Canadian Health Care vs American

[Ironslave]

I highly doubt that IS. My dad's Leukemia meds, Gleevec, one of the dozen or so pills he takes everyday would run him about $9000/month. I challenge you to find anyone besides multi-millionaire that can afford $9000/month on pills to live. I get that there was a lot of R&D that went into these pills, but $9000 a month! Come on.

The pharmaceutical industry is a prime example of what can happen if the market is left to its own devices. I am not saying that 100% socialism is a good thing at all. But I am saying that the government keeping its hands out of industry doesn't always make things better.

Sharp, Samsung and LG were busted a few months ago on price fixing of their LCD panels. What is to stop healthcare providers from doing the same?

I am not saying Canada has the best system in the world, I am saying Public health care is better for the citizens overall.

What has happened to laser eye surgery prices over the years?

There's a simple reason the price for the treatment costs $9,000 per month, that is what the price is fixed upon! you are correct, nobody paying out of pocket could afford $9,000 per month, but when the government is being billed with taxpayer money, sure, that can be charged. If nobody pays the price of their medication, they must drop the cost to where they maximize profit, supply and demand 101.

 

[Tech]

Sharp, Samsung and LG were busted a few months ago on price fixing of their LCD panels. What is to stop healthcare providers from doing the same?

well, then it's a good thing there are at least 20 other brands of flat-screen tvs on the market.

I just bought a Vizio.

 

[Ryeland]

What has happened to laser eye surgery prices over the years?

There's a simple reason the price for the treatment costs $9,000 per month, that is what the price is fixed upon! you are correct, nobody paying out of pocket could afford $9,000 per month, but when the government is being billed with taxpayer money, sure, that can be charged. If nobody pays the price of their medication, they must drop the cost to where they maximize profit, supply and demand 101.

How many aids sufferers can afford the retrovirals magic johnson is on? Its not supply and demand, when you make a patented drug for a terminal disease you have a captive market. People have to pay $9000 per month or they watch their health deteriorate.

Look, a free market doesn't always do what's best. Healthcare is not like the automotive market or the stock market. It is a care industry. I used to work in a retirement home. Originally it was privately owned by a great family, the quality of care was great and it was awesome to work there. Then the family wanted to retire and sold it to a corporation. Immediately after the corporation took it over cuts took place. Food quality went down the shitter, support staff was cut by about 40% on each shift. The quality of care declined noticeably while prices went up! And because all these people needed care they had nowhere else to go (since the company was buying up homes all over the country!). When you have an essential service it should not be trusted to private corporations, monopolies develop.

You have brought up some good points, but IMO (just my opinion) a fully privatized healthcare system is too risky, the danger is so great. Maybe my view of the government is different than everyone else's. I have met with my representatives, i have been involved in the government. It is a group of people, not monsters, not aliens (well some of them may be) who are generally out to do well. The government is not some far off entity to be feared, the government is people.

 

[Ryeland]

What has happened to laser eye surgery prices over the years?

True, but laser eye surgery is not an essential service. You can't force someone to have it by telling them they will die without it.

 

[Bulkboy]

How many aids sufferers can afford the retrovirals magic johnson is on? Its not supply and demand, when you make a patented drug for a terminal disease you have a captive market. People have to pay $9000 per month or they watch their health deteriorate.

Look, a free market doesn't always do what's best. Healthcare is not like the automotive market or the stock market. It is a care industry. I used to work in a retirement home. Originally it was privately owned by a great family, the quality of care was great and it was awesome to work there. Then the family wanted to retire and sold it to a corporation. Immediately after the corporation took it over cuts took place. Food quality went down the shitter, support staff was cut by about 40% on each shift. The quality of care declined noticeably while prices went up! And because all these people needed care they had nowhere else to go (since the company was buying up homes all over the country!). When you have an essential service it should not be trusted to private corporations, monopolies develop.

You have brought up some good points, but IMO (just my opinion) a fully privatized healthcare system is too risky, the danger is so great. Maybe my view of the government is different than everyone else's. I have met with my representatives, i have been involved in the government. It is a group of people, not monsters, not aliens (well some of them may be) who are generally out to do well. The government is not some far off entity to be feared, the government is people.

repped!

seriously awesome post bro

 

[Zigurd]

ITT: I am right, you are wrong.

