US - Colorado Amendment 69

[maulemall]

18 hours ago, AshleyAshes said:

You Americans and your fear of healthcare.  It's adorable.  

Yea because the terd that they fed us as "Health care reform" totally screwed the system.

The problem is that it is just another excuse to track and interfere in the lives of the citizenry.

We are supposed to have protections in place to prevent the government from doing this stuff.

And as far as we adorable Americans go, just say thanks and go away.

[dalekphalm]

23 minutes ago, ThomasD said:

If socialism is the solution then why doesn't your government provide your food?  Not everyone needs healthcare but nobody lives long without food.  And why don't they pay for the drugs too?  A diabetic can have a doctor visit a day, but without the drugs they'll be dead sooner rather than later.  Never mind that you are forcing other people to meet your personal needs.

 

See, here in the US some people still believe in the concepts of liberty, and limited government.

Because there's this wonderful thing in the world called variation. This isn't some black and white matter. You don't have to choose one extreme or the other. You can have a middle ground.

 

We don't provide food because we're not a communist nation. We're a Social Democracy. That means the collective will of the people decided that having free healthcare is good, but free food isn't necessary.

 

Not to mention that there are subsidies, social assistance, and food banks for those who cannot afford food. Yes, I realize that social assistance exists in the US, but there's a gap where people make too much to qualify for the low-income free insurance, but still can't afford regular insurance.

 

As for drugs? Obviously that depends a lot on the specific person. In most cases, in Ontario, if you cannot afford your prescription drugs, you can get assistance for that.

 

Furthermore, every Canadian can claim healthcare costs as credits towards their tax returns, for those who spend a lot on Diabetic drugs, for example.

 

You're taking my example and pushing it to the extreme edge case, which is disingenuous.

 

We believe in Liberty here in Canada too. Which is why we are one of the most "Free" (free as in freedom) nations on Earth. Believing in limited government is a socio-political ideology.

 

I don't believe in limited government. I believe in effective government. Whether that be big or small or medium sized. The size of the government does not inherently make it good by itself.

 

If the current government is not effective, kick their asses out and vote in a new government. That's what we did just not less then a year ago here in Canada - we had 9 years of the previous government and it's ineffectiveness, so we voted someone new in, because it was very clear that the old government wasn't working.

[NavyCuda]

History has proven time and time again that Socialism leads to massive abuses and a failed state.  The Roman Empire is a perfect example of that.

[NavyCuda]

Yeah because the Liberals are any better... As soon as they got in power they started up with all the same bullshit they were doing before they lost power.

 

Don't get me wrong, I helped vote the conservatives out, but because they didn't keep their word, not because I wanted the Liberals back.  PM Selfie is a cruel joke played on hard working Canadians.

[Curious Pineapple]

Here in the UK, we have a fixed fee for medications. It can be a box of 24 paracetamol capsules (probably the cheapest medication around), or 120 tramadol capsules, it's all the same cost. Those on a low income get prescriptions free, those who have certain medical needs (if health problems are life-threatening), also get them free. We all pay national insurance, which pays for the NHS (well, until it all gets sold off to private, money grabbing wankshafts), state welfare, provides support for the ill and disabled, and pays (not enough) to those that are un-employed. Even those who receive state welfare benefits pay back into the NI system.

[dalekphalm]

2 hours ago, NavyCuda said:

Yeah because the Liberals are any better... As soon as they got in power they started up with all the same bullshit they were doing before they lost power.

 

Don't get me wrong, I helped vote the conservatives out, but because they didn't keep their word, not because I wanted the Liberals back.  PM Selfie is a cruel joke played on hard working Canadians.

We'll let the historians decide whether Trudeau was good for Canada or not, but he's doing a fine job so far. He's following up with most of his platform promises to some degree or another. Also, given that less than a year has passed, and Parliament is always in recess for the summer (around half the time he's been in office), and nothing can realistically get done without Parliament in session, he hasn't had a lot of time to actually do anything.

