|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/19/2009 09:52:55 PM · #601 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
I'll ask again since it has not been answered. Why don't we reform? Why not remove the bans on crossing state lines to get insurance? Why not allow Americans to purchase perscription meds outside the US? Why is the govt option the only way? |
I'm not sure the government option IS the only way, and for all we know maybe some of the elements you suggest are part of one or some of the many health care bills now being floated (I haven't read all of them, so I don't know). But let me ask you this: Why does it matter at this point? If a Democratic bill included those elements, or if a Democratic bill was made up entirely of only those elements, and it was supported by Obama, the Republicans in Congress would STILL not vote for it. They are ONLY interested in defeating Obama and the Democrats politically; policy is not a sincere concern for them. This is the political reality right now, and it probably has been the political reality from the beginning of this fight. The Republicans would label ANY bill put forward by the Democrats as socialist, evil, Hitlerian, choose your absurd label... end of conversation. Aren't we way beyond arguing the particulars? |
|
|
|
08/19/2009 09:57:40 PM · #602 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Plus, I often find that people use the Canadian example as a reason not to get health care, but when you ask, the majority of Canadians wouldnt have it any other way. Give it a shot, its really not that bad, and your fellow citizens (the 50million uninsured that you seem to have little respect or empathy for), will be healthier because of it. |
But we're the model of perfection. If we deviate that would make us flip floppers...weaklings, communists. Our brand of capitalism is the best and cannot evolve nor should it because that would put a few people out. |
It works for most of us...the majority. |
|
|
|
08/19/2009 10:05:40 PM · #603 |
Just found this article on Yahoo... not sure if these points where mentioned before or not, but the article seems neutral, and based on fact:
Fact Check: Death Panels, Illegal Immigrant Health Care, Complete Govt Takeover |
|
|
|
08/19/2009 10:08:00 PM · #604 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Plus, I often find that people use the Canadian example as a reason not to get health care, but when you ask, the majority of Canadians wouldnt have it any other way. Give it a shot, its really not that bad, and your fellow citizens (the 50million uninsured that you seem to have little respect or empathy for), will be healthier because of it. |
But we're the model of perfection. If we deviate that would make us flip floppers...weaklings, communists. Our brand of capitalism is the best and cannot evolve nor should it because that would put a few people out. |
It works for most of us...the majority. |
Thats what I think is sad though, the majority is not all. The majority excludes 50 Million people. Thats a lot of people.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2009 10:08:52 PM · #605 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
I'll ask again since it has not been answered. Why don't we reform? Why not remove the bans on crossing state lines to get insurance? Why not allow Americans to purchase perscription meds outside the US? Why is the govt option the only way? |
I'm not sure the government option IS the only way, and for all we know maybe some of the elements you suggest are part of one or some of the many health care bills now being floated (I haven't read all of them, so I don't know). But let me ask you this: Why does it matter at this point? If a Democratic bill included those elements, or if a Democratic bill was made up entirely of only those elements, and it was supported by Obama, the Republicans in Congress would STILL not vote for it. They are ONLY interested in defeating Obama and the Democrats politically; policy is not a sincere concern for them. This is the political reality right now, and it probably has been the political reality from the beginning of this fight. The Republicans would label ANY bill put forward by the Democrats as socialist, evil, Hitlerian, choose your absurd label... end of conversation. Aren't we way beyond arguing the particulars? |
Now you have revealed some deep naivety. You cannot see across party lines, and neither can your president right now. But, thankfully there are some democrats out there without their head up their asses. You guys don't even need republicans to get your policies and bills through. You can't even get your own party to agree on it. By reading most of your postings, it is very obvious that you haven't bothered to read ANY of the health care plans. There is where I take issue with whining liberals. You got a president slid into office because he was half black. Most of you didn't know his ideas then, and most of you still don't. I am not interested in defeating Obama. I am interested in keeping the country safe and out of bankruptcy first, and secondly, protecting my parks and trees. It is not possible for you to argue beyond the particulars when you admittedly don't even know the particulars. If you want to eliminate a bit of the ignorance, here is the bill. The government option as presented here cannot be sustained. At this point, Obama is only concerned with meeting political goals, not putting together a plan that more of us can agree with. Take some time and read the bill. Then come back and argue that it is a viable option. |
