Reply With Quote
Yeah, you want technocrats to monitor our diet and withhold health benefits to get us to comply with their diktats. Couldn't be clearer.
Isn't that what the Canadian system does? ration care to those problems so they die sooner?
Yeah, you want technocrats to monitor our diet and withhold health benefits to get us to comply with their diktats. Couldn't be clearer.
If I have to pay for others, then yes!
this....coming from a guy that admitted he was raised on welfare.
I don't go overboard or out of my way to eat healthy. I just limit some types of food. I eat very little of something that is sweetened with High Fructose Corn Syrup for example. That means I rarely have a soda. Maybe two or three times a month. I don't eat fried foods very often, except fried zucchini. I use real Butter and drink whole milk. I buy real Maple Syrup, rather than the fake stuff. I cook my eggs and pancakes with olive oil. I don't buy red meat for at home, but sometimes eat a burger, and normally order steak at a restaurant. The meats I do bring home are salmon, tuna, turkey, and chicken. I eat allot of eggs, cheese, vegetables, and fruits. I buy 100% juice, like Simply Orange and the V-8 Fusions. I buy my vegetables from the growers market about 1 mile from where I live.
Well, to me, that is going overboard. I still eat meat, drink whole milk, eat fried foods, but I do use PAM when I cook eggs in non-stick pan, I do eat more chicken...fried that is..but I bake it or grill it too.
But I do walk everyday.
I eat real food for real guys.
Oh, and I'm drinking a nice cold root beer right now.
LOL... I love steak and potatoes, I just don't buy it that often. I don't believe it a bad meat, some say red meats not good for you, and I really don't know or care. I just find fish and poultry as satisfying and leaner. I have a craving for beef on occasion, so I get a burger sometimes. I love root beer as well, I just drink little of it. I drink a whole lot more real beer, and I mean real beer. Not that Schludwiller pisswater stuff.
What I cannot and do not do is always buy fried foods, chips, soda's etc.
I'm out of my Inversion IPA. I'll be gone a few minutes as I go to the store.
No, I hear ya. We do limit chips and soda as we are trying to teach our kids better eating habits. I only buy lean meat and we do eat more chicken. I'm more into living an active lifestyle and we do use Olive oil.
Obama is ridiculous doing this. There is no argument unless you are a ing bag idiot. He is taking money from successful companies. Taking from the rich and giving it to the poor. He punishes people for being successful. Seriously there is no debate. I feel sorry for you who think Obama should do this.
Oh please. That whole "punishing" people for being successful is pure BS. I sure as wouldn't be complaining and it depends on what you consider successful. I consider many, many people successful who aren't living high on the hog and making tons of money. More power to those who do as I work to make tons of money myself.
Damn whiners.
HaHa. That would only create more problems. Think about how much the tobacco industry puts in to our economy. How may people work in the tobacco industry. You are joking. My bad.
That makes you a bag idiot.
I agree with you. I don't think he should do it. However, if we get socialized health care, then I want to force healthy habits in people. At least those who are on socialized programs.
It's the people's choice here.
I say, if you want universal health care, expect universal self-health regulations!
Nope, no "however", that just makes you a bag not a idiot.
Having lived in a country with universal healthcare, I can absolutely say that your claim is complete and utter bull .
Thank you.
I see it different and I reserve the right to whine about how much I already pay in taxes. We don't need things like this that will cost more yet.
This nation does punish success, and rewards the lazy asses. I say that because we have redistribution of wealth and we don't make sure people on social systems are doing anything to better themselves.
LOL... You still pissed at me for being right in that other thread?
What thread?
No, I was responding to your post in this thread.
Then that makes two of us.
I know, but there are so many different factors I bet. Regulations and liability protections are major costs here in the USA. Then those who pay end up paying extra to help cover the losses from those who cannot pay as well. How did they deal with such things where you're from.
Isn't it Argentina? I forget...
I see it differently and reserve the right to be a bag idiot. I've got friends who are very successful financially and live in big homes, take great vacations, send their kids to great colleges and you know what? They don't complain near as much as other successful people do and they give to the less fortunate lazy asses all the time.
I'm just saying that some are not thankful for what they have but whine more about what they don't.
So you smoke since the tobacco industry puts in the economy.
My personal experience is from Argentina. And basically everyone has access to public health. A good amount of hospitals are funded and run by the government. Whenever you have an emergency or you need to go see a doctor, you can walk right in there, and they'll treat you, and you won't ever receive a bill at home for that. Now, the quality of care is rather low in those places. But for common illnesses it's really no different than any other place (ie: a broken leg, flu, a concussion). There are also private hospitals that you can go to, and pay if you want. Those normally provide better quality of care. Some of those also offer an insurance type of package that you can pay monthly (about U$S 50/month) that allows you to have access to the totality of their services.
You can also go visit a private doctor's practice, and pay off your pocket. They're normally fairly priced, depending on the specialty.
There are various key things at work here:
1) Healthcare price is rather low because there's a tort limit for things such as malpractice, which makes liability insurance basically extinct (that right there would lower half the cost of running a practice in the US). Instead, there are other methods in place: A doctor found with repeated offenses can be stripped of his license to practice.
2) If you're a pharma and want to sell your brand new medicine in the country, you're agreeing to waive whatever patent claims you have in said medicine for a period of 10 years. If a local lab wants to produce a generic of your drug during that period, they're perfectly allowed to do so.
3) Since the cost of both care and medicine is reduced dramatically, and there's a public net to fall back to, the whole insurance industry there is rather small. They sure as don't control prices like they do over here.
I also have a first hand account from my sister that lived in Canada for many years. Over there it's a different system altogether. It's closer to the US system, but most of the cost is funded by high taxes.
Then again, they don't require you to do anything special in Canada either. You can be smoking, drinking, etc and still have access to care.
I have been consistent in past posts of saying we need to do real tort reform before before considering socializing medicine. I will never accept socialized medicine without trying to fix the current free market system first.
That probably limits many types of medications available. Do you think it's right for a corporation to spend millions, or billion in research and development, just to have someone else make free profit on their work?
We could have a similar cost reduction here if regulations were relaxed and if we had serious tort reform.
Funny thing is, if they socialize medicine here, the governments not going to get sued! The people will in essence lose the more rights to sue in a socialized system than with serious tort reform!
I agree. The problem is that applying tort reform in this country could be a major hurdle, considering you're basically tampering with 'free market' and lawyers.
It doesn't really limit availability. If a medicine is not cost-effective to be produced in the local market, then it can be imported (and you end up paying whatever money you already pay). Or if the medicine is popular enough, then a local lab will produce it and price it accordingly. The end result is you normally end up paying almost cost for a drug.
As far as companies recouping their investment, yes, this system does screw them over. But I also don't like the current patent system either, where greed rules over whatever human needs. I think just like tort reform above, there needs to be a balance. My suggestion would be a system where you allow the company to recoup it's costs plus a hard cap on the profits they can make (just like the hard cap you would place on tort reform). Say, a 15%. In a way, that's somewhat how the current system works if you're insured. An insurance company will only pay a fraction of what it would cost you out of pocket. The problem is that if you're not insured, you can't afford to pay those exorbitant prices (And I've been in that boat).
Not really. I don't envision the public system to be like that here. I think it would basically be an expansion of Medicare basically for everybody. That still reserves you the right to sue the doctor if needed be.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions