Do you mean universal health care like Canada's?
Cuba's?
Of the many answers to your unfailing stupidity: It is not the role of the fed gubment to provide this entitlement.
It is, however, the role of the fed gubment to provide for the common defense. You sim[ly disagree with its current application.
(Remember, constitutional scholar, it is in our founding what the proper role of the gubment is.)
Personally, I do not want a bureaucracy of that order taking care of the population through any medical system.
Like so many Canadians who need swift medical care, you could come down here and get a spinal implant.
your country can't afford universal heathcare canuck. it's bleeding you dry and is distinctly average at best, only you're too too brainwashed to see it.
the best model is the swedish one - where private healthcare is encouraged whilst the state uses a decentralised purchaser%u2013provider system. Patients pay SEK 80 per day up to a limit of SEK 1800 (i.e 22.5 days) and then the govt subsidies the rest. i.e. a mixed system.
btw - it's spelt 'feasible' you semi-educated twat.
This is an argument you can't win, man. The USA spends more than any other country on healthcare and if they took that budget and used it to create a universal system they could have a gold-standard system for no extra money, but it has become such a bugaboo that the arguments are emotional and illogical (like, "Do you mean universal health care like Canada's? Cuba's?" - indicating that this individual has no capability to imagine beyond that). Trying to use logic and reason against emotion and vitriol is fruitless. Those who CAN think outside the box already do. You can't MAKE a person think.
Notice how either one of these fuckin' doorknobs can't answer my question to begin with, with one of them even desperately trying to hang on to a typo?
Plus, to furher edicate the two asinine turds above, France has the best rated health care system in the world (they'd have to put down their flags for a bit, to be able to see that, though).
While the U.S. is the country that spends the most per capita on health care, it has precious little to show for it.
"The government recorded surpluses in the fiscal years 1998 through 2001, ending Sept. 30 each of those calendar years.
"But that all changed once President George W. Bush was in office a year. Saddled with costs from the Sept. 11 attacks plus the tax cuts he pushed through Congress, Bush took the $127 billion surplus he inherited from former President Bill Clinton and turned it into a $159 billion deficit the following year. Then wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and more tax cuts swelled it to $413 billion in 2004, a record until $454.8 billion for the fiscal 2008 year that ended Sept. 30."
"TAX AND SPEND DEMOCRATS!!!" scream the right-wing fanatics... if you are going to spend, better to fund it through taxation than debt. They seem to support the spending but not the taxation - better to borrow from non-democracies (China, Saudi) to spend on war than to to tax your people to spend on health care?
They can try to exaplin why this group is being used in supposedly the "richest country on the planet" (well, at least at one point this was true, anyways, 'cuz there's a whole lotta folks in the tank these days).
Stream-O....you DO know that with the exception of your Posee and the Torture-Lover, that NO ONE else takes you seriously around here...I mean....you DO know this.....right?
Thank you canadaman for making it all so simple.
If we just spent more money on it, it would get better...or, something like that.
Let's make clear a few starting points for this discussion. (The basics are always sacrificed with knuckleheads.)
1. It is not our governments responsibility to mete out health care. You may feel differently in canada. Your system is hardly the model to aspire.
2. Rating systems are, at best, short-term analyses. I know they make C- feel good since they almost never rank the USA at the top, but they are ultimately meaningless.
3. If a government bureaucracy runs it it will: be slow to respond, inefficient, completely impersonal and cost more than it would otherwise.
But, despite these baseline facts, you want it...and want it desperately. (It is mixing of apples and oranges to suggest that not spending on one thing would equal spending more on another. Since when has Congress ever, ever done that?)
As I pointed out to you geniuses: our government is not constitutionally bound to be in the health care industry. They are, however, to be in the military industry. Once you overcome that little hurdle, we can talk. Until then, keep patting each other on the back for...patting each other on the back.
C-...your reuters story. Please, please read it. It is certainly NOT an argument for universal health care. Your inability to simply think outside your bigoted box is reaching biblical proportions.
C-...60 miuntes story. It almost discredits itself in the first line. Health care never, ever was on the ballot. It never is. And when it is, a la Hilarycare, it is resoundingly defeated. We here in the USA, at least some of us, like to believe that we are responsible for our own well being that that is best preserved by a strong relationship with family, community and a good local doctor...Not a nameless, faceless gubment that treats everyoe the same.