 

Just because he's charismatic, takes selfies, and likes to go to the beach doesn't make him a bad PM. Hell, people invent way more drama and issues with him then actually exist.

 

The word's out on whether he's good or not yet, but I think we'll know soon enough - and so far, it's looking good. Not like he had a lot to work with, with the shitshow that the conservatives left him - not to mention them flat out lying about leaving office with a Surplus - when in fact, they were in the red by something like $3Bn.

 

Trudeau's got a lot of work cut out for him ahead. But I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, since everything looks good so far.

[kaiju_wars]

4 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Yes, but at what cost? They legally have to provide you with care. Then they can dump a huge bill on you if you're uninsured.

 

Yes I know that most Hospitals will settle privately with uninsured patients for much cheaper than the "billed amount", but why should a citizen have to deal with that hassle (Or have to pay anything at all for basic medical care)?

 

My point wasn't that poor people can't get medical care. My point was that if you're uninsured, it might very well bankrupt you or put you in debt for the rest of your life.

 

You should NEVER have to choose between life-long debt and medical care, most especially in a first world nation that likes to claim they're the "Greatest nation on earth" and "The leaders of the free world".

I'm not arguing that.  But as for your point.  If that was the point you wanted to get across, you should of said it that way, instead of saying that people just outright wouldn't get treated.  

As for Canada and their 'free' healthcare, I've heard varying things from people I've worked with and who I'm currently going to school with on how effective their socialized medicine is.  Very few have actually praised it as you have.  One guy I used to work with said he had to get something checked and he went for an appointment and they told him it'd take a few months.  He called around here in the US and got in a couple of weeks.  He told me with the amount taken out in taxes, and then (after he immigrated to the US) paying for insurance through our job, it was cheaper for him here.

 

I've had students I'm currently going to college with tell me that waiting to see a doctor is ridiculous there.  Granted there have been some who said it's great.  But more of the Canadians I've met and known have said it's not all it's cracked up to be.  Maybe it varies by the area they live in Canada, I don't know.  And I know the small pool of Canadians I know don't represent the entire nation of Canada. 

Just thought I'd say that either way.

 

Also, I don't know why you are arguing how Canada's healthcare is better than the US's.  Which isn't entirely true.  Sure, not everyone is paying a bunch of taxes for 'free' healthcare.  But in terms of actual care (not cost) the US is usually considered one of the best to probably the best in the world.  

But either way, the original topic was about a poorly written bill trying to get passed in Colorado.  Not socialized healthcare for the US cause Canada has it and "it works there."

[dalekphalm]

21 minutes ago, kaiju_wars said:

I'm not arguing that.  But as for your point.  If that was the point you wanted to get across, you should of said it that way, instead of saying that people just outright wouldn't get treated.  

As for Canada and their 'free' healthcare, I've heard varying things from people I've worked with and who I'm currently going to school with on how effective their socialized medicine is.  Very few have actually praised it as you have.  One guy I used to work with said he had to get something checked and he went for an appointment and they told him it'd take a few months.  He called around here in the US and got in a couple of weeks.  He told me with the amount taken out in taxes, and then (after he immigrated to the US) paying for insurance through our job, it was cheaper for him here.

 

I've had students I'm currently going to college with tell me that waiting to see a doctor is ridiculous there.  Granted there have been some who said it's great.  But more of the Canadians I've met and known have said it's not all it's cracked up to be.  Maybe it varies by the area they live in Canada, I don't know.  And I know the small pool of Canadians I know don't represent the entire nation of Canada. 

Just thought I'd say that either way.

 

Also, I don't know why you are arguing how Canada's healthcare is better than the US's.  Which isn't entirely true.  Sure, not everyone is paying a bunch of taxes for 'free' healthcare.  But in terms of actual care (not cost) the US is usually considered one of the best to probably the best in the world.  

But either way, the original topic was about a poorly written bill trying to get passed in Colorado.  Not socialized healthcare for the US cause Canada has it and "it works there."