|
|
|
08/19/2009 10:11:55 PM · #606 |
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Plus, I often find that people use the Canadian example as a reason not to get health care, but when you ask, the majority of Canadians wouldnt have it any other way. Give it a shot, its really not that bad, and your fellow citizens (the 50million uninsured that you seem to have little respect or empathy for), will be healthier because of it. |
But we're the model of perfection. If we deviate that would make us flip floppers...weaklings, communists. Our brand of capitalism is the best and cannot evolve nor should it because that would put a few people out. |
It works for most of us...the majority. |
Thats what I think is sad though, the majority is not all. The majority excludes 50 Million people. Thats a lot of people. |
257 million is more. Do we sacrifice access to care and the relative affordability (debatable) of health care insurance for 257 million people so that 50 million more can say they have insurance? Government option insurance DOES NOT equal access to care. It equals a false sense of security and a stroke to o's ego. |
|
|
|
08/19/2009 10:13:37 PM · #607 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Even still, simply having a government option to give to them wouldn't have solved the problem. |
Other than, if he did have health care he wouldn't have gone broke and may not have died...working 6 days a week at the age 60.
I'm assuming if he lived in Canada, England or France his wife's illness wouldn't have forced him into bankruptcy? And he wouldn't have had to work long restaurant hours, 6 days a week to keep above water and take care of his one daughter? Whether or not he would still be alive ...I don't know but I didn't envy his life as it was.
So my assumption about your political history was wrong so, I'll say it..."I was wrong"...my bad. But on the bright side it does look like you do have a heart buried somewhere in there but it's struggling to get out and you probably need a big hug. Right?
I will add this, however. Your track record shows that you've made a losing pick many times and it's not clear whether or not your choices would have done a better job, either. So, you do have proclivity for picking losers and standing in the wrong corner....Right?
Well, this may be another one of those times. If I were you, I'd go against my better judgment...YES...do the opposite. Think different. Have the chicken instead of the tuna...red wine, instead of white. Join the team. Come in for the Big Win...!
Message edited by author 2009-08-19 22:17:12. |
|
|
|
08/19/2009 10:14:38 PM · #608 |
Again, these are not the main points of the argument against this idiotic bill. The bill will cost a ridiculous amount of money and cannot be sustained over time without taxing all of us more. It will provide insurance, sure, but it will cause a loss of access to care. That's the argument. |
|
|
|
08/19/2009 10:16:21 PM · #609 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
I will add this, however. Your track record shows that you've made a losing pick many times and it's not clear whether or not your choices would have done a better job, either. So, you do have proclivity for picking losers and standing in the wrong corner....Right? |
Alright, good point there, but I still can't agree with the bill in its current form. |
|
|
|
08/19/2009 10:49:13 PM · #610 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Plus, I often find that people use the Canadian example as a reason not to get health care, but when you ask, the majority of Canadians wouldnt have it any other way. Give it a shot, its really not that bad, and your fellow citizens (the 50million uninsured that you seem to have little respect or empathy for), will be healthier because of it. |
But we're the model of perfection. If we deviate that would make us flip floppers...weaklings, communists. Our brand of capitalism is the best and cannot evolve nor should it because that would put a few people out. |
It works for most of us...the majority. |
Thats what I think is sad though, the majority is not all. The majority excludes 50 Million people. Thats a lot of people. |
257 million is more. Do we sacrifice access to care and the relative affordability (debatable) of health care insurance for 257 million people so that 50 million more can say they have insurance? Government option insurance DOES NOT equal access to care. It equals a false sense of security and a stroke to o's ego. |
That is like saying if you have enough food to adequately feed 100 people, but make 75 feel full, its best to let the 75 feel full, and forget the rest.
1 out 6 people being left out is harsh, inhumane, and against your beliefs (I think I read earlier that you were christian).
|
|
|
|
08/19/2009 10:57:56 PM · #611 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
I'll ask again since it has not been answered. Why don't we reform? Why not remove the bans on crossing state lines to get insurance? Why not allow Americans to purchase perscription meds outside the US? Why is the govt option the only way? |
I'm not sure the government option IS the only way, and for all we know maybe some of the elements you suggest are part of one or some of the many health care bills now being floated (I haven't read all of them, so I don't know). But let me ask you this: Why does it matter at this point? If a Democratic bill included those elements, or if a Democratic bill was made up entirely of only those elements, and it was supported by Obama, the Republicans in Congress would STILL not vote for it. They are ONLY interested in defeating Obama and the Democrats politically; policy is not a sincere concern for them. This is the political reality right now, and it probably has been the political reality from the beginning of this fight. The Republicans would label ANY bill put forward by the Democrats as socialist, evil, Hitlerian, choose your absurd label... end of conversation. Aren't we way beyond arguing the particulars? |
Now you have revealed some deep naivety. You cannot see across party lines, and neither can your president right now. But, thankfully there are some democrats out there without their head up their asses. You guys don't even need republicans to get your policies and bills through. You can't even get your own party to agree on it. By reading most of your postings, it is very obvious that you haven't bothered to read ANY of the health care plans. There is where I take issue with whining liberals. You got a president slid into office because he was half black. Most of you didn't know his ideas then, and most of you still don't. I am not interested in defeating Obama. I am interested in keeping the country safe and out of bankruptcy first, and secondly, protecting my parks and trees. It is not possible for you to argue beyond the particulars when you admittedly don't even know the particulars. If you want to eliminate a bit of the ignorance, here is the bill. The government option as presented here cannot be sustained. At this point, Obama is only concerned with meeting political goals, not putting together a plan that more of us can agree with. Take some time and read the bill. Then come back and argue that it is a viable option. |
Ah, well, I see you need another lesson, this time in basic reading comprehension. Now, just take it slow because I know this is tough for you. First of all, there is MORE THAN ONE BILL. There is NO FINAL BILL at this time. If you don't know these basic facts, you have a serious problem. There's the bill with the so-called public option, and there's a bill promoting co-ops, AND there's a bill promoting single payer, and other bills as well. What I said is that I have not read ALL of the bills. Got that? I HAVE read most of the public-option bill and parts of several other bills, but not ALL of the many bills that are being floated. Second, I really don't care whether you want to defeat Obama or not. I was talking about what the REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS are about in this fight. Third, I was most certainly aware of Obama's policies, including his policy on health care reform. Fourth, I did not vote for Obama because he is "half-black", as you put it, but it doesn't surprise me that a reactionary like you would focus on that. Fifth, although you seem very sure that health care reform has been defeated, I don't agree with that assessment. The Dems will go forward with some comprehensive reform without the Republicans, in my opinion. And finally, your link doesn't work and almost crashed my computer.
Now, you are dismissed. |
|
|
|
08/19/2009 11:36:42 PM · #612 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
I'll ask again since it has not been answered. Why don't we reform? Why not remove the bans on crossing state lines to get insurance? Why not allow Americans to purchase perscription meds outside the US? Why is the govt option the only way? |
I'm not sure the government option IS the only way, and for all we know maybe some of the elements you suggest are part of one or some of the many health care bills now being floated (I haven't read all of them, so I don't know). But let me ask you this: Why does it matter at this point? If a Democratic bill included those elements, or if a Democratic bill was made up entirely of only those elements, and it was supported by Obama, the Republicans in Congress would STILL not vote for it. They are ONLY interested in defeating Obama and the Democrats politically; policy is not a sincere concern for them. This is the political reality right now, and it probably has been the political reality from the beginning of this fight. The Republicans would label ANY bill put forward by the Democrats as socialist, evil, Hitlerian, choose your absurd label... end of conversation. Aren't we way beyond arguing the particulars? |
That's quite an assumption and statement to make. Any proof or are you just demonizing republicans? Do you really know republicans are doing that or are you just typing with your ass?
If a bill did not include the public option and had what I felt was true reform (things I've mentioned in this thread) I would hope republicans would vote for it. If they didn't, I'd go to their town hall meeting and make some noise, and would not vote for them.