C-...as to your car-bombing story: Are acts of violence down or up in the last year? Didn't the Iraqi gubment just declare Christmas an official holiday? (Wait, you would see that as a bad thing.) Context, C-. Context.
C-...I have never said that our health care system is just fine. Ever. It is simply better than yours.
The surge is working, big time. Like BHO, you will come around, too. But, I know you will not have the humility nor courage to admit it here.
C-...I did answer your question from the original post. I answered it directly. You still can't read.
Superhero Canadaman: Tax and spend Dems is now to include spend-spend-spend Republicans. (I am not a Republican.) So, you may wish to restructure your argument in a thoughtful way...one that includes thinking.
So....like....when YOUR hero, Jesus C., went out and healed the sick (i.e. made the blind see, made the crippled walk, etc.).......who did HE give a bill to?
NO government is "constitutionally bound" to provide universal health care to its citizens, you fucking opportunistic simpleton. They are, instead, MORALLY and ETHICALLY bound to do so. ALL nations are and societies are judged by how they treat their most vulnerable and less-fortunate. And with the "Look-Out-For-Number-One" shits like yourself who happily embrace that philosophy, you just don't stack up. AT ALL. AT ALL. Your fictional "messiah" and all that He supposedly stands for, would puke if he came across the likes of YOU today. You'd rather see a young kid from Anwhere, U.S.A. recieve training, a uniform a weapon and get blasted to bits in Mosul.....but you'd balk at providing that same kid universal health care at home, if he was just a civvie. You're fucking truly twisted....know that? Just how the fuck did YOU and YOUR ild survive all this time, and not become marginilaized like you should have been, long, long ago?
" .....we are responsible for our own well being that that is best preserved by a strong relationship with family, community and a good local doctor."
I already have all of that. And still see NO bill. Same as the Frenchies. Same as the Aussies. Same as the Brits. Same as the Cubans. Same as the Swedes. Same as the Swiss. Same as the Germans. You're fuckin' point? Or maybe THOUSANDS of Americans declaring bankruptcy EVERY WEEK because of MEDICAL BILLS is somehow a neat thing and somehow makes THAT system "better"? Fucking keep it then, pal. It's all yours.
"C-...as to your car-bombing story: Are acts of violence down or up in the last year? Didn't the Iraqi gubment just declare Christmas an official holiday? (Wait, you would see that as a bad thing.) Context, C-. Context.".......
".....The surge is working, big time. Like BHO, you will come around, too. But, I know you will not have the humility nor courage to admit it here."
Oh....yeah?:
"December 27, 2008
Saturday: 31 Iraqis Killed, 76 Wounded
Baghdad suffered a significant attack in the Shi'ite enclave of Khadamiya, but there were also notable attacks elsewhere. At least 31 Iraqis were killed and 76 more were wounded across the country. No Coalition deaths were reported.
In Baghdad, 25 people were killed and as many as 54 were wounded during a car bombing that targeted a Khadhamiya area taxi stand.
An Iraqi soldier and two Awakening Council members were killed in Mussayab, when the bomb they were attempting to defuse exploded. Another 10 people were hurt.
Iraqi police killed a fugitive from yesterday's Ramadi jailbreak and have surrounded two others. The fugitive was known as "Imad the killer" for his admission to having killed over 100 people. Over a dozen people were killed during the jailbreak and ensuing clashes.
One councilman was killed and five bodyguards were wounded when an Iraqi soldier opened fire on them in Taza.
Gunmen killed a civilian in Khalis.
In Mosul, a roadside bomb injured two Iraqi soldiers in Missan, while a second bomb wounded another in Insitar; at least one civilian was also injured.
A bomb injured three people in Baquba."
Is THAT "context" enough" for ya? (Haven't had your regular "surge success" example updates in a long while....have you? Sorry...I've been slacking a bit. I shall endevour to help you catch up)
What ya think, Stream-O? Should we stick to the ol' free-market Ronnie-Reagan-kinda stuff and let'em drift off into oblivion? Or go a little socialistic here? Huh? What ya think?
