Then by a non-profit HMO - you mean its something that is wholy run by a few politicians and their "friends" [paying], who feather their own nests with any kind of contracts from outside, they dumb down the doctor and nurse care with affirmative action and diversity, bilingual of course, and when all goes wrong they soak the taxpayers again and again and again to keep the sinking ship afloat. Sounds right up your alley dddooo.
Nick, isn't that what we have right now with for-profit HMOs? A small number of people and a large number of politicians are making out like bandits, the rest of the country is paying through the roof (50% more than any other developed country) while getting significantly less in services than anyone else in the civilized world. Just because american taxpayers are paying premiums and not taxes to "keep the sinking ship afloat" does not make the situation any better, especially given the fact that these premiums go up 20% every freaking year. No Nick, what I have in mind is the efficiency with which the government runs the US military. What I have in mind is the efficiency of government-run Medicare which has about 3% overhead vs 25-35% overhead of private for-profit HMOs. Do you realize that government-run Medicare is one of the most popular government programs among all Americans? Medicare recipients are happy with Medicare, so are doctors and hospitals and it costs less than private insurance. Nevertheless your concerns regarding politicians and their "friends" are absolutely valid, therefore a number of watchdog organizations would need to be setup to monitor this huge non-profit HMO and preserve its integrity and transparency.
Because the free services in either country were not fast enough, so she went the private route. Slowly, private health care is coming to canada too - it will be a 2-tier system. The more weathly can pay for better services. My point is that the USA has a floor of services provided by the govt too. But is speaks volumes about your attitude and hostility, that you call a women/mother a Bitch. No child left behind? Have a look at what the evil godless dems are doing, instead of spending this money to destroy fellow human beings in war, they want to fund kids health programs: ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bush: Kids' health care will get vetoed By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer 19 minutes ago WASHINGTON - President Bush again called Democrats "irresponsible" on Saturday for pushing an expansion he opposes to a children's health insurance program. ADVERTISEMENT "Democrats in Congress have decided to pass a bill they know will be vetoed," Bush said of the measure that draws significant bipartisan support, repeating in his weekly radio address an accusation he made earlier in the week. "Members of Congress are risking health coverage for poor children purely to make a political point." In the Democrat's response, also broadcast Saturday, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell turned the tables on the president, saying that if Bush doesn't sign the bill, 15 states will have no funding left for the program by the end of the month. At issue is the Children's Health Insurance Program, a state-federal program that subsidizes health coverage for low-income people, mostly children, in families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid, but not enough to afford private coverage. It expires Sept. 30. A bipartisan group of lawmakers announced a proposal Friday that would add $35 billion over five years to the program, adding 4 million people to the 6.6 million already participating. It would be financed by raising the federal cigarette tax by 61 cents to $1 per pack. The idea is overwhelmingly supported by Congress' majority Democrats, who scheduled it for a vote Tuesday in the House. It has substantial Republican support as well. But Bush has promised a veto, saying the measure is too costly, unacceptably raises taxes, extends government-covered insurance to children in families who can afford private coverage, and smacks of a move toward completely federalized health care. He has asked Congress to pass a simple extension of the current program while debate continues, saying it's children who will suffer if they do not. "Our goal should be to move children who have no health insurance to private coverage â not to move children who already have private health insurance to government coverage," Bush said. The bill's backers have vigorously rejected Bush's claim it would steer public money to families that can readily afford health insurance, saying their goal is to cover more of the millions of uninsured children. The bill would provide financial incentives for states to cover their lowest-income children first, they said. Many governors want the flexibility to expand eligibility for the program. So the proposal would overturn recent guidelines from the administration making it difficult for states to steer CHIP funds to families with incomes exceeding 250 percent of the official poverty level. Rendell said thousands of children will lose health care coverage if Bush doesn't sign the bill. "The administration has tried to turn this into a partisan issue and has threatened to veto. The health of our children is far too important for partisan politics as usual," he said. "If the administration is serious about solving our health care crisis, it should be expanding, not cutting back, this program which has made private health insurance affordable for millions of children." Back to top
imagine the state of health care had there never been any profit in it... it's really quite amusing when people disparage economic gain, the reason why one can easily replace a hip with some sci-fi titanium device is because there is risk/reward in medicine. Tronoto Tool brings up another very, very, very amusing point. Canada apparently will be ALLOWING private healthcare plans in the near future (currently, private healthcare is ILLEGAL in canada). The bottom line? Canadians will soon be paying TWICE for their healthcare, once to the government and another to a private plan. We should just skip right to it here in the US, and keep our private plans, and simply pay an additional 15 points in Income taxes. (we being those who actually have an income) If the Dems win in 2008, this country will not be recognizable in 10 years. (although, if you've been to mexico it might be)
No one is advocating that. Only the distribution of health services will be non-profit. Doctors, hospitals, labs, drug companies etc will remain for profit private enterprises. We are protected from robberies by non-profit police force, we are protected from foreign invasions by non-profit military, we're protected from plane crashes by non-profit air-traffic controllers. The military, the police, the air-traffic controllers are government employees and they are all doing a great job. The fact that our military is non-profit has not prevented the development of the best military equipment in the world, the fact that countries like France and Israel have universal health care have not prevented them from becoming pharmaceutical powerhouses successfully competing with American drug companies. And as I said, in case of Universal Health care no one is even proposing to turn doctors or hospitals into government employees or organizations, only the distribution of health services will be administered by the government.
I wonder for this women/mother The Honourable Belinda Stronach if any of her numerous extramarital affairs had anything to do with her children getting to grow up without a father in the house. Her father made all or most of HER money in America so it is fitting that she comes here for treatment. But for the Canadian women who can't afford the luxury of an American doctor/hospital or the time for Canadian treatment, I'm sorry for them. Geez maybe this socialized medicine isn't all its cracked up to be, esp. when only the richest (like this bitch) can cut and run, but the regular people who elected her and pay her wages, get to wait for cancer treatments, when time is of the essence.
So you have a two tiered system, one for the wealthy and one for the poor. Isn't that exactly what the "free" healthcare you provide is supposed to stand against? Sounds very similiar to the US system except we don't have the rationing, lack of innovation and need to travel to a foreign country to get the best care.