To be clear, the only thing I heard of that I am against is the govt option, which is nothing more then a sneak attack for single payer.
edit: added bold
Message edited by author 2009-08-20 00:00:14. |
|
|
|
08/19/2009 11:49:07 PM · #613 |
Originally posted by VitaminB:
1 out 6 people being left out is harsh, inhumane, and against your beliefs (I think I read earlier that you were christian). |
To repeat a post made long ago, the 50 million is nothing more then a trumped up democratic talking point.
The real number is 46 million people in the US do not currently have insurance. The number is a little old so people have rounded it up to 50 million because it sounds better.
But if you ask the question how many US citizens that can not afford insurance go without insurance the number is somewhere between 8 and 14 million.
Yeah, the 50 million includes illegal aliens, people that were between jobs and went without for a period of time, people that make enough money to afford it, and people eligible for medicare but have not yet signed up.
So it's really like 1 in 18-30. Still tragic, but not the 1 in 6 the people pushing this crap like to spout off. |
|
|
|
08/20/2009 12:09:45 AM · #614 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
1 out 6 people being left out is harsh, inhumane, and against your beliefs (I think I read earlier that you were christian). |
To repeat a post made long ago, the 50 million is nothing more then a trumped up democratic talking point.
The real number is 46 million people in the US do not currently have insurance. The number is a little old so people have rounded it up to 50 million because it sounds better.
But if you ask the question how many US citizens that can not afford insurance go without insurance the number is somewhere between 8 and 14 million.
Yeah, the 50 million includes illegal aliens, people that were between jobs and went without for a period of time, people that make enough money to afford it, and people eligible for medicare but have not yet signed up.
So it's really like 1 in 18-30. Still tragic, but not the 1 in 6 the people pushing this crap like to spout off. |
I stand corrected. Regardless, 8-14 million people is still a lot of people.
I find it very hard to believe that some Americans would want a system that systematically excludes people. There are many other countries that offer health care to each and every citizen, not just the middle, and upper classes.
|
|
|
|
08/20/2009 01:11:20 AM · #615 |
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
1 out 6 people being left out is harsh, inhumane, and against your beliefs (I think I read earlier that you were christian). |
To repeat a post made long ago, the 50 million is nothing more then a trumped up democratic talking point.
The real number is 46 million people in the US do not currently have insurance. The number is a little old so people have rounded it up to 50 million because it sounds better.
But if you ask the question how many US citizens that can not afford insurance go without insurance the number is somewhere between 8 and 14 million.
Yeah, the 50 million includes illegal aliens, people that were between jobs and went without for a period of time, people that make enough money to afford it, and people eligible for medicare but have not yet signed up.
So it's really like 1 in 18-30. Still tragic, but not the 1 in 6 the people pushing this crap like to spout off. |
I stand corrected. Regardless, 8-14 million people is still a lot of people.
I find it very hard to believe that some Americans would want a system that systematically excludes people. There are many other countries that offer health care to each and every citizen, not just the middle, and upper classes. |
What delineates me from being outside of the upper or middle class? Opportunity? Bullshit. Every poverty level living individual has the same opportunities that I had growing up at the poverty line. Handouts? Perhaps. There are more handouts and options available for those at the poverty line than there were when I was growing up. Perhaps with all those handouts, I would have been content sitting there sucking on the government tit all of my life. Motivation? Yep. I knew that I didn't like where I was, so I got the fuck out. There is your difference. Again, I worked inner city EMS, and still work in a not-for-profit, inner city, children's hospital. I see poverty day in and day out. What I don't see are thousands of helpless individuals that cannot work and make their own means for health care. I see social parasites that have made their living begging for government handouts. I never had free school or work training available. These assholes do. I never used food stamps. These assholes do. I never had any sort of welfare payouts. These assholes do. My family never had any free health care. These assholes do. Bleed away with your 8-14 million people that are without insurance; I don't care. Democracy systematically excludes people. We are a democracy. The majority vote wins...most of the time.
We are also a nation based on commodities and capitalism. Our entire economical structure is based on making money. Even in a not-for-profit system as I work in, some very necessary services get cut from time to time because they are not financially viable. There are children that need airplane transport into our facilities for immediate treatment. We rarely offer it because it is a financially draining program. I think that really sucks, but it is a fact of the matter. There is no amount of government funding that you can dump into a system and make it effective for everyone. Looking at your 14 million number as those uninsured, you're only looking at 4.5% of the national population. If indeed over 95% of American citizens have insurance coverage, there is a very large majority for you. We're already dumping a ridiculous amount of money covering such a relatively small number of uninsured citizens. How, with any economical or mathematical logic can you think that dumping more into the system will make it better? Seriously, answer that question. You obviously haven't read o's proposed bill. Take the time and do it.
There will always be uninsured. The census bureau reported that the number of uninsured citizens dropped by over a million people from 2006 to 2007...during the recession, with no additional government funding. And again, you are only looking at giving them INSURANCE, not ACCESS TO CARE. Dumping more demand into a system that is already stretched close to a breaking point will only serve to break it for the rest of us. You canadians go ahead and keep your long waits and excess taxes. I am happy with what I have, as well as keeping my money in my pockets. Since you guys up north care so very much about our indigents and uninsured, can we go ahead and start sending them up to you? |
|
|
|
08/20/2009 01:21:29 AM · #616 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Ah, well, I see you need another lesson, this time in basic reading comprehension. Now, just take it slow because I know this is tough for you. First of all, there is MORE THAN ONE BILL. There is NO FINAL BILL at this time. If you don't know these basic facts, you have a serious problem. There's the bill with the so-called public option, and there's a bill promoting co-ops, AND there's a bill promoting single payer, and other bills as well. What I said is that I have not read ALL of the bills. Got that? I HAVE read most of the public-option bill and parts of several other bills, but not ALL of the many bills that are being floated. |
So, in reading the selected portions, do you see where the system will fail? Or did you just read the parts that o has presented on his many websites saying that this is the way to go? Genius.
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Second, I really don't care whether you want to defeat Obama or not. |
Then why did you bring it up in the first place? More ass-typing?
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I was talking about what the REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS are about in this fight. |
Why would that matter? Democrats don;t need the republicans to pass bullshit policies right now. However, even a strong number of them are fiscally responsible enough to see that the shit floating on the hill right now in the democratic camp is just that...horse shit.
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Third, I was most certainly aware of Obama's policies, including his policy on health care reform. Fourth, I did not vote for Obama because he is "half-black", as you put it, but it doesn't surprise me that a reactionary like you would focus on that. Fifth, although you seem very sure that health care reform has been defeated, I don't agree with that assessment. The Dems will go forward with some comprehensive reform without the Republicans, in my opinion. |
I never said health care reform has been defeated. This bullshit policy that o had to have done before the August break, which we are in right now, is all but dead. Health care reform will be debated from now on. Constituents from both parties are against the nonsense he is trying to ram through the senate. If you could lift your view up above party lines, you may have a chance to see that.
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
And finally, your link doesn't work and almost crashed my computer. |
It may be time for a better computer. Its a 1000+ page pdf document. If you can't download that document, how have you possible read through "most" of the plan? I'll do it...I'll call bullshit on that one. Nice try though. |
|
|
|
08/20/2009 04:30:36 AM · #617 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Our health care system absolutely needs some work, but it needs tweaking in ways that are financially responsible and fiscally sustainable. |
The above does seem to indicate that Eric has some sort of rational basis for the ranting. I doubt that 'tweaking' would be financially responsible, except insofar as it might be fiscally sustainable.
The financial responsibility that is accepted by those socialist states that top the league tables for health care, is a responsibility to the end user. It is a humane agenda. Actually, there are and have been endless arguments for the ultimate cost-saving and/or production gain of a healthy population over one that drops down dead when no longer financially viable, but it's the human factor that is the first criterion.
