Interesting Video From Canada On Socialized Healthcare

[hosker]

 

What's privatized about an industry burdened with government regulation, licensing and taxes?

 

so no one should regulate the health care industry?

 

 

absolutely not. the more regulations/bureaucracy there is, the prices will inevitably go up. and in turn, for the people who can't afford high price meds, the quality goes down....EDIT: and further more, that all leads to the president/politicians pushing for universal healthcare, when with any logical review of any "universal healthcare" from history, that is clearly not the answer to our problems.

 

the way the health care industry should be regulated, is by: the doctors administering the meds, the pharmaceutical companies making the meds, and the market's(or peoples) want/need for the products...

 

We don't need the FDA(or anyone else) saying this is a good or bad product, when the companies should know if their product is good/bad, before it hits the market.... if its good doctors will prescribe it, and people will continue to use it, and vice versa.

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

What's privatized about an industry burdened with government regulation, licensing and taxes?

 

so no one should regulate the health care industry?

 

 

absolutely not. the more regulations/bureaucracy there is, the prices will inevitably go up. and in turn, for the people who can't afford high price meds, the quality goes down....EDIT: and further more, that all leads to the president/politicians pushing for universal healthcare, when with any logical review of any "universal healthcare" from history, that is clearly not the answer to our problems.

 

the way the health care industry should be regulated, is by: the doctors administering the meds, the pharmaceutical companies making the meds, and the market's(or peoples) want/need for the products...

 

We don't need the FDA(or anyone else) saying this is a good or bad product, when the companies should know if their product is good/bad, before it hits the market.... if its good doctors will prescribe it, and people will continue to use it, and vice versa.

 

Hey OZ, while I do agree with gist of your statement, I think it is solely the responsibility of each individual to regulate the administration of health care that they receive. By placing the responsibility/blame on others, meaning the doctors or the pharmaceutical companies, we eventually come to the very same ends we are at today. A sue happy society, blaming others for our mishaps, giving the government an excuse to step in and expand its powers. If each individual is held responsible for his or her own actions where else can the blame be placed?

 

An individual shouldn't be forced to use a specific doctor or a specific medicine. Since each individual is responsible to make a choice on his or her own care, he or she should also be held responsible for the actions and consequences of that care. If this means doing research and acting responsible, so be it. The very idea that someone else is always to blame for our problems and that the government is there to bail us out is the basis for many of the problems we face today. Free choice and responsibility is the cure.

[hosker]

Hey OZ, while I do agree with gist of your statement, I think it is solely the responsibility of each individual to regulate the administration of health care that they receive. By placing the responsibility/blame on others, meaning the doctors or the pharmaceutical companies, we eventually come to the very same ends we are at today. A sue happy society, blaming others for our mishaps, giving the government an excuse to step in and expand its powers. If each individual is held responsible for his or her own actions where else can the blame be placed?

 

An individual shouldn't be forced to use a specific doctor or a specific medicine. Since each individual is responsible to make a choice on his or her own care, he or she should also be held responsible for the actions and consequences of that care. If this means doing research and acting responsible, so be it. The very idea that someone else is always to blame for our problems and that the government is their to bail us out is the basis for many of the problems we face today. Free choice and responsibility is the cure.

 

first off, i think the right to sue is necessary. imo it creates more accountability.... although i will agree, it has become a bit excessive in our society, esp over trivial BS.

 

i agree, 100% the responsibility should be left up to the individual. but i feel that pharmaceutical companies and doctors have the SAME responsibility to provide a quality product/treatment...

 

as far as coming down the road, that has lead us to this point... i don't think personal responsibility can fix that by it self, because there are alot of smooth talkin politicians that could convince a sheep that a wolf is its friend... personal responsibility/accountability alone won't fix that. it takes knowledge, and force of hand(peaceful, and sometimes otherwise) by the people onto the gov to achieve that.

 

 

its clear that we're on the same page... again.

[bennychico11]

absolutely not. the more regulations/bureaucracy there is, the prices will inevitably go up. and in turn, for the people who can't afford high price meds, the quality goes down....EDIT: and further more, that all leads to the president/politicians pushing for universal healthcare, when with any logical review of any "universal healthcare" from history, that is clearly not the answer to our problems.

 

the way the health care industry should be regulated, is by: the doctors administering the meds, the pharmaceutical companies making the meds, and the market's(or peoples) want/need for the products...

 

We don't need the FDA(or anyone else) saying this is a good or bad product, when the companies should know if their product is good/bad, before it hits the market.... if its good doctors will prescribe it, and people will continue to use it, and vice versa.

 

 

I don't agree with your FDA claim. I don't know about you, but I'm not doctor. I'm not qualified to know what medicine is good for me and what is dangerous. Heck, I'm not even sure I trust my doctor to tell me. Does he really know what EVERY single drug in the world does and how it will or will not benefit me? I think drug companies should be regulated otherwise how do we know if they are putting out a good product that is SAFE. Just because they say so? How many companies do you think would kick out a product as fast as they can just to beat their competitor to the shelves. How many companies do you think would voluntarily put side effect information on their packaging or in their ads? They'd probably just say, "Do you have cancer? Take this drug...it'll help it."

 

 

Prior to 1965 there weren't any labels on cigarettes warning that they may be hazardous. I agree now that we have this label people who get sick from smoking should be held responsible...but what if no one had ever said anything about the hazards of smoking back in the 60's? Do you think the cigarette companies would have said, "hey, you know what, our product just might not be safe for people. let's close down business." They'd just up the nicotine level and not worry about lowering the tar or adding filters.

 

Again, I do agree people have to take responsibility on most things. But when you have companies who's sole job is to make money at any cost...you run into problems. Because they just decide to charge whatever they want. Who's gonna stop 'em? And when it's your health on the line, people have no choice but to pay it...because what else are they going to do. If your doctor says you need this operation or else you may die...but you can't afford it, and insurance isn't going to cover it, what are you going to do? I think whether there is regulation or not, health care is still going to be outrageously expense. It's like college tuition...I don't see them coming down anytime soon.

I know a guy who I used to work with who had to have surgery. He ended up having to file for bankruptcy because he just couldn't afford his medical bill afterward. What else was he to do? At least a universal health care system would provide him with another option. And that's what it is, IMO. The government just putting their hat into the ring. If you want to use them, use 'em....if not, stick with who you currently have. And if you think the government can't run anything that'll be worth a crap....then they'll fail and we'll be back to square one, and you'll still have insurance that you're happy with. But those who can't get approved for any insurance at all (like my sister, for one)...they'll be able to get on something.

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

I don't agree with your FDA claim. I don't know about you, but I'm not doctor. I'm not qualified to know what medicine is good for me and what is dangerous. Heck, I'm not even sure I trust my doctor to tell me. Does he really know what EVERY single drug in the world does and how it will or will not benefit me? I think drug companies should be regulated otherwise how do we know if they are putting out a good product that is SAFE. Just because they say so? How many companies do you think would kick out a product as fast as they can just to beat their competitor to the shelves. How many companies do you think would voluntarily put side effect information on their packaging or in their ads? They'd probably just say, "Do you have cancer? Take this drug...it'll help it."

 

 

Prior to 1965 there weren't any labels on cigarettes warning that they may be hazardous. I agree now that we have this label people who get sick from smoking should be held responsible...but what if no one had ever said anything about the hazards of smoking back in the 60's? Do you think the cigarette companies would have said, "hey, you know what, our product just might not be safe for people. let's close down business." They'd just up the nicotine level and not worry about lowering the tar or adding filters.

 

Again, I do agree people have to take responsibility on most things. But when you have companies who's sole job is to make money at any cost...you run into problems. Because they just decide to charge whatever they want. Who's gonna stop 'em? And when it's your health on the line, people have no choice but to pay it...because what else are they going to do. If your doctor says you need this operation or else you may die...but you can't afford it, and insurance isn't going to cover it, what are you going to do? I think whether there is regulation or not, health care is still going to be outrageously expense. It's like college tuition...I don't see them coming down anytime soon.