If you go back and read the post that you originally quoted, you'll note that I did not say that people would outright not get treated. In fact, I didn't say anything like that at all. I said that if you're poor, I hope you have insurance. Which is true. Because if you don't, you're gonna be in debt for years paying off a major hospital visit.

 

I can't say how your friend from school is different from my experience. I've never had to wait months for any kind of appointment at all. I'm not saying Canada is the perfect solution to healthcare, but it's pretty damn good - up there with the best in the world.

 

I think the amount of waiting time to get an appointment or to see a doctor definitely varies per region - as I'm sure it does in the US as well. There are definitely doctor shortages in some parts of Canada - many doctors want to go down to the US where they can run a private business and make a ton of money. But that's not a problem with the fundamental system in Canada. It just means we need more doctors. Maybe the government could tweak the incentives to convince more doctors to stay or practice in Canada. That doesn't mean the system is broke though, as that's a relatively easy problem to solve.

 

Here's the thing, I'm not arguing that Canadian CARE is better than American care. If you go to a hospital in Canada or the US, you're likely getting world class medical care in either case. My problem is with the payment system itself. If the US healthcare system was changed so that it was paid for via taxes instead of direct payment and/or insurance payment, but all other factors were left unchanged, America would probably have the best system in the world.

 

But as it stands, I personally feel that the drawback of the way you pay for it is much too large. I'd personally only ever move to the US if I became very wealthy - and even then, I love my country, and I think it's one of the best nations in the world, so I have little incentive to leave.

[kaiju_wars]

5 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Here's the thing, I'm not arguing that Canadian CARE is better than American care. If you go to a hospital in Canada or the US, you're likely getting world class medical care in either case. My problem is with the payment system itself. If the US healthcare system was changed so that it was paid for via taxes instead of direct payment and/or insurance payment, but all other factors were left unchanged, America would probably have the best system in the world.

 

But as it stands, I personally feel that the drawback of the way you pay for it is much too large. I'd personally only ever move to the US if I became very wealthy - and even then, I love my country, and I think it's one of the best nations in the world, so I have little incentive to leave.

Honestly there are two ways the fix the cost of care here in the US, socialized healthcare, or tort reform.  Get it where the lawyers of these pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies can't sue doctors and pharmacists.  Then, get the FCC or the FDA or whatever after CVS and Walgreens.  Together, they own about 90-95% of the insurance companies in the US.  (It became that way after CVS bought out Rite-Aid)  Then, with Walgreens and CVS THINKING of merging, it would create a monopoly.  

 

How do I know this?  I work at a pharmacy.  My boss, (who's the owner) is a pharmacist, so he always gets these newsletters and other things talking about this.  

 

It would cause the cost of a lot of stuff to go way WAY down.  

 

As for your country, you love it.  I personally love my country, and feel the same way about her.  

 

 

[Clanscorpia]

3 hours ago, NavyCuda said:

History has proven time and time again that Socialism leads to massive abuses and a failed state.  The Roman Empire is a perfect example of that.

The Roman Empire also lasted hundreds of years and failed because of invasions in the outskirts. Invasions and violent rebellions like which happened then would not happen now 

[Maxxtraxx]

1 hour ago, kaiju_wars said:

But either way, the original topic was about a poorly written bill trying to get passed in Colorado.  Not socialized healthcare for the US cause Canada has it and "it works there."

 

Thank you for your thoughts thus far.

 

You may have just misspoke but...One thing to take notice of is that it is actually that it is NOT a bill to become law, it is a constitutional amendment. If this thing passes it cannot be challenged in court and is extremely hard to get removed. It's an experiment that is looking like it's rather doomed that is being put in the constitution.

[kaiju_wars]

1 hour ago, Maxxtraxx said:

 

Thank you for your thoughts thus far.

 

You may have just misspoke but...One thing to take notice of is that it is actually that it is NOT a bill to become law, it is a constitutional amendment. If this thing passes it cannot be challenged in court and is extremely hard to get removed. It's an experiment that is looking like it's rather doomed that is being put in the constitution.

 

You're welcome.  And yes, I misspoke.  

[Mug]

Well my friend, the bill may have its shortcomings such as the lack of accountability and initial finances but it is  a step in the right direction really for the following reasons:

• Should health be a right? In my opinion, it really should, the state should be responsible for overseeing a healthcare system that's available to everyone. It really makes no sense that there are people that still have no provisions for healthcare in the US; healthcare ought to be there for everyone when they need it. You see, Americans talk about their strong free speech laws boastfully but yet they don't have the right to see a doctor if they fall ill. To me, it makes no sense. About the state intervention thing: I agree, the state should aim to be as lean as possible whilst maintaining necessary public services but in practice, this doesn't always work. In America, you guys pay 20% of your GDP a year towards healthcare. In the UK it's 9%, in France (best system in the world according to the WHO) it's 11%. The French system is the one we all should aspire to have. It's very well-regulated and providers are generally non-profits working in perfect competition.
• The bargaining power of one body overseeing all of purchasing is much greater than the bargaining power of many small bodies. This is the main inefficiency in the US healthcare system. A hip replacement in the US can set you back $40,000 plus extras wheras in the UK the average price is £11,000. Drugs are cheaper too, in the US, your doctor will often prescribe the name brand (e.g: Prozac) wheras in the UK you'll get prescribed a no-name brand one which does the same thing. In the US, the supplier of gloves (for example) will be approached by individual hospitals but in the UK they will be asked to supply for the entire UK. This greatly reduces costs.
• Not having to faf around with administering care - Another inifficiency of the US system is the sheer amount of beaurocracy involved in simple transactions. Even for something simple like paying for a night's stay in hospital, people at the hospital decide how much, people then invoice the insurance company and the insurance company generally negotiates to bring the costs down. The process is massively convoluted and it could do with further regulation. Again, movement towards the French system.

I could think of more but I'm running on coffee as I've been up for 48 hours after catching a midnight train.

[kaiju_wars]

5 minutes ago, Mug said:

 

• The bargaining power of one body overseeing all of purchasing is much greater than the bargaining power of many small bodies. This is the main inefficiency in the US healthcare system. A hip replacement in the US can set you back $40,000 plus extras wheras in the UK the average price is £11,000. Drugs are cheaper too, in the US, your doctor will often prescribe the name brand (e.g: Prozac) wheras in the UK you'll get prescribed a no-name brand one which does the same thing. In the US, the supplier of gloves (for example) will be approached by individual hospitals but in the UK they will be asked to supply for the entire UK. This greatly reduces costs.

To be fair, it doesn't matter if your doctor prescribes the name brand.  Insurance won't pay for it and will pay for the generics.  The only time insurance will pay for name brand drugs is if the customer has it in their head that "only the name brand works," (even though there's zero difference) and the doctor writes on the prescription "must be name brand only."

 

[Mug]

3 minutes ago, kaiju_wars said:

To be fair, it doesn't matter if your doctor prescribes the name brand.  Insurance won't pay for it and will pay for the generics.  The only time insurance will pay for name brand drugs is if the customer has it in their head that "only the name brand works," (even though there's zero difference) and the doctor writes on the prescription "must be name brand only."

 

Doctors in the states are still marketed brand-name products which they then sell on to customers (patients). It's a major source of income for the drug companies.

[kaiju_wars]

5 minutes ago, Mug said:

Doctors in the states are still marketed brand-name products which they then sell on to customers (patients). It's a major source of income for the drug companies.

That's not how it works.  My doctor can write me as many scripts for name brand Lisinopril all day, as much as he wants.  My insurance will still only cover the generics.  You don't get your prescriptions actually from the doctor.  They write a prescription, to which they either e-file, fax, call, or give you to take to a pharmacy.  (For example, where I work, Dakota Drug Co.) and the pharmacist fills your prescription.

[Mug]

3 minutes ago, kaiju_wars said:

That's not how it works.  My doctor can write me as many scripts for name brand Lisinopril all day, as much as he wants.  My insurance will still only cover the generics.  You don't get your prescriptions actually from the doctor.  They write a prescription, to which they either e-file, fax, call, or give you to take to a pharmacy.  (For example, where I work, Dakota Drug Co.) and the pharmacist fills your prescription.