A) Canadaman never replied to this thread, so who are you replying to?? B) Nobody said "Spend more money on it and it will get better," or ANYTHING like that. If you are replying to me, my suggestion was to spend the same amount, but spend it WISELY. C) By what standard - let me clarify - by what STATISTICALLY RELEVANT standard do you deem that your health care system is better than ours? Rather than trotting out that old canard about response times, how about taking a look at life expectancy (78.14 years, vs. 81.16 in Canada [source: CIA World Factbook])? How about infant mortality rate (6.3 deaths/1,000 live births vs. 5.08 deaths/1,000 live births in Canada [ibid.])?
The U.S. spends TONS more on health care per capita than Canada, with measurably poorer results. This is a FACT. All the rest is so much blah, blah, blah.
Thanks. Streamlined was back half an hour ago to insult Canadians on the kazoo video but I notice he had nothing to say here... I guess we won this round (not that it will shut him up).
C-, my little honeypot of love...
Jesus didn't bill anyone because He didn't have to. He did what he did gratis. Like dying on the cross.
He also did not go throught the government in order to heal. A simple curing of leprosy would have engaged many paper-pushers and accountants to make sure that the leprosy healing tactic was gubment apporved and available in subsidised forms for anyone who qualifies.
Now, you moron, perk up: The government, ANY government is NOT morally or ethically obligated to provide health care, in any form or fashion. On what STUPID grounds to you support that?! I suppose they are also obligated to provide food, shelter, transportation, right?
Hey, listen knucklehead, you brought up morality anf ethics to defend the, of late, most stupid assertion you have ever made.
You just equated what society should do with what a government should do. That's the problem with you libs...no faith in the common man. Charities, churches, beneficent foundations, businesses and individuals have borne the weight of societies needs. However, if a governmental entity replaces these much more efficient and generous methods, what is left of the individual. (I forgot...nothing. I read the communist manifesto. I read som Mao. I know exactly what you all think of the individual. The individual does not matter...only the collective.)
No, you don't already have all that, brainless. It is not free, Chairman C. OTHERS ARE PAYING FOR IT.
Why would canadians flock to the USA for routine surgeries and treatments if it was the system you think it is.
Now, listen close, because I lknow you are semi-literate. I have siad this before and will say it again: the fact that the US's system has problems and even severe ones does not mean the better alternative is universal health care. The problems we have (convoluted pay, 3-4 middle man management, federal regs) can be dealt with without going to what has been tried and failed so often.
Finally...generosity and compassion are not measured by which government programs you support. That may be how the libs define it. (In point of FACT, there are a few academic studies that corroborate one another: Conservatives give more and more frequently than libs. As actual dollars and percentages. This is no surprise since, according to you, with universal health care, there would supposedly be no need for charity.)
Compassion is measured in what you do and give. I like the responsibility on the individual, whom I will trust repeatedly over any governmental agency that has no reason to care for me at all.
Sorry, canadamama...mistook you for another.
Yes, I was replying to you. The implication of universal health care is spending more money, which is the typical lefty solution. Since you did not openly swat Canuck's silliness, I took your response to be in accord with his. If I am mistaken, please elucidate.
Life expectancy and infant mortality rates are not good measuring sticks for efficacy of a nation's health care. (I know you this because you spoke of canards in your response to me.) Further, as I said before, our deficiencies in methodology and application do not necessarily mean a cry for further government involvement. Unless you can't think outside the box.
(Please read the following: www.nationalcenter.org/NPA547ComparativeHealth.html for some balance.)
C-...ever notice when you say "Game, set, match" it never is? Odd. Yet, you keep coming back to it.
As to your article...are you kidding? It is not the free market that is failing here. Or, haven't you noticed. (Freddie, Fannie, gubment bailouts...)
Further...I find it odd that the taxpayer is routinely asked to foot the bill by paying more, using more restraint at home and maybe even make less.
The government, state or federal, is never asked to do the same thing.
Sorry - I just posted instead of replying. Since I can't delete, please ignore the message way down at the bottom.
Stream - First you said: "The implication of universal health care is spending more money, which is the typical lefty solution. Since you did not openly swat Canuck's silliness, I took your response to be in accord with his. If I am mistaken, please elucidate."
As I have said twice already, I don't think the US need spend any more than it is already spending. It is already outspending everyone else by a mile; just spend that money WISELY and you can create a health care system that will be the envy of the world.
As for Canuck, I agree with him in that I vastly prefer the flawed Canadian system over the flawed American system. That said, I have a different debating style (plus he is a big boy and doesn't need my help), so I will stick to replying to what you have written to me.
Then you said: "Life expectancy and infant mortality rates are not good measuring sticks for efficacy of a nation's health care. (I know you this because you spoke of canards in your response to me.) Further, as I said before, our deficiencies in methodology and application do not necessarily mean a cry for further government involvement. Unless you can't think outside the box. (Please read the following: www.nationalcenter.org/NPA547ComparativeHealth.html for some balance.)"
The National Center for Public Policy Research? You sent me to the National Center for Public Policy Research for BALANCE? Seriously?? OK - the Government of Canada Human Resources and Social Development web page (http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/indicator.jsp?indicatorid=2%u2329=en) which compares infant mortality does caution readers that, "Results should be interpreted with caution because live births are registered differently in different countries." Fair enough. HOWEVER, it also goes on to say that, "Canada and the United States include very premature babies with lower chances of survival, which results in higher mortality rates compared to other countries." This seems to indicate that our definitions are similar - do you have any evidence that they are different? We are not talking about Switzerland here - we are talking about Canada and the US.
Let's bring this back around. You said that the American health care system is better than the Canadian system. By what measure? Let's stay away from anecdotes here, because that is just a war of attrition - it merely tests our willingness to keep coming back with one more statistically-irrelevant story after another, and frankly, while I can win that one (it's easy, if only because I have a much larger base to draw from, based on the relative sizes of our populations), I would get bored, and in the end it proves nothing.
So, seriously, what do you base that claim on? It's a helluva claim to make based on nothing but your opinion. Results are what really count, so how is your system better, in terms of how the American system of delivery of health care positively impacts the population as a whole? Are Americans, as a whole, healthier? Does that enter into it for you? If not, then what does?
In my view, life expectancy and infant mortality are great indicators of the health of a nation - we have imperfect numbers, but they are better than random opinions with nothing but decibels and insults to support them. In your view, they are not good indicators, sooooo - what ARE the indicators that you can offer to support your position? Give me some numbers, man - stop wallowing in rhetoric.
I just re-read that article and it is SO presumptive, SO patronzing and SO deliberately misleading that it doesn't warrant the time I would need to invest in a proper response. Verbally, I could pick it to bits, paragraph by paragraph (for instance, it equates health care spending with quality of health care without any concern over it's own assumption, when the whole POINT is that spending doesn't necessarily produce quality - for another instance, one criteria for the accuracy of a statistic is that "the statistic must assume actual interaction with the health care system", which of course would exclude all of those people who can't afford health care in the American system, so they - and their children, who have NO choice, but whose health care as children will affect their health care needs for the rest of their lives - don't count), but I have a life, so doing so in writing for the whole article is silly.
I am taking my own advice:
"Trying to use logic and reason against emotion and vitriol is fruitless. Those who CAN think outside the box already do. You can't MAKE a person think."
The fact that you offered up that article from that organization as an example of BALANCE tells me all I need to know, Stream. Emotion and vitriol are all you have to offer.
C-mama
Thank you for a better debating style.
My point about universal health care: it would require more spending than we already have, regardless of where other dollars are going. I recognize you are not for more spending per se, but if one is for universal care, one is for more spending.
I agree too much money is wasted on our system. Way too much.
What to do about it is another thing. Our current overseas war are unrelated to those expenditures en masse.
Now, to the larger point.
The article I cited was a devastating blow to the metrics you suggest we use when debating the efficacy of a health care system. Devastating.
Infant mortality: big swings in definitions complicate any surveys.
Life expectancy: The volume of variables that are unrelated to health systems completely undermine this as an effective metric of that health system.
You will need more than those two.
Wow.
Cmama, there for a minute, but only just a minute, I thought you might offer something fruitful. Instead, just fruity.
Please, brilliant dissector of articles, tear it to shreds. (It is so presumptive and patronizing...well, when you can't combat the points, pull the parachute and claim you are above it.)