I know a guy who I used to work with who had to have surgery. He ended up having to file for bankruptcy because he just couldn't afford his medical bill afterward. What else was he to do? At least a universal health care system would provide him with another option. And that's what it is, IMO. The government just putting their hat into the ring. If you want to use them, use 'em....if not, stick with who you currently have. And if you think the government can't run anything that'll be worth a crap....then they'll fail and we'll be back to square one, and you'll still have insurance that you're happy with. But those who can't get approved for any insurance at all (like my sister, for one)...they'll be able to get on something.

So you don't trust yourself or a doctor as far as medicine goes, but you'll trust a politician or FDA bureaucrat in Washington to regulate what you can or can't put into your body? Yeah. Sorry, but I'm not buying that for a minute. You may not wish to accept responsibility for your actions but you can't deny the moral hazards associated with and created by that type of irresponsibility.

 

Also, how do you figure that creating universal healthcare is going to lower the costs enough so that people like your sister can afford it? Or do you just figure the taxpayers will pay for it. As if the government’s current economic debacle hasn’t saddled them with enough debt anyways. Basic economic law states that creating more demand, which universal healthcare does, causes the price to increase. It's simple supply and demand.

 

So, since the costs of healthcare will rise when universal healthcare is implemented, who do you figure is going to fund the government's program? Do you think the average taxpayer is going to be able to afford to pay for both his own insurance and the government's program too? What kind of incentive does that provide businesses to offer coverage if they already being taxed for the government’s program?

 

Since the money will come from taxation, which is morally wrong to begin with and another post altogether, what happens when those paying the taxes can no longer afford to pay? As a result of the rising costs, many will fall from the ranks of the payer and be forced to become part of the dependent. Where's the money going to come from when that person can no longer contribute and is actually taking from the pot? Sounds like another Social Security Ponzi scheme to me!!

 

Eventually you'll see the middle class, those who actually pay the bulk of taxes, wiped out completely and you'll have an entire country dependent upon a system with no one left to pay for it. What happens then? Sorry benny, but the idea of universal healthcare is so economically flawed, I don’t even think I need to delve into the moral aspect of it.

[hosker]

I don't agree with your FDA claim. I don't know about you, but I'm not doctor. I'm not qualified to know what medicine is good for me and what is dangerous. Heck, I'm not even sure I trust my doctor to tell me. Does he really know what EVERY single drug in the world does and how it will or will not benefit me? I think drug companies should be regulated otherwise how do we know if they are putting out a good product that is SAFE. Just because they say so? How many companies do you think would kick out a product as fast as they can just to beat their competitor to the shelves. How many companies do you think would voluntarily put side effect information on their packaging or in their ads? They'd probably just say, "Do you have cancer? Take this drug...it'll help it."

 

Prior to 1965 there weren't any labels on cigarettes warning that they may be hazardous. I agree now that we have this label people who get sick from smoking should be held responsible...but what if no one had ever said anything about the hazards of smoking back in the 60's? Do you think the cigarette companies would have said, "hey, you know what, our product just might not be safe for people. let's close down business." They'd just up the nicotine level and not worry about lowering the tar or adding filters.

 

Again, I do agree people have to take responsibility on most things. But when you have companies who's sole job is to make money at any cost...you run into problems. Because they just decide to charge whatever they want. Who's gonna stop 'em? And when it's your health on the line, people have no choice but to pay it...because what else are they going to do. If your doctor says you need this operation or else you may die...but you can't afford it, and insurance isn't going to cover it, what are you going to do? I think whether there is regulation or not, health care is still going to be outrageously expense. It's like college tuition...I don't see them coming down anytime soon.

I know a guy who I used to work with who had to have surgery. He ended up having to file for bankruptcy because he just couldn't afford his medical bill afterward. What else was he to do? At least a universal health care system would provide him with another option. And that's what it is, IMO. The government just putting their hat into the ring. If you want to use them, use 'em....if not, stick with who you currently have. And if you think the government can't run anything that'll be worth a crap....then they'll fail and we'll be back to square one, and you'll still have insurance that you're happy with. But those who can't get approved for any insurance at all (like my sister, for one)...they'll be able to get on something.