 

[tim290280]

Tim, Canada has a similar population density to Austrailia (Canada: 3.2/km^2, Austrailia: 2.83/km^2) so there is no reason the Canadian system couldn't work in Austrailia. I believe Canada also shares the same time of population distribution with Austrailia as well (most people in urban centers, with the remainder widely spread).

I know there are similarities between Canada and Australia. But the difference between population density is actually quite marked. When you consider we have 7,617,930 SQ KM and Canada has 9,093,507 SQ KM (I was mistaken previously, I thought it was the other way around) you can see that difference becomes very large. Especially when you approach the urban density issue.

But I agree that the Candian system could work in Australia, and to a large extent our systems are fairly similar anyway.

 

[Ironslave]

True, but laser eye surgery is not an essential service. You can't force someone to have it by telling them they will die without it.

Why does it matter? It's a prime example of various companies competing with each other, and thus they are forced to innovate, improve their service, and do so at the lowest price they can. If someone has a cancer, the same thing would occur in looking for a surgeon, or for therapy.

How many aids sufferers can afford the retrovirals magic johnson is on? Its not supply and demand, when you make a patented drug for a terminal disease you have a captive market. People have to pay $9000 per month or they watch their health deteriorate.

Patents are another prime example of what government control does, it allows a monopoly and thus price fixing at a high cost. Look at the costs of many 'generic' pharmaceuticals, or even for a bodybuilding example, the price of 'Havoc' clones! Companies see that there is a potential to profit from a product, so they provide a competing product, and the prices keep dropping.

[quoite]I used to work in a retirement home. Originally it was privately owned by a great family, the quality of care was great and it was awesome to work there.[/quote]

Prime example of the private sector doing an awesome job.

Then the family wanted to retire and sold it to a corporation. Immediately after the corporation took it over cuts took place. Food quality went down the shitter, support staff was cut by about 40% on each shift. The quality of care declined noticeably while prices went up! And because all these people needed care they had nowhere else to go (since the company was buying up homes all over the country!). When you have an essential service it should not be trusted to private corporations, monopolies develop.

So what do you think would happen if the government then took over from this corporation? Things would be run worse, the food they provided would be completely cookie cutter junk, and the quality of care would have plummeted even more, as would the prices (though, the taxpayers would have to foot the bill for this).

Government is the ultimate monopoly, the whole purpose of the private sector revolves around monopolies not developing as it allows for competition. Government doesn't allow for competition, in prices, or services in health care (it is literally illegal for physicians to operate a private care clinic, and it is also illegal for them to charge less for procedures. They will be criminally prosecuted if they do. )

If it made sense, another company/family could open a care business and operate it better and cheaper. Look at supermarkets, they provide a pretty essential service (food), but the various chains have to compete which keeps food quality high, prices low.

You have brought up some good points, but IMO (just my opinion) a fully privatized healthcare system is too risky, the danger is so great. Maybe my view of the government is different than everyone else's. I have met with my representatives, i have been involved in the government. It is a group of people, not monsters, not aliens (well some of them may be) who are generally out to do well. The government is not some far off entity to be feared, the government is people.

I'm personally in favor of a two tiered system. If those that want government subsidized care, fine, that's their choice. However, if someone doesn't want this, why should they be forced to? Personally, I wouldn't, as it angers me to no end every time I see a family of 5 with BMI's over 40 eating McDonald's, and I know I have to pay their health care bills. I also eat healthy, and exercise (though not like I used to, lol), and thus, I'm not a drain on the health care system. It is of advantage to me to make good lifestyle choices, to try and prevent the consequences of poor ones.

Subsidized care essentially leads into the incentive being eliminated to be healthy, and prudent in using the care system only when needed. I've literally seen an emergency room with someone who lost a finger in a power saw accident, while in the same room there was someone with a sprained ankle.

Government is not monsters per say. I truly think that they usually have the best intention in their actions, but they are costly, inefficient, and effective, as it is not their ass on the line. If a private family runs a service and it fails, they lose their life savings... if the government does so and it fails, they just increase taxes and make people pay for it.

Finally, the underlying concept with all of this, is freedom in a free society. What kind of free society legally prosecutes doctors who wish to treat people out of pocket for a cheaper price? If I've worked hard all my life and managed my money effectively, and I wish to have a physical with CT scans of my head, ultrasounds of my kidneys, ECG's of my heart, which I will pay for myself, why should the government tell me I can't?

 

[Ryeland]

Finally, the underlying concept with all of this, is freedom in a free society. What kind of free society legally prosecutes doctors who wish to treat people out of pocket for a cheaper price? If I've worked hard all my life and managed my money effectively, and I wish to have a physical with CT scans of my head, ultrasounds of my kidneys, ECG's of my heart, which I will pay for myself, why should the government tell me I can't?

This the essence of the argument. Kudos for properly stating it!

Freedom isn't the only tenet we hold high. I spoke earlier of the social differences between Canada and the US, in fact the difference in the Canadian view of Equality and that of Americans is very pronounced.

Canada is more of a collectivist society. There are all mutual ends we work towards. It is the view of Canadians in general that people are inter-reliant (i can site survey sources if you would like).

The view of the Canadian healthcare system is that all people deserve equal access to healthcare regardless of income. This is something I support.

The "Free Market" does not ensure that wealth is distributed as it deserves. How many times have we heard of CEO's driving companies into the ground while lining their pockets? Did they lose their life savings? Wealth should not be the defining factor to get healthcare.

It all depends on how you define freedom and equality (they are not fixed terms).

Like I said many of your arguments make sense. The private sector is not always responsible of effective. Complete faith in a free market is just as silly as complete faith in a government run monopoly.

It is my view that everyone deserves equal access to healthcare. I am willing to pay to help people out who need it, even if that means I am paying for lifetime smokers who almost intentionally ruined their health or over eaters. Thats what this comes down to. I have doubts that a private company would have the best interest of patients at heart (but that retirement home i work at was a pleasant counterpoint).

There are a million and one arguments for each side, i guess it just comes down to opinion and what country best shares your view of freedom and equality

 

[lifterdead]

Here's my story, you can read into it anyway you want.

Several years ago, my wife tells me one Friday morning she has a tooth ache. By the end of the day it became extremely painful. So we called the public health center to get contact information for the local dentist. We called the number received, and, as expected, he was closed for the day. His answering machine explained his office was closed for the weekend and we could call the emergency dentist number. As my wife was in pretty severe pain, we called the emergency number. The number itself led us to recorded message indicating there was no service and we should take her to the local hospital.

By now it's getting pretty late. We take a cab to the hospital and arrive at 10 pm. The emergency room informs us they are still treating patients from earlier in the day, and there will be a 6-7 hour wait to see a doctor. The prospect of sitting in an emergency room all night long just to see a doctor who may not be able to diagnose and treat a dental issue while my wife is in tears is too much for me. I take off and go buy some STRONG painkillers to hold her over the night.

The next day we go back to the hospital and actually get to see a doctor. We set up an appointment for the next Monday and get some crappy painkillers. Somehow she makes it through the weekend.

On Monday she goes in to see a dentist finally and has a tooth removed and a temp cap put in. She is told she may need to get a root canal eventually.

The next day, she is unable to close her jaw because of pain. We run through the circus again, get another appointment a week later. She gets the cap removed, gets a root canal, and then a new cap. The docs prescribe her new pain meds, which she promptly has a reaction against. Because the dental office didn't check the records given from the medical office, she is now covered in a rash.

All in all, it took about a month for her to get a simple dead root removed. In the process she had a tooth removed, a cap put on, the cap removed, a root canal, a new cap put back in, and an allergic reaction to medication because of a clerical error.



I really wish I could've just paid a private practice to do it right the day it started.

(FYI, this was in Prince George, B.C.)

 

[Ironslave]

Freedom isn't the only tenet we hold high. I spoke earlier of the social differences between Canada and the US, in fact the difference in the Canadian view of Equality and that of Americans is very pronounced.

Canada is more of a collectivist society. There are all mutual ends we work towards. It is the view of Canadians in general that people are inter-reliant (i can site survey sources if you would like).

No need, I agree with you in this regard. I hate Canada, lol.

The view of the Canadian healthcare system is that all people deserve equal access to healthcare regardless of income. This is something I support.

Which is well within your right, but the problem is that it infringes on my rights as I don't support this. I view it as inefficient, ineffective, and I believe society would be better off without it.

The "Free Market" does not ensure that wealth is distributed as it deserves.

How does it not? The government being able to involuntarily distribute wealth through force is more "deserving" than a voluntarily exchange of services and goods?

How many times have we heard of CEO's driving companies into the ground while lining their pockets? Did they lose their life savings?

Yes, look at Bernie Maddoff today, he got 150 years in prison (I'm not sure what else he got, I didn't follow the case). The only CEO's I know of who actually profited from running their companies into the ground were the ones like at AIG, who were able to take tax payer money and spend it at luxurious resorts.

Wealth should not be the defining factor to get healthcare.

Healthcare would be cheaper and affordable if the government got out of the way, history has shown this.

Like I said many of your arguments make sense. The private sector is not always responsible of effective. Complete faith in a free market is just as silly as complete faith in a government run monopoly.

It's not perfect, but it provides more effective results,

It is my view that everyone deserves equal access to healthcare. I am willing to pay to help people out who need it, even if that means I am paying for lifetime smokers who almost intentionally ruined their health or over eaters. Thats what this comes down to.

Great to hear, why can't this be done voluntarily on a charity basis? I would (and have) personally contribute to meaningful healthcare causes I support, my family and I organized a charity sporting event a few years ago which bought an insulin pump for a diabetic girl. I would rather donate money for this, rather than someone with a BMI of 40.

I have doubts that a private company would have the best interest of patients at heart (but that retirement home i work at was a pleasant counterpoint).

It is of their financial interest to have the best interest of the patients at heart. It keeps them on their toes, and if they do a lousy job, they lose their clients to someone else who does a better one, and thus lose their source of income. Government has no such incentive.

There are a million and one arguments for each side, i guess it just comes down to opinion and what country best shares your view of freedom and equality

for sure.

 

[Ryeland]

Here's my story, you can read into it anyway you want.

Several years ago, my wife tells me one Friday morning she has a tooth ache. By the end of the day it became extremely painful. So we called the public health center to get contact information for the local dentist. We called the number received, and, as expected, he was closed for the day. His answering machine explained his office was closed for the weekend and we could call the emergency dentist number. As my wife was in pretty severe pain, we called the emergency number. The number itself led us to recorded message indicating there was no service and we should take her to the local hospital.

By now it's getting pretty late. We take a cab to the hospital and arrive at 10 pm. The emergency room informs us they are still treating patients from earlier in the day, and there will be a 6-7 hour wait to see a doctor. The prospect of sitting in an emergency room all night long just to see a doctor who may not be able to diagnose and treat a dental issue while my wife is in tears is too much for me. I take off and go buy some STRONG painkillers to hold her over the night.

The next day we go back to the hospital and actually get to see a doctor. We set up an appointment for the next Monday and get some crappy painkillers. Somehow she makes it through the weekend.

On Monday she goes in to see a dentist finally and has a tooth removed and a temp cap put in. She is told she may need to get a root canal eventually.

The next day, she is unable to close her jaw because of pain. We run through the circus again, get another appointment a week later. She gets the cap removed, gets a root canal, and then a new cap. The docs prescribe her new pain meds, which she promptly has a reaction against. Because the dental office didn't check the records given from the medical office, she is now covered in a rash.

All in all, it took about a month for her to get a simple dead root removed. In the process she had a tooth removed, a cap put on, the cap removed, a root canal, a new cap put back in, and an allergic reaction to medication because of a clerical error.



I really wish I could've just paid a private practice to do it right the day it started.

(FYI, this was in Prince George, B.C.)

Thats a rough story man, I feel for you. What happened your wife was poor medicine. I mentioned earlier in the thread that my father has Leukemia. What I didn't mention was how he got it. He was diagnosed with prostate cancer in the summer of 2004 and he was treated for it using an experimental treatment where they implant radioactive iodine pellets on the tumor and kill it without destroying nerves. I can't remember the name of the treatment, but it worked really well for him (a great alternative to a radical prostatectomey). So his doctor checks him out at the final appointment and everything looks 100% ok. The Doc sends him to get external beam radiation treatments, just to be sure. 2 months later a leukemia diagnosis comes, my dad goes to a bunch of doctors for second opinions. All of them agree that he never should have had the radiation and that was what likely gave him leukemia. This isn't because of the healthcare system here its because this guy didn't do his homework.

As for your situation I am not sure about BC but in Ontario Dental practices are private anyways, and none of the ones i know of are opened on weekends. Demand is high for dentists so they set their schedules when they want to i guess. Thats rough about your wife though, glad to hear things ended up alright.

 

[Ryeland]

No need, I agree with you in this regard. I hate Canada, lol.

Hate Canada? How can you hate the home of Hockey, Lacrosse, Maple Syrup, William Shatner and the igloo?

Which is well within your right, but the problem is that it infringes on my rights as I don't support this. I view it as inefficient, ineffective, and I believe society would be better off without it.

Given your experience and education your views definitely warrant respect. However I do not think that privatizing the market will ensure lower prices and higher efficacy. Health care is such a specialized market that requires so much start up capital (time and money) that it precludes the smaller businesses. For instance, telecom and internet pricing, all carriers charge the same bullshit costs for texts and data that costs them nothing, yet even with a wide variety of providers shitty customer service and high prices are the norm.

How does it not? The government being able to involuntarily distribute wealth through force is more "deserving" than a voluntarily exchange of services and goods?

A voluntary exchange of goods and services isn't always especially voluntary. I may not want to pay $1.20/L of gas but I need to get to work to earn a living so I can eat. On some level the desire to live is a choice. Just like the choice between replacing a knee vs being unable to work shouldn't be based on cost.

Yes, look at Bernie Maddoff today, he got 150 years in prison (I'm not sure what else he got, I didn't follow the case). The only CEO's I know of who actually profited from running their companies into the ground were the ones like at AIG, who were able to take tax payer money and spend it at luxurious resorts.

For example everyone in the banking industry knew exactly what sub-prime was going to lead to. In Canada CIBC's executive body chose to buy sub-prime securities knowing full well the market would crash, these executives sold their stocks before the shit hit the fan. Emails were revealed that showed their knowledge of what was about to happen. These exec's didn't get fined, didn't lose money. The people beneath them lost bonuses and raises for a while as a result.

Healthcare would be cheaper and affordable if the government got out of the way, history has shown this.

I am curious about this statement. In what country is a privatized health care system providing better, cheaper care to its citizens? The world health care organization has France at the top of its list of best health care with a public system (http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html) with several other socialized health care systems in the top 10.

It's not perfect, but it provides more effective results,

This is entirely possible, however I am not aware of a country with fully privatized health care to examine, do you know of any? What measure of efficacy are we talking about here so i can be on the same page?

Great to hear, why can't this be done voluntarily on a charity basis? I would (and have) personally contribute to meaningful healthcare causes I support, my family and I organized a charity sporting event a few years ago which bought an insulin pump for a diabetic girl. I would rather donate money for this, rather than someone with a BMI of 40.

Glad to hear of your support of health related charities. I too have supported many. The real issue here is how connected you believe you are to the rest of the country. I believe we are at a point in history where we are all very interdependent on one another. Very few people live in the woods off the grid growing their own food in this day and age. The concept of you completely supporting yourself is not really applicable anymore. None of us can get around without that guy maintaining the roads. None of us can turn on our lights without that guy climbing inside that turbine to examine its electrical generation capacity. We all expect the cops to be there when we need em, we expect and ambulance when we need it. We all share resources, so we all need to pay for em. I don't like people abusing them, but by and large people don't try to abuse the system.

It is of their financial interest to have the best interest of the patients at heart. It keeps them on their toes, and if they do a lousy job, they lose their clients to someone else who does a better one, and thus lose their source of income. Government has no such incentive.

This is very true, and of the basic proven tenets of the free market. In most industries this works. In very specialized high tech industries its a different story, due to the amount of start up capital needed and the shortage of doctors and health care professionals. Humans have a great way of screwing up simple principles.


A great bunch of points man. A good debate thus far

 

[Ironslave]

Hate Canada? How can you hate the home of Hockey, Lacrosse, Maple Syrup, William Shatner and the igloo?

Well, I hate how socialist it is. I've dealt with this time and time again with every issue, most Canadians are politically a bunch of whiners whose answers to every problem is "government should do something!!"

Hockey, lacrosse, maple syrup and igloos are indeed awesome, however Shatner's co-workers would agree he is.

Health care is such a specialized market that requires so much start up capital (time and money) that it precludes the smaller businesses. For instance, telecom and internet pricing, all carriers charge the same bullshit costs for texts and data that costs them nothing, yet even with a wide variety of providers shitty customer service and high prices are the norm.

Possibly, but not necessary. Every doctor for example could open up their own private practice easily, and most pharm and medical equipment companies could as well, plus there are tons of options for startup companies to trade publicly and get investors behind them.

If the government made-distributed cell phones, we'd still be using these.

A voluntary exchange of goods and services isn't always especially voluntary. I may not want to pay $1.20/L of gas but I need to get to work to earn a living so I can eat. On some level the desire to live is a choice. Just like the choice between replacing a knee vs being unable to work shouldn't be based on cost.

There are other options. Nobody made you take the job, or live where you do, plus there is some public transport, car pooling, etc.

Over the course of a lifetime, someone would save money if their taxes were lower and they had to pay the cost of a knee replacement (when cost goes down do to competition).

For example everyone in the banking industry knew exactly what sub-prime was going to lead to.

The US government started the sub prime fire, none of it would have happened if the government directly and indirectly didn't get involved.

In Canada CIBC's executive body chose to buy sub-prime securities knowing full well the market would crash, these executives sold their stocks before the shit hit the fan. Emails were revealed that showed their knowledge of what was about to happen. These exec's didn't get fined, didn't lose money. The people beneath them lost bonuses and raises for a while as a result.

Well, if they committed fraud and had insider knowledge, they should have to face criminal charges for this. There are laws which exist, why doesn't the govt enforce them?

I am curious about this statement. In what country is a privatized health care system providing better, cheaper care to its citizens? The world health care organization has France at the top of its list of best health care with a public system (http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html) with several other socialized health care systems in the top 10.

This is entirely possible, however I am not aware of a country with fully privatized health care to examine, do you know of any? What measure of efficacy are we talking about here so i can be on the same page?

The WHO is useless, and like any government agency, are primarily liberals who think the government should take care of everyone in every way.

Tech posted this.

also, this is (of course) good.

The concept of you completely supporting yourself is not really applicable anymore. None of us can get around without that guy maintaining the roads. None of us can turn on our lights without that guy climbing inside that turbine to examine its electrical generation capacity. We all expect the cops to be there when we need em, we expect and ambulance when we need it. We all share resources, so we all need to pay for em. I don't like people abusing them, but by and large people don't try to abuse the system.

There are certain necessities, but I don't need to pay for the medical bills of the obese and lazy, or pay for the abortions of dumb sl*&s who manage to get knocked up, it's taking money I could donate to children who need insulin pumps.

In very specialized high tech industries its a different story, due to the amount of start up capital needed and the shortage of doctors and health care professionals. Humans have a great way of screwing up simple principles.

Automobiles? Computers? TV's? Airplanes? They're all pretty "high tech" and we have many viable options in each field. Those that screw up will fail, those who don't will succeed. There is already more than enough qualified people, doctors, pharma and medical technology companies with the ability to provide care for seemingly every illness, the free market would make them work that much harder to innovate and succeed in additional ones.