Interesting... I must've misread during my research just how much branded medication is sold in the US.

[kaiju_wars]

4 minutes ago, Mug said:

Interesting... I must've misread during my research just how much branded medication is sold in the US.

You did.  There's a lot of misinformation out there about the US healthcare system.  Like how they'll leave you to die if you don't have insurance.  Or if you don't and you can't afford it, they'll out right bill you into bankruptcy.  There's actual things in place to help a person.  There's medicaid, medicare, among other programs.  There's also programs hospitals and some states do where they'll subsidize the cost of a bill to help those who can't afford it.

 

But prescriptions is one of the biggest misconceptions out there.  

[dalekphalm]

2 hours ago, kaiju_wars said:

To be fair, it doesn't matter if your doctor prescribes the name brand.  Insurance won't pay for it and will pay for the generics.  The only time insurance will pay for name brand drugs is if the customer has it in their head that "only the name brand works," (even though there's zero difference) and the doctor writes on the prescription "must be name brand only."

 

 

2 hours ago, kaiju_wars said:

You did.  There's a lot of misinformation out there about the US healthcare system.  Like how they'll leave you to die if you don't have insurance.  Or if you don't and you can't afford it, they'll out right bill you into bankruptcy.  There's actual things in place to help a person.  There's medicaid, medicare, among other programs.  There's also programs hospitals and some states do where they'll subsidize the cost of a bill to help those who can't afford it.

 

But prescriptions is one of the biggest misconceptions out there.  

To be clear, that only works if there IS a Generic version.

 

Take EpiPen for example. Most doctors will write a prescription for EpiPen because it's easier to remember and it's what most people buy anyway. There ARE NO GENERICS currently selling for EpiPen. There are similar alternatives, but they're slightly different enough to not be a generic, but to be a competing name-brand. The Pharmacist is not allowed to substitute one name brand for another - if the prescription specifically says EpiPen, they can give you EpiPen, or they can give you a generic (if one exists).

 

Some people do believe in the misconception that American hospitals won't even treat you without insurance - this is true - but people going into bankruptcy or debt after a major medical visit (often because they lack insurance, but don't qualify for medicaid or other programs) is a real thing. It's disingenuous to downplay those, like it's no big deal. It IS a big deal.

 

Even if the Hospital subsidizes the cost for you, it can still be a significant financial burden.

 

And that's really my major issue - healthcare should never be a choice between getting care or avoiding undue financial burdens.

[NavyCuda]

The biggest problem with your argument is missing an important point.  Freedom comes with risk, I would rather have the choice to have medical insurance or risk going bankrupt.  When people like you start deciding what I should or shouldn't do with my money, it puts my back up against the wall.

 

There is no right to health care.  The word right is grossly abused and often out of context.  I'm guilty of this from time to time.

 

I'm fucking tired of someone always having their hands in my pockets, the tax man, the road tax man, the road toll man, the medical man, the social experiment man, the I know better than you but you must pay for it man.

 

Fuck I miss when we were still free in this country.

[kaiju_wars]

14 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

 

To be clear, that only works if there IS a Generic version.

 

Take EpiPen for example. Most doctors will write a prescription for EpiPen because it's easier to remember and it's what most people buy anyway. There ARE NO GENERICS currently selling for EpiPen. There are similar alternatives, but they're slightly different enough to not be a generic, but to be a competing name-brand. The Pharmacist is not allowed to substitute one name brand for another - if the prescription specifically says EpiPen, they can give you EpiPen, or they can give you a generic (if one exists).

 

Some people do believe in the misconception that American hospitals won't even treat you without insurance - this is true - but people going into bankruptcy or debt after a major medical visit (often because they lack insurance, but don't qualify for medicaid or other programs) is a real thing. It's disingenuous to downplay those, like it's no big deal. It IS a big deal.

 

Even if the Hospital subsidizes the cost for you, it can still be a significant financial burden.