 

SOCAL hit the nail on the head, in everything not bold

 

i could agree with a government agency doing research on products, and informing the people... and once the people know the info, they'd have a right to choose whether they want to use it or not... the federal gov. has no right to regulate what people want to spend their money on, as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. if people don't want a product, they don't have to buy it. if enough people don't want it, they have the right to make it illegal/regulate it, in each respective state.

[bennychico11]

So you don't trust yourself or a doctor as far as medicine goes, but you'll trust a politician or FDA bureaucrat in Washington to regulate what you can or can't put into your body?

 

Yes, yes I do. And much more so than I trust the drug companies. You're honestly going to say if there was no agency to scrutinize new drugs being released, double check generic drugs have scientific evidence that they are interchangeable or therapeutically equivalent with the originally approved drug, approve devices such as microwaves or brain pacemakers as safe...you'd be okay with that? So if the bottle of Tylenol was sitting on the same shelf as "NEW" anti-headache drug that also had a side effect of severe depression...although you didn't know it did, because the drug companies didn't have to disclose that...you'd be okay with that.

 

Sorry, but I'm not buying that for a minute. You may not wish to accept responsibility for your actions but you can't deny the moral hazards associated with and created by that type of irresponsibility.

 

I'M the one not buying that for a minute. And I said several times that people SHOULD accept responsibility for their own actions, but I wouldn't associate an ignorance of medicine as a moral hazard or irresponsible. I try and read as much as I can about a drug before I take it...the side effects, everything. But guess who puts that information out there for us...the FDA. But I guess without regulation you actually think drug corporations, health insurance companies and others will actually regulate themselves?

[SOCALHUSKER]

So you don't trust yourself or a doctor as far as medicine goes, but you'll trust a politician or FDA bureaucrat in Washington to regulate what you can or can't put into your body?

 

Yes, yes I do. And much more so than I trust the drug companies. You're honestly going to say if there was no agency to scrutinize new drugs being released, double check generic drugs have scientific evidence that they are interchangeable or therapeutically equivalent with the originally approved drug, approve devices such as microwaves or brain pacemakers as safe...you'd be okay with that? So if the bottle of Tylenol was sitting on the same shelf as "NEW" anti-headache drug that also had a side effect of severe depression...although you didn't know it did, because the drug companies didn't have to disclose that...you'd be okay with that.

 

Sorry, but I'm not buying that for a minute. You may not wish to accept responsibility for your actions but you can't deny the moral hazards associated with and created by that type of irresponsibility.

 

I'M the one not buying that for a minute. And I said several times that people SHOULD accept responsibility for their own actions, but I wouldn't associate an ignorance of medicine as a moral hazard or irresponsible. I try and read as much as I can about a drug before I take it...the side effects, everything. But guess who puts that information out there for us...the FDA. But I guess without regulation you actually think drug corporations, health insurance companies and others will actually regulate themselves?

 

Do you not think for a minute that it might be in the medical industries best interest to form a standardizing agency free of government politics? You can bet your ass they would, and that's because the responsible people in the market would require it. And I'm sorry, but they would be much more qualified than the people you suggest to take on that role. You only need to look as far as the UL standard label on any electronic equipment or the NFPA standards used by fire departments around the country to see that the free market does have a solution for your safety concerns. Both are private companies (except that they pay taxes and must adhere to government regulation, imagine if they didn't have to) and are much more efficient and fair.

 

You claim that individuals should accept responsibility, but how can they if the FDA won't let them? The FDA eliminates choice, therefore eliminating responsibility. And as far as not associating ignorance with irresponsibility, what would you associate it with? Does creating a "government" entity that eliminates responsibility not force them to rely on others? What could be more hazardous to society than forcing individuals to pay for and rely on others with no regard for their own well-being. That is exactly what you are suggesting.