But, quickly to your cute little point: No it did not. Please read the article and then keep it in its proper context. In fact, it explicitly states that spending and life expactancy, in particular, are not correlated.(Gads, I keep having to teach people to read. And look, it is being done without government funding.)
The criterion you suggested would also include people who aren't insured, but choose to save, etc for hospital expenses, and the like. (MSA's, too.)
Now, brainiac, of those uninsured, what proportion cannot afford it versus those who choose not to have it, or those in between?
Think, mama, think.
There are fundamental questions that need to be asked and all the stats in the world still have to answer to fundamentals:
Who is responsible for my health care?
What role does the local government play?
State? Fed?
What do we do when people cannot afford to pay?
The American system is a mess, no doubt. But your illogical use of infant mortality and life expectancy shows exactly where you stand. (BTW- if the numbers are imperfect as you admit...I would ask you to what degree? Would you say, maybe, to such a degree that they aren't useful?)
Canardamama, good night. I am off to wallow in rhetoric.
You have no empirical evidence of your claim, and are content with anecdotes. I understand that you do not feel a need for empirical evidence, and I respect your right to that position.
Thank you for outlining your approach to debate so clearly - I like clarity, and I appreciate your candour (although I had hoped to avoid your name-calling by refraining from it myself, but alas, I was foolish to hope).
Personally, as previously stated, I prefer to base my opinions on statistically relevant information, but I understand the appeal of anecdotes - they are certainly more interesting to read, and more compelling on an emotional level! Both approaches are imperfect (data collection/interpretation can always be improved), but my feeling is that pursuing hard facts rather than anecdotes will provide me with a more accurate picture. As I said, I understand that your feeling is that stories, rather than statistics, are the way to go.
I have no desire to try to convince you to abandon your preference for rhetoric over hard data, so let's call it quits.
"He also did not go throught the government in order to heal. A simple curing of leprosy would have engaged many paper-pushers and accountants to make sure that the leprosy healing tactic was gubment apporved and available in subsidised forms for anyone who qualifies."
Translation: "I'm going to side-step this concrete and logical point that destroys my stupid hypocracy as a phony "christian", and instead engage in an attempt (a poor one, at that) at deflective humour."
"No, you don't already have all that, brainless. It is not free, Chairman C. OTHERS ARE PAYING FOR IT."
Translation: "I know nothing about the system up there, and instead of taking the word of someone who's DOES live within it, I'll just believe what I've been taught down heah all m'life, and that's that. On top of which, I'll go to my usual last trick of screaming liar-liar-pants-on-fire."
"The government, ANY government is NOT morally or ethically obligated to provide health care, in any form or fashion. On what STUPID grounds to you support that?"
Translation: "Do NOT interfere with my Look-Out-For-Number-One mentality, because I am NOT my brothers keeper. When an HMO denies an innocent little girl a life-saving operation, then that's too bad-so sad. She should have gone to a church, and gotten prayed for."
"I suppose they are also obligated to provide food, shelter, transportation"
Translation: "Because of the fact that I live in some hayseed, backwash mudhole, I'm going to ignore the fact that those thar great big cities over yonder have public transit and DO provide transportation. In the meantime, I will also count on the "gubment" to provide a socialized police services, socialized fire department services, socialized health care for members of Congress AND ALL members of the military....but NOT for the common folk (Jayzus can take care of THEM much better)."
"C-...ever notice when you say "Game, set, match" it never is?"
Translation: *GULP* It really IS (but I better not give HIM the satisfaction of knowing it)".
Canuck, You said it yourself in another thread responding to Miter. You Canadians don't mind the government interfering in your personal lives, your personal health care. You don't feel you have the same rights with your government as Americans do, and you're sadly ok with that. You not only don't mind it, you expect it.
http://www.glumbert.com/media/dogsteal
We Americans do not want our government controlling our daily lives in any way, especially our health care. I've been in the military, and had government supplied health care, it fucking sucked. You need an anti-biotic? You get the cheapest Tetracycline they can provide. If it doesn't work, well then maybe they give you something better, after you've just helped make another disease more resistant to anti-biotics. And look at how well the US government has treated all the vets with gulf-war-syndrome? Look at the Walter Reed story a few years back, about the decreped hospital rooms. Any government is impersonal, uncaring, and not suited to control my personal health care. But if I did want impersonal uncaring health care, I always have the option of getting an HMO.