 

And that's really my major issue - healthcare should never be a choice between getting care or avoiding undue financial burdens.

Yes, I understand about the no generic thing.  Your insurance would most likely cover the name brand then.  I was hoping that part would be pretty clear.  I also know that a pharmacist can't substitute another drug for another.  Regardless of how similar.  But in the states, if its the exact same drug, it doesn't matter the brand.  (Say there's a walmart brand and a target brand, and your pharmacist carries both.  Doesn't matter which brand he gives you, as long as it's the exact same drug).

 

Also, I was adding about the other programs and the subsidizing because people get the misconception that once you get your treatment, that there is zero other options.  Which isn't true.

(And as I've said, the cost IS to high, and there needs to be major anti-trust, monopoly, and tort reforms)

[dalekphalm]

Just now, NavyCuda said:

The biggest problem with your argument is missing an important point.  Freedom comes with risk, I would rather have the choice to have medical insurance or risk going bankrupt.  When people like you start deciding what I should or shouldn't do with my money, it puts my back up against the wall.

 

There is no right to health care.  The word right is grossly abused and often out of context.  I'm guilty of this from time to time.

 

I'm fucking tired of someone always having their hands in my pockets, the tax man, the road tax man, the road toll man, the medical man, the social experiment man, the I know better than you but you must pay for it man.

 

Fuck I miss when we were still free in this country.

You say that there is no right to health care - but I disagree - at least in Canada (In Ontario certainly), there is a right to health care.

 

Same as there's a right to School.

 

Why does the US think it's okay to make Public Schools fully free and paid for by taxes, and yet, health care is not? The two should go hand in hand.

 

2 minutes ago, kaiju_wars said:

Yes, I understand about the no generic thing.  Your insurance would most likely cover the name brand then.  I was hoping that part would be pretty clear.  I also know that a pharmacist can't substitute another drug for another.  Regardless of how similar.  But in the states, if its the exact same drug, it doesn't matter the brand.  (Say there's a walmart brand and a target brand, and your pharmacist carries both.  Doesn't matter which brand he gives you, as long as it's the exact same drug).

 

Also, I was adding about the other programs and the subsidizing because people get the misconception that once you get your treatment, that there is zero other options.  Which isn't true.

(And as I've said, the cost IS to high, and there needs to be major anti-trust, monopoly, and tort reforms)

Your insurance might not cover the entire cost of said brand - and take the EpiPen for example. The thing has risen in price by 450% or something like that, since it came out. The R&D costs were recouped decades ago. So by charging more for it - even if your insurance does cover it, all that means is that your insurance premiums will just go up. You might not see that increased cost at the counter, but you, and every other insurance payer, will just end up paying more for insurance anyway.

[NavyCuda]

I don't think you understand what rights are.  We have the privilege of health care.

 

The only rights we have in this world, is the right to survive and the right to free will.  Everything else are privileges that can be revoked at the stroke of a pen.  Some people like to call privileges rights but that doesn't make it so.

 

[kaiju_wars]

10 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Your insurance might not cover the entire cost of said brand - and take the EpiPen for example. The thing has risen in price by 450% or something like that, since it came out. The R&D costs were recouped decades ago. So by charging more for it - even if your insurance does cover it, all that means is that your insurance premiums will just go up. You might not see that increased cost at the counter, but you, and every other insurance payer, will just end up paying more for insurance anyway.

Oh I know.  And that's why we need a  tort reform.  It would fix the very issues like this.  

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, NavyCuda said:

I don't think you understand what rights are.  We have the privilege of health care.

 

The only rights we have in this world, is the right to survive and the right to free will.  Everything else are privileges that can be revoked at the stroke of a pen.  Some people like to call privileges rights but that doesn't make it so.

 

Well according to your own definition, you don't have the right to freedom then, You don't have the right to free speech, or to any number of things which are considered "Rights" in the Charter of RIghts and Freedoms.

 

If you want to take that approach, that's your choice. But I honestly think you'd be better off with an Anarchist ultra-capitalist society then.