As the US administration appears effectively to be controlled by whoever pays for electoral campaigns, then that sort of financial responsibility is probably out of the question. Who dares to change, and how much? |
|
|
|
08/20/2009 06:35:14 AM · #618 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
We are also a nation based on commodities and capitalism. Our entire economical structure is based on making money. Even in a not-for-profit system as I work in, some very necessary services get cut from time to time because they are not financially viable. There are children that need airplane transport into our facilities for immediate treatment. We rarely offer it because it is a financially draining program. I think that really sucks, but it is a fact of the matter. There is no amount of government funding that you can dump into a system and make it effective for everyone. Looking at your 14 million number as those uninsured, you're only looking at 4.5% of the national population. If indeed over 95% of American citizens have insurance coverage, there is a very large majority for you. We're already dumping a ridiculous amount of money covering such a relatively small number of uninsured citizens. How, with any economical or mathematical logic can you think that dumping more into the system will make it better? |
Nicely said....
|
|
|
|
08/20/2009 07:30:40 AM · #619 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
What delineates me from being outside of the upper or middle class? Opportunity? Bullshit. Every poverty level living individual has the same opportunities that I had growing up at the poverty line. Handouts? Perhaps. There are more handouts and options available for those at the poverty line than there were when I was growing up. Perhaps with all those handouts, I would have been content sitting there sucking on the government tit all of my life. Motivation? Yep. I knew that I didn't like where I was, so I got the fuck out. There is your difference. Again, I worked inner city EMS, and still work in a not-for-profit, inner city, children's hospital. I see poverty day in and day out. What I don't see are thousands of helpless individuals that cannot work and make their own means for health care. I see social parasites that have made their living begging for government handouts. I never had free school or work training available. These assholes do. I never used food stamps. These assholes do. I never had any sort of welfare payouts. These assholes do. My family never had any free health care. These assholes do. Bleed away with your 8-14 million people that are without insurance; I don't care. Democracy systematically excludes people. We are a democracy. The majority vote wins...most of the time.
We are also a nation based on commodities and capitalism. Our entire economical structure is based on making money. Even in a not-for-profit system as I work in, some very necessary services get cut from time to time because they are not financially viable. There are children that need airplane transport into our facilities for immediate treatment. We rarely offer it because it is a financially draining program. I think that really sucks, but it is a fact of the matter. There is no amount of government funding that you can dump into a system and make it effective for everyone. Looking at your 14 million number as those uninsured, you're only looking at 4.5% of the national population. If indeed over 95% of American citizens have insurance coverage, there is a very large majority for you. We're already dumping a ridiculous amount of money covering such a relatively small number of uninsured citizens. How, with any economical or mathematical logic can you think that dumping more into the system will make it better? Seriously, answer that question. You obviously haven't read o's proposed bill. Take the time and do it.
There will always be uninsured. The census bureau reported that the number of uninsured citizens dropped by over a million people from 2006 to 2007...during the recession, with no additional government funding. And again, you are only looking at giving them INSURANCE, not ACCESS TO CARE. Dumping more demand into a system that is already stretched close to a breaking point will only serve to break it for the rest of us. You canadians go ahead and keep your long waits and excess taxes. I am happy with what I have, as well as keeping my money in my pockets. Since you guys up north care so very much about our indigents and uninsured, can we go ahead and start sending them up to you? |
Your hatred for the lower class is scary.
And no, I havent read any of Obamas bill, and I dont intend to. I am defending the concept of universal health care, and I am also trying to point out that your opposition to it seems to be in going after the lower class.
There were false rumours of death panels in the health bill, where the government determined if you lived or died based upon your ability to contribute to the economy. I guess your way of excluding the poor (or, sorry, the social parasites as you called them) is just a much cheaper death panel.
2006-2007 was not a recession, the recession started some time in 2007.
I have never had a long wait for a doctor. Reports that suggest that take anecdotal stories that support the opinions of the newscaster only. Many family doctors are still accepting patients, and here is the key point, NO DOCTOR HAS EVER REFUSED TO GIVE CARE BECAUSE OF A LACK OF INSURANCE. Plus, our life expectancy is better than the US. So, I think the Canadian system is well worth the money. |
|
|
|
08/20/2009 07:49:45 AM · #620 |
10 Myths about Canadian Health Care
Here is a quote:
10. This all sounds great — but the taxes to cover it are just unaffordable. And besides, isn’t the system in bad financial shape?