I'd like to see everyone have health care, but I don't see it as the governments responsibility or right to provide it. Maybe the government could provide some regulation to standardize insurance practices and reduce the bullshit. But asking the government to reduce beaurocracy (and related costs) is a real waste of time. Nationalized health care might be a great thing for the first few years. Then over time, the lack of competition, the lowered incentives for doctors and hospitals to do research and improve themselves, the typical government apathy to solving problems that would set in... no thanks.
Canuck, there are two kinds of people in the world. Those that believe government is the solution to all problems (you), and those that believe government is the problem, and can't do anything as well as private industry (me). Maybe coming from Canada, with a smaller government and population, you get more of a personal connection. You're conditioned to looking for government solutions to your problems. That doesn't make Streamo's or my viewpoints irrelevant and wrong.
There are definately pros and cons to either health care system, hopefully everyone is man enough to admit that. Which system is better is partly a matter of personal experience and preference. If you already pay for private health care, you no way in hell want crappy sub-standard government provided healthcare, for you or your kids. If you have nothing, and no income to tax, well than it looks pretty damn good don't it?
I think its a no brainer that my current private health insurance is much better than my previous military health care. Its also a no brainer that military health care is better than no health care at all. But no nation can afford to provide Cadillac health care to all its citizens at Ford prices, not even America. So either the costs go through the roof, or quality drops. So the real question is, are we better to provide low quality health care to all, or provide high quality health care to all that can afford it?
Well as usual, the free market provides better solutions than the government. You provide the health care that people can afford, rather than the health care no one can afford, or the health care no one would want to buy. The free market isn't moral, but I just don't trust my government to be all that moral either.
So as for all those thousands of kids with no health insurance in this country, well some of their parents could afford it, but chose not to buy it. Those parents that can't afford it, probably shouldn't be having kids in the first place, but that's another problem. Lots of cities have free clinics, obviously not as good as a pay hospital, maybe we nationalize these? Provide a certain basic standard of health care for free. (no ability to sue the hospitals, you get the intern doctors, good luck choosing your doctor) But this would only get abused and inflated over time, until crappy nationalized health care for all took over. This is why Republicans would oppose this, not because they don't care about kids. The government would be better to work on reducing health care costs, so more people could afford health insurance.
I believe government is incapable of solving the problem. You think it is. Its called opinion, not fact. And its ok to disagree, you don't have to be uncivil. But you're the one supporting a plan to raise our taxes, you're the one mandating government to steal our money to pay for your healthcare. You expect that, you're used to that. But here in America, we think you could at least say please...
HD- If you don't mind my interjection here, I would like to say you are discussing apples and oranges here when it comes to government administered health care. Military health care would be excellent if you were a four star general, as apposed to being a specialist, correct?
The FREE health care program for your state's millionaire Senator is far far superior to what you are purchasing through your employer, correct? In fact every millionaire congressman's Cadillac care that each of them could pay for, is also, in part, subsidized by uninsured hard working Americans. How can any representative actually have the gall to accept that benefit, knowing that any working American has no health care?
The reason we don't trust the government to administrate health care is that we know that it would be rife with graft, and fraud, as it is now, for everything else it does. This is because the government is dysfunctional, due to its corrupt interrelationship with corporations, and other sources of big money, that it should actually be regulating, and not protecting.
I don't want the government running this program either, because I know that the taxpayer money will be a direct transfer of wealth to the rich, and no health care, just as the now continuous 'bailout' program. The bailout program will continue nonstop as a direct transfer of the working man's income (by the Fed...a private corporation) into the bonus packages of billionaires.
However, government is the only entity that can solve the problem. But it must be a functional regulatory government that is unbiased in it regulations and legislation to control the corporate environment. Americans have forgotten that regulation is needed to create a level playing field of competition and break up monopolies to bring down costs.
Unfortunately, we do not have this type of government. It is unthinkable that the current government would even suggest imposing regulations on the market, and they would NEVER break up a price fixing monopoly.
If the government were actually functional as it should be, then there would be no need to even discuss the health care issue.
