ill take your word for it. we dont have to pay, its covered by taxes. so the question is who / what did they raise taxes on to pay for healthcare? and i prefer it to be paid for by taxes because when you are dirt poor, it means you pay little to nothing in taxes and you get more in tax services than you pay.
socialized healthcare
- Thread starter rickyb
- Start date
well shirley, your brother paid 6,000 for his dog, you can't save for the surgery on you, yourself???
Catatonic
Nine Lives
my brothers an "entrepreneur" and i got the surgery and i dont need to save for it because this is canada.
Babagounj
Strength through joy
The bill for treating a gunshot wound: $21,000 for the first 35 minutes
The bill for treating a gunshot wound: $21,000 for the first 35 minutes
An unprecedented analysis of state data by the Tribune reveals that the initial medical costs for treating Chicago gunshot victims add up to tens of millions of dollars each year. And those costs are rising.
The data — obtained by the Tribune after months of negotiation with public officials — show that Chicago-area hospitals billed more than $447 million to treat some 12,000 documented victims of gun violence in the city between 2009 and mid-2016.
And even that figure represents just a fraction of the total billed. While the hospitals charge for room and board as well as equipment and drugs, the surgeons, anesthesiologists and other medical professionals who treat gunshot victims in emergency rooms across the city typically bill separately.
The data show that the victims who bear the physical and emotional scars of being shot live mostly in economically depressed and racially segregated neighborhoods. But the financial burden of caring for survivors of gunshot wounds extends well beyond neighborhood boundaries, according to the Tribune analysis.
In fact, patients who live in poverty and are insured through the publicly funded Medicaid and Medicare programs account for nearly half of the costs analyzed by the Tribune.
The bill for treating a gunshot wound: $21,000 for the first 35 minutes
An unprecedented analysis of state data by the Tribune reveals that the initial medical costs for treating Chicago gunshot victims add up to tens of millions of dollars each year. And those costs are rising.
The data — obtained by the Tribune after months of negotiation with public officials — show that Chicago-area hospitals billed more than $447 million to treat some 12,000 documented victims of gun violence in the city between 2009 and mid-2016.
And even that figure represents just a fraction of the total billed. While the hospitals charge for room and board as well as equipment and drugs, the surgeons, anesthesiologists and other medical professionals who treat gunshot victims in emergency rooms across the city typically bill separately.
The data show that the victims who bear the physical and emotional scars of being shot live mostly in economically depressed and racially segregated neighborhoods. But the financial burden of caring for survivors of gunshot wounds extends well beyond neighborhood boundaries, according to the Tribune analysis.
In fact, patients who live in poverty and are insured through the publicly funded Medicaid and Medicare programs account for nearly half of the costs analyzed by the Tribune.
Stephan Edel Retweeted
ken klippensteinVerified account @kenklippenstein Jul 23
"We can't afford single-payer"
ken klippensteinVerified account @kenklippenstein Jul 23"We can't afford single-payer"
oldngray
nowhere special
Stephan Edel Retweeted
"We can't afford single-payer"
Stupid. An aircraft carrier's primary mission is not shooting missiles.
the big government program in america is military empire. something which ironically alot of so called conservatives dont criticize. this is whats stupid; wasting all that money on murder and control.
upschuck
Well-Known Member
Or maybe it has saved a lot of lives, by deterring our enemies from trying something stupid. And yes, I'd rather control, than be controlled by the enemy.
it is better to suffer wrong than to do wrong.
and no your not saving lives, your ruining them and creating more terrorists and more dictatorships.
upschuck
Well-Known Member
So, say we destroy our military, you saying that nobody would attack the USA? That would kill a lot more people, that are saved, because it never happened. I would highly doubt that, and one thing for sure, I do not want to find out. That is an important feature of a strong military, deterrence.
oldngray
nowhere special
Its better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.
It will be fine
Well-Known Member
That's a silly argument, we have 2 oceans that protect us from the rest of the world. It's pretty impractical to invade our shores. Our giant military that circles the globe is there to protect trade lanes. All countries are mostly free to ship goods around the world because we control the seas and the sky. It is probably difficult to determine if the value we receive in cheap goods is equal to our expenditure in the military, but I'd guess it's close.
upschuck
Well-Known Member
You remember D-Day? It has happened. If we didn't spend the money on the military, we'd be left wide open.
You are kinda making my argument for a strong military.
the american government and its military empire is the leading terrorist organizations in the world. no organization has ever used a nuclear bomb, and no one has killed more people than the US military empire. millions upon millions are dead.
for what? whats the point of having it?
why dont you have a strong healthcare system, or strong economy, or strong welfare system using that reasoning?
the miltary empire is the biggest waste, its the thing that is truly bankrupting your country. it makes you more unsafe. its why 9/11 happened.
It will be fine
Well-Known Member
I think it ends up being a net benefit to maintain it. I just don't think we really need it for national defense. It would be a logistical nightmare to supply an invading army in our country.
upschuck
Well-Known Member
Because we have a strong military, if we had a weak one, not so much.
And Canada thanks us everyday...
in canada something sneaky about our healthcare is when you transfer provinces you have to apply for the new healthcare there. im not sure what happens when you need healthcare and you forgot to apply for the new one. i paid a little money for a specialist because i didnt give them my new card.
when you travel to america, the canadian government doesnt cover your healthcare. this is a major disaster because im sure theres people who have gone to america and didnt know this and got hit with a major medical bill.
in addition i think in the fine print there are exclusions when you buy travel insurance which says that it wont pay for your healthcare if you hurt your self because you were too drunk.
when you travel to america, the canadian government doesnt cover your healthcare. this is a major disaster because im sure theres people who have gone to america and didnt know this and got hit with a major medical bill.
in addition i think in the fine print there are exclusions when you buy travel insurance which says that it wont pay for your healthcare if you hurt your self because you were too drunk.
Similar threads