False. On one hand, our annual Canadian tax bite runs about 10% higher than our U.S. taxes did. On the other, we̢۪re not paying out the equivalent of two new car payments every month to keep the family insured here. When you balance out the difference, we̢۪re actually money ahead. When you factor in the greatly increased social stability that follows when everybody̢۪s getting their necessary health care, the impact on our quality of life becomes even more signficant.
And True — but only because this is a universal truth that we need to make our peace with. Yes, the provincial plans are always struggling. So is every single publicly-funded health care system in the world, including the VA and Medicare. There’s always tension between what the users of the system want, and what the taxpayers are willing to pay. The balance of power ebbs and flows between them; but no matter where it lies at any given moment, at least one of the pair is always going to be at least somewhat unhappy.
But, as many of us know all too well, there̢۪s also constant tension between what patients want and what private insurers are willing to pay. At least when it̢۪s in government hands, we can demand some accountability. And my experience in Canada has convinced me that this accountability is what makes all the difference between the two systems.
It is true that Canada̢۪s system is not the same as the U.S. system. It̢۪s designed to deliver a somewhat different product, to a population that has somewhat different expectations. But the end result is that the vast majority of Canadians get the vast majority of what they need the vast majority of the time. It̢۪ll be a good day when when Americans can hold their heads high and proudly make that same declaration. |
|
|
|
08/20/2009 08:10:32 AM · #621 |
Originally posted by VitaminB:
And True — but only because this is a universal truth that we need to make our peace with. Yes, the provincial plans are always struggling. So is every single publicly-funded health care system in the world, including the VA and Medicare. There’s always tension between what the users of the system want, and what the taxpayers are willing to pay. |
My point exactly. The government is not capable of running the system efficiently, or even responsibly in my opinion.
Originally posted by VitaminB:
It is true that Canada̢۪s system is not the same as the U.S. system. It̢۪s designed to deliver a somewhat different product, to a population that has somewhat different expectations. But the end result is that the vast majority of Canadians get the vast majority of what they need the vast majority of the time. It̢۪ll be a good day when when Americans can hold their heads high and proudly make that same declaration. |
Our VAST MAJORITY get what they need the VAST MAJORITY of the time. Realistically, looking at those lacking long term insurance that are eligible citizens, we are at 8-14 million citizens, right? 14 million is only 4.5% of the country's population. Hell, even if you take the entire inflated number of 47 million uninsured, that's still only 15% of the population. Doesn't 85% seem like a vast majority as well? That's the vast majority AND we don't have to add 10% to my taxes. Oh, and we don't pay anything near a car payment, unless you are looking at picking up a very low end economy model and including the cash for clunkers handout, for our insurance at my house.
|
|
|
|
08/20/2009 08:15:18 AM · #622 |
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Your hatred for the lower class is scary. |
My hatred is for government handouts to citizens who contribute nothing more than added burden to our country and economy. If you aren't a contributing member to society, I have no empathy, sympathy, or even small desire to give you more handouts. I hope that's clear. I came from lower class, but we were a lower class that never expected the government to give us anything. We were lower class doing all we could to climb out and away from that poverty line. We succeeded out of drive and ambition, not handouts and expectations.
|
|
|
|
08/20/2009 08:36:52 AM · #623 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Your hatred for the lower class is scary. |
My hatred is for government handouts to citizens who contribute nothing more than added burden to our country and economy. If you aren't a contributing member to society, I have no empathy, sympathy, or even small desire to give you more handouts. I hope that's clear. I came from lower class, but we were a lower class that never expected the government to give us anything. We were lower class doing all we could to climb out and away from that poverty line. We succeeded out of drive and ambition, not handouts and expectations. |
Trust me when I say that you are most assuredly not the only person who over the years managed to claw his way out of poverty and desperation. The difference would seem to be that some have managed to develop and maintain a sense of compassion for those less fortunate. Not all in need of assistance are the lackadaisical societal leeches you portray them to be and hopefully in time you will gain an appreciation of that fact.
