybercoma]

For no reason should the public system ever be cancelled, let's make that perfectly clear right now. As a moral and responsible nation critical care for citizens should be provided for us.

Coming from you, this comment is supremely illogical. Why would you wat t bother preserving a semblance of the public system at the same time you obviously don't care whether it provides effective care? You give lip service to the public good while really supporting purely private benefit.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're nothing more than a troll. If you can't comprehend the idea of a two-tier system, perhaps you should stop posting in healthcare threads.

[cybercoma]

Well I live in Canada.  And I pay the government thousands every month for a system that made me wait in the emergency room strapped to a spinal board waiting for xrays and ct scan on my head and neck.  What a disgrace.

Thousands every month for health care? You're not credible.

You have conveniently chosen an anecdotal example of the worst health care system in all of europe.

Your aspersion there is disingenuous. He chose it from experience, not 'conveniently'. Why can't you debate fairly, I wonder? Ideology probably.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Depending on what income bracket he's in he very well could be paying thousands in healthcare if he lives in Ontario. Dalton McGuinty implemented an additional tax for healthcare, that could cost some people in the province additional thousands of dollars per year on top of their provincial taxes that already go to healthcare on top of their federal taxes that go to healthcare.

Exaggerated maybe, but not so far of a stretch as to lack all credit.

The fair debate is that the UK has probably the worst healthcare system in all of Europe and has never been cited as an example of what our system should take from. Japan and France are two countries who have been cited. The UK system for all the reasons Argus posted is not.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Well I live in Canada.  And I pay the government thousands every month for a system that made me wait in the emergency room strapped to a spinal board waiting for xrays and ct scan on my head and neck.  What a disgrace.

Thousands every month for health care? You're not credible.

You have conveniently chosen an anecdotal example of the worst health care system in all of europe.

Your aspersion there is disingenuous. He chose it from experience, not 'conveniently'. Why can't you debate fairly, I wonder? Ideology probably.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Depending on what income bracket he's in he very well could be paying thousands in healthcare if he lives in Ontario. Dalton McGuinty implemented an additional tax for healthcare, that could cost some people in the province additional thousands of dollars per year on top of their provincial taxes that already go to healthcare on top of their federal taxes that go to healthcare.

He said thousands per month.

[kimmy]

Oh yah. But a poll based on the idea that everybody gets treated like billionaires is super-realistic, right?

Have you been drinkingn kimmy?

Of course. I was completely loaded all weekend. What of it?

Are you the only guy allowed to post hypotheticals around here? 

No. Am I the only person not allowed to comment on someone's question?

The guy who loves silly hypotheticals (what if Batman fought Spiderman; what if everybody got billionaire treatment from our health system...) complaining that Jerry's hypothetical isn't realistic enough seems kind of ironic. That's all I'm saying.

-k

[The Terrible Sweal]

The guy who loves silly hypotheticals (what if Batman fought Spiderman; what if everybody got billionaire treatment from our health system...)

EXCUSEME! You came up with the Spderman/ Batman thing.

Cheap strawmanning tactics are beneath you, kimmy. Or so I thought.

[kimmy]

Yes, I came up with the Batman/Spiderman silly hypothetical, but you were willing to discuss it. And you wanted to discuss your own equally silly hypothetical. I mean, I thought you liked silly hypotheticals. How is Jerry's any worse than either of those two?

-k

[JerrySeinfeld]

Well I live in Canada.  And I pay the government thousands every month for a system that made me wait in the emergency room strapped to a spinal board waiting for xrays and ct scan on my head and neck.  What a disgrace.

Thousands every month for health care? You're not credible.

You have conveniently chosen an anecdotal example of the worst health care system in all of europe.

Your aspersion there is disingenuous. He chose it from experience, not 'conveniently'. Why can't you debate fairly, I wonder? Ideology probably.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I pay thousands every month in taxes retard.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Well I live in Canada.  And I pay the government thousands every month for a system that made me wait in the emergency room strapped to a spinal board waiting for xrays and ct scan on my head and neck.  What a disgrace.

Thousands every month for health care? You're not credible.

You have conveniently chosen an anecdotal example of the worst health care system in all of europe.

Your aspersion there is disingenuous. He chose it from experience, not 'conveniently'. Why can't you debate fairly, I wonder? Ideology probably.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I pay thousands every month in taxes retard.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What's with the insults here. I want an apology.

You SAID you paid for health care. NOW you say you meant taxes. Am I supposed to think you mean what you say, or am I supposed to make up for myself what you mean? Or maybe your viciousness comes from being caught on your sleazy spin?

[The Terrible Sweal]

Yes, I came up with the Batman/Spiderman silly hypothetical, but you were willing to discuss it.

Well shame on me. I guess maybe it would be better for me to be less willing to discuss stuff with you.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Well I live in Canada.  And I pay the government thousands every month for a system that made me wait in the emergency room strapped to a spinal board waiting for xrays and ct scan on my head and neck.  What a disgrace.

Thousands every month for health care? You're not credible.

You have conveniently chosen an anecdotal example of the worst health care system in all of europe.

Your aspersion there is disingenuous. He chose it from experience, not 'conveniently'. Why can't you debate fairly, I wonder? Ideology probably.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I pay thousands every month in taxes retard.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What's with the insults here. I want an apology.

You SAID you paid for health care. NOW you say you meant taxes. Am I supposed to think you mean what you say, or am I supposed to make up for myself what you mean? Or maybe your viciousness comes from being caught on your sleazy spin?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry.

In this country we pay close to half of our income to our government. HALF!!!

For some of us this means several thousand dollars EVERY MONTH. We are told by our government that this is well worth it because we have the best health care system in the world.

My point is this: My government assures me that our system is the best and it justifies the thousands I pay in taxes every month, yet I get in a serious car accident and spend over 6 hours strapped to a spinal board waiting for treatment in the local hospital ER (YES I live in a big city).

To me that is an unacceptible situation for a potentially very serious injury.

Personally I'd rather have lower taxes, have a market healthcare system which would mean more supply and pay for my own health insurance to the tune of a couple of hundred dollars a month (at most) and get into the ER right away.

Cheers.