A great bunch of points man. A good debate thus far

Same to you :gaysign:

 

[Ryeland]

Well, I hate how socialist it is. I've dealt with this time and time again with every issue, most Canadians are politically a bunch of whiners whose answers to every problem is "government should do something!!"

Hahahaha, too true. We should solve our own problems

Hockey, lacrosse, maple syrup and igloos are indeed awesome, however Shatner's co-workers would agree he is.

Oh come on, shatner is good for a laugh and you know it!

If the government made-distributed cell phones, we'd still be using these.

You are quite right with that assessment. I am not advocating complete government control over everything, that would be a disaster. I don't mean to be a dick, however you completely dodged my question to you about the telecom industry. As data transfer becomes more prolific and there are more providers prices have inexplicably gone up (text messages for example now 15 cents a piece as opposed to the 5 or 10 they used to be). In a free market like the telecom industry why did this happen? More competitors, more efficient technology, yet all of them raised their prices in sync.

There are other options. Nobody made you take the job, or live where you do, plus there is some public transport, car pooling, etc.

True but public transit outside of major cities is spotty at best. I don't mind paying for gas it was just an example. But i do need a job to live (or i can go on welfare, hahahaha). Carpool, bus i still have to pay for them. Unless I wanna scam the shit out of the system I have to work somewhere. And in our society its likely not down the street at the corner store.

Over the course of a lifetime, someone would save money if their taxes were lower and they had to pay the cost of a knee replacement (when cost goes down do to competition).

This presupposes cost goes down due to competition (see telecom point)

The US government started the sub prime fire, none of it would have happened if the government directly and indirectly didn't get involved.

This is true, however all the private firms that bought this stock knew what the score was. These people manage money for a living, they knew this bubble would burst leaving tonnes of people in the lurch. These "smarter, more effective, more adaptive" private firms who weren't selling mortgages directly didn't see coming what the word "sub-prime" meant.

Well, if they committed fraud and had insider knowledge, they should have to face criminal charges for this. There are laws which exist, why doesn't the govt enforce them?

It wasn't entirely fraud due to the fact they didn't have insider info. These were just "smart" guys who made a decision they knew would get them loaded, they sold after the stock peaked as things started to get heavy.

The WHO is useless, and like any government agency, are primarily liberals who think the government should take care of everyone in every way.

They are a bunch of uber-liberals, and they do have bias. But in france you can get house calls by a doc day and night, almost anywhere. I don't even think in the states you can get that. WHO may be useless but they have some pretty comprehensive data. I don't think the government should take care of anyone more than is absolutely necessary.

Tech posted this.

also, this is (of course) good.

Good videos. But as conservatives both of these men have their biases too. They made really logical points. If the world was entirely logical all the time I would agree with them too. I actually like Ron Paul, very intelligent man, only voice of reason during the whole financial melt down.

There are certain necessities, but I don't need to pay for the medical bills of the obese and lazy, or pay for the abortions of dumb sl*&s who manage to get knocked up, it's taking money I could donate to children who need insulin pumps.

Very true, like i said I don't like the fact that people abuse the system, but there are people that really need it to be there. I am just saying we all rely on each other a great deal, social health care reflects that reliance. (Social abortions bother me, but that is a rant for another time)

Automobiles? Computers? TV's? Airplanes? They're all pretty "high tech" and we have many viable options in each field. Those that screw up will fail, those who don't will succeed. There is already more than enough qualified people, doctors, pharma and medical technology companies with the ability to provide care for seemingly every illness, the free market would make them work that much harder to innovate and succeed in additional ones.

Its true that these are high tech industries, but what if i were to tell you that the automotive industry by and large uses parts from the same suppliers all the time? What if i told you the engine in a pontiac vibe was the same as the engine in the toyota corolla or that toyota actually designed the vibe? Would it make you question how independent the companies really are? And compared to the medical industry these ones are low tech. Bio-informatics and Bio-computing are today's high tech fields. I am an automotive engineer and I will gladly admit that genetic research and biocomputers make the most beautiful engine in the world look like it was invented in the stone age. The automotive and computer businesses are all based on science that was completed by and large 100 years ago, the medical profession is not on the same time scale, its evolution over the last century has been amazing.