[SOCALHUSKER]

I don't agree with your FDA claim. I don't know about you, but I'm not doctor. I'm not qualified to know what medicine is good for me and what is dangerous. Heck, I'm not even sure I trust my doctor to tell me. Does he really know what EVERY single drug in the world does and how it will or will not benefit me? I think drug companies should be regulated otherwise how do we know if they are putting out a good product that is SAFE. Just because they say so? How many companies do you think would kick out a product as fast as they can just to beat their competitor to the shelves. How many companies do you think would voluntarily put side effect information on their packaging or in their ads? They'd probably just say, "Do you have cancer? Take this drug...it'll help it."

 

Prior to 1965 there weren't any labels on cigarettes warning that they may be hazardous. I agree now that we have this label people who get sick from smoking should be held responsible...but what if no one had ever said anything about the hazards of smoking back in the 60's? Do you think the cigarette companies would have said, "hey, you know what, our product just might not be safe for people. let's close down business." They'd just up the nicotine level and not worry about lowering the tar or adding filters.

 

Again, I do agree people have to take responsibility on most things. But when you have companies who's sole job is to make money at any cost...you run into problems. Because they just decide to charge whatever they want. Who's gonna stop 'em? And when it's your health on the line, people have no choice but to pay it...because what else are they going to do. If your doctor says you need this operation or else you may die...but you can't afford it, and insurance isn't going to cover it, what are you going to do? I think whether there is regulation or not, health care is still going to be outrageously expense. It's like college tuition...I don't see them coming down anytime soon.

I know a guy who I used to work with who had to have surgery. He ended up having to file for bankruptcy because he just couldn't afford his medical bill afterward. What else was he to do? At least a universal health care system would provide him with another option. And that's what it is, IMO. The government just putting their hat into the ring. If you want to use them, use 'em....if not, stick with who you currently have. And if you think the government can't run anything that'll be worth a crap....then they'll fail and we'll be back to square one, and you'll still have insurance that you're happy with. But those who can't get approved for any insurance at all (like my sister, for one)...they'll be able to get on something.

 

SOCAL hit the nail on the head, in everything not bold

 

i could agree with a government agency doing research on products, and informing the people... and once the people know the info, they'd have a right to choose whether they want to use it or not... the federal gov. has no right to regulate what people want to spend their money on, as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. if people don't want a product, they don't have to buy it. if enough people don't want it, they have the right to make it illegal/regulate it, in each respective state.

 

Do you not think the market could do that, much more efficient and fair? See my post above.

[SOCALHUSKER]

bump

[hosker]

Do you not think the market could do that, much more efficient and fair? See my post above.

 

 

yes a free market can and will do it, and it would definitely be more fair. but im not convinced that it would be as informative. the agencies you listed, wouldn't be able to force companies to put warning labels on products(only a gov. whether its state or national could). which i think is necessary in todays society, people are lazy and they aren't goin to read up on the latest product tests... but they'll more than likely see a warning label on the side of a product, and be able to make a decision off of that.

[SOCALHUSKER]

Do you not think the market could do that, much more efficient and fair? See my post above.

 

 

yes a free market can and will do it, and it would definitely be more fair. but im not convinced that it would be as informative. the agencies you listed, wouldn't be able to force companies to put warning labels on products(only a gov. whether its state or national could). which i think is necessary in todays society, people are lazy and they aren't goin to read up on the latest product tests... but they'll more than likely see a warning label on the side of a product, and be able to make a decision off of that.

 

That's not true at all. Companies and industries originally standardized because the market required it. People were getting injured, sick, etc... and the insurance companies and their customers, who also happened to be consumers, were paying and suffering from it. Both the UL and the NFPA are products of the insurance market, not products of the government.

 

The NFPA and UL, other standards currently in existence, and the countless ones that would arise in a free market, are essentially are a stamp of approval saying that companies with their seal adhere to proper business or product standards. In a free market, even the approval business is controlled by competition, so in order to succeed they would be required to perform the best, efficient, and most extensive research as possible. This also includes being as informative as possible. If they did not, who would pay for their services?

 

Does the government do any of that? Absolutely not, politicians pick and choose whom or what succeeds based on special interest lobbying and other political games. Is that the type of extensive research you approve of?