In some perspectives you remind me of myself when I was a young police officer. I too had a somewhat skewed view of certain segments of our society and harboured a great deal of disdain for those I considered as non-productive members of our society. Fortunately, I remembered my background, got involved at the grass roots level and rekindled a sense of caring and compassion, all of which has served me well.
It is said that misery loves company, but I fear that this is one journey that I will not take with you. I have gone down that road and truly did not like what I saw.
Good luck to you.
Ray |
|
|
|
08/20/2009 08:50:39 AM · #624 |
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Your hatred for the lower class is scary. |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
My hatred is for government handouts to citizens who contribute nothing more than added burden to our country and economy. If you aren't a contributing member to society, I have no empathy, sympathy, or even small desire to give you more handouts. I hope that's clear. I came from lower class, but we were a lower class that never expected the government to give us anything. We were lower class doing all we could to climb out and away from that poverty line. We succeeded out of drive and ambition, not handouts and expectations. |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Trust me when I say that you are most assuredly not the only person who over the years managed to claw his way out of poverty and desperation. The difference would seem to be that some have managed to develop and maintain a sense of compassion for those less fortunate. Not all in need of assistance are the lackadaisical societal leeches you portray them to be and hopefully in time you will gain an appreciation of that fact.
In some perspectives you remind me of myself when I was a young police officer. I too had a somewhat skewed view of certain segments of our society and harboured a great deal of disdain for those I considered as non-productive members of our society. Fortunately, I remembered my background, got involved at the grass roots level and rekindled a sense of caring and compassion, all of which has served me well.
It is said that misery loves company, but I fear that this is one journey that I will not take with you. I have gone down that road and truly did not like what I saw.
Good luck to you.
Ray |
As much as I never thought I'd *ever* side with Eric on much of anything, I can understand his disdain for a culture he left behind.
Just like not all poor people conform to his exposure, not all old money whites are like my family and their friends, yet the attitudes and condescending entitlement that I grew up around are the very people who have created the scenarios that we live with today. They're the ones fundimng the special interest groups and perpetuating a class structure and bigotry.
I have nothing but disdain for these people as Eric has nothing but disdain for the people who choose to make a career out of milking the government teat.
I did live in a place for about five years where I saw what he speaks of, and saw the results of people driving around in new cars, with cell phones & cigarettes paid for while they never worked a day in their lives, yet they were able bodied. Kinda hard not to have a bad impression of this kind of behavior if you live amongst it every day.
I know we're supposed to have compassion for our fellow man, but some days that takes a lot of effort when the terrible attitudes and behaviors are thrust in your face.
|
|
|
|
08/20/2009 10:15:51 AM · #625 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I have nothing but disdain for these people as Eric has nothing but disdain for the people who choose to make a career out of milking the government teat.
I did live in a place for about five years where I saw what he speaks of, and saw the results of people driving around in new cars, with cell phones & cigarettes paid for while they never worked a day in their lives, yet they were able bodied. Kinda hard not to have a bad impression of this kind of behavior if you live amongst it every day.
I know we're supposed to have compassion for our fellow man, but some days that takes a lot of effort when the terrible attitudes and behaviors are thrust in your face. |
Yeah, but Eric's basically in the position of saying we should not be funding the programs that make this sort of abuse possible. And he can't have it both ways. He's defending the current health insurance system by saying that, at worst, "only" 15% of Americans are not currently covered, and he says that's not a bad number, "we" can live with that. But at the same time he's preaching what seems to be zero tolerance on the other side of the coin: never mind that 85% of the people who benefit from these programs are not leeches and parasites but are, in fact, the very people we rely on to keep the society greased up and running, the low-end, minimum-wage population that doesn't (in today's economic climate) have a prayer of improving itself on a month-to-month basis, and anyway even if they DID then who would be doing the scut work, but never mind that, right? Let's do away witht hese programs because some percentage of the population abuses them.
Geeze Louise... Talk about using numbers selectively.
R. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/07/2025 09:25:39 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/07/2025 09:25:39 PM EDT.
|