 

Consumers should have a choice between approved or unapproved products. In the end it is only each individual who will suffer or prosper, so the accountability of that choice should rest directly with each individual. Society is not lazy and irresponsible because it chooses to be; it's that way because government does not allow it the choice to be otherwise. Government is the root of the problem, not the solution.

 

Nobody should be forced to do anything, not only is it morally wrong but it leads to disastrous and unintended consequences further down the road. Using government to force businesses or industries to comply is no different. The only sane and logical solution is to allow freedom and accountability to work.

[SOCALHUSKER]

Do you not think the market could do that, much more efficient and fair? See my post above.

---snip---

im not convinced that it would be as informative. the agencies you listed, wouldn't be able to force companies to put warning labels on products(only a gov. whether its state or national could).

---snip---

 

Are consumers forced to buy those products that aren't labeled?

[hosker]

That's not true at all. Companies and industries originally standardized because the market required it. People were getting injured, sick, etc... and the insurance companies and their customers, who also happened to be consumers, were paying and suffering from it. Both the UL and the NFPA are products of the insurance market, not products of the government.

 

The NFPA and UL, other standards currently in existence, and the countless ones that would arise in a free market, are essentially are a stamp of approval saying that companies with their seal adhere to proper business or product standards. In a free market, even the approval business is controlled by competition, so in order to succeed they would be required to perform the best, efficient, and most extensive research as possible. This also includes being as informative as possible. If they did not, who would pay for their services?

 

100% absolutely agree, agencies like this should exist.... but so should a law/agency/whatever that forces companies to inform the public whether their product can cause heart disease, cancer, headaches, ect. ect. ect.....

 

Does the government do any of that? Absolutely not, politicians pick and choose whom or what succeeds based on special interest lobbying and other political games. Is that the type of extensive research you approve of?

 

the research that i approve of is done unbiasedly, and done for the good of the people, not the good of a couple companies or politicians. i understand that it would take a complete change of philosophy in DC for this to happen, and im not holding my breath. but the idea behind my thinking here is, the gov. works for the good of the people, not for the good of itself... it falls in line with my Constitutional beliefs.

 

Consumers should have a choice between approved or unapproved products. In the end it is only each individual who will suffer or prosper, so the accountability of that choice should rest directly with each individual. Society is not lazy and irresponsible because it chooses to be; it's that way because government does not allow it the choice to be otherwise. Government is the root of the problem, not the solution.

 

Nobody should be forced to do anything, not only is it morally wrong but it leads to disastrous and unintended consequences further down the road. Using government to force businesses or industries to comply is no different. The only sane and logical solution is to allow freedom and accountability to work.

 

yes, consumers should have the choice. and yes, the current gov is the root of the problem... but i personally believe a Constitutional Republic does allow freedom and accountability to prosper. clearly it won't allow freedom to be reached in the truest sense of the word. but its as close to it as any form of government/society can achieve and sustain, so thats what i aim for.

 

Are consumers forced to buy those products that aren't labeled?

 

nope, and i don't feel that consumers should be forced to buy anything, but i do feel that companies should be forced to inform consumers of what the products contain, whether its good or bad.... i fail to see how this infringes on the rights of the people.

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

nope, and i don't feel that consumers should be forced to buy anything, but i do feel that companies should be forced to inform consumers of what the products contain, whether its good or bad.... i fail to see how this infringes on the rights of the people.

 

The right of the consumer is the choice not to buy from companies with sketchy business practices or products. This is what ensures businesses will comply with consumer demands. If they don't, consumers don't buy, companies don't profit and they go out of business. Laws, regulation and government can't fix the problems of society without creating astronomical disasters and consequences for everyone. That's a common mistake to think that laws only effect certain people or things. Society is a vast connection of variables and any intervention has ripple effects that has always had and always will have serious consequences.

 

The rights of the people are individual rights, not societies rights. Society only consists of individuals, so the only rights in society are individual rights. Take away individual rights and society has no rights. This means that individuals who own businesses are also entitled to the same individual rights, because they are also individuals. Is that not correct? Since that is the case, why are they required to give up their rights and be subject to the force of laws while consumers and other individuals are not? That seems pretty contradictory to me.