You got through all that, without so much as a single slag or insult. I shall now reciprocate:
I suppose I will never, ever understand this hatred of "government" (in general) that most folks in your realm of belief adhere to. Honestly, I don't. You want the "government" out of most things, and as little to do with you as possible. Yet, ANY "government" at whatever level (state, local or federal) provide a wide-range of very basic services: policing, fire dept., transportation, EMS (in some cases), defence, postal delivery, education, finances, agriculture, environmental monitoring, etc. Without any form of institutionalized governmental control, there would be NONE of these things. Look at the current meltdown: all these paragons of "capitalism" and "free enterprise" go broke; who they run to? The "government". Yes. The SAME "government" that many Reagonites said was "too much" or "bad" and "had no place in the free market". Yes....THAT "government". So, like I said, I just don't get it. Make up my mind here: you want the "government" to handle things in your life? Or not? Is it bad or good? Orrrrr......is it like I said in that other thread which, you were keen to cut-and-paste (not necessary....since I ALWAYS own what I say, and say what I own; all you had to do is ask): is there a way to find that right balance? What I said was "I dunno. We're still working on it."
As to your Walter Reed example, I think you'd better go way, WAY back, and catch up on some information: those problems developed there, because the "government" had CONTRACTED OUT and PRIVATIZED a majority of the operations at that facility, including much of the basic care. You're example of the health care YOU recieved in the military is, much as the way Stream-O likes to approcah from, simply anecdotal. If another member of the military say "Oh I dunno; the care I recieved in the military was pretty damn good"....well....what does that do for YOUR story? See what I mean? Using anecdotal evidence NEVER paints a complete picture, or will tell the whole story.
As far as the "affordability" of a universal health care system in the U.S., this is also largely a myth: with what has already been spent on Iraq alone (and counting), each and every man, woman and child in the entire United States could have had health care coverage by now. And I'm not talking about some kind of fictional "Ford" or "cadillac"-style coverage here (whatever the heck THAT means), rather, a simple, basic coverage, i.e., you need a life-saving operation.....you get it. You're in an accident......you get care without a bill. You need sutures? Fine. No bill. But for crying out loud....don't treat it like a profit-driven priviledge, or competition. And THIS is coming from a guy who lives in a place where an insulin vaccine was discovered (amongst other medial achievements-----not bad for a "socialized" system, huh?).
As to your morbid fear of having your taxes raised...well, you know what? If I could be sure my taxes WILL go to the right place....by all means: raise them. George said he wouldn't raise your taxes, and now some folks wonder why there's no money in the kitty to pay for two wars he's waged. A fifth-grader could figure that one out. And to add insult to injury...why, gee, lookit all the problems the PRIVATIZED ARMY (i.e. "mercenaries", like Blackwater Inc.) in Iraq have caused. Nice, huh?
See, unlike folks like yourself who occupy that particular belief of "government" in general being "bad"......I prefer to think (or believe) in "good government", i.e., a government that will be held to account to act in the best interests of its society, and to administer the things they are SUPPOSED to administer in a fair, just and competent manner.
Up here, we are constantly trying to find that balance, instead of writing-off the whole concept of "government" as being "bad".
Like I said...we ain't there yet (and maybe we will never be there; maybe it's meant to be on-going).
But it's a work-in-progress.
And definitely NOT a simple black-and-white issue.
Think about this: why should this corrupt scumbag (or ANY politician, corrupt or not, for that matter) recieve better health care then YOU or YOUR family? What hell makes HIM so damn special? Just because he's an "elected offical"? You see what a profit-driven health system has bred now? It's taught folks that if someone's a congressman, a governor, a senator or even a President.....they all are BETTER than you or your family, and are somehow entitled to a BETTER quality of life than YOU in terms of health services, particularly. Sounds almost like a medieval feudal system, yes? You telling me that an HMO private company is going to deny ANY procedure for THEM or THEIR children?
Its not a hatred of government, its just the understanding that government is corrupt, innefficient, and disfunctional, much more so than private enterprise. Private companies must be effecient to profit, governments don't, so governments can squander resources forever, give bad service, and there's not auto-correction system in place. That's why communism and socialism fail to compete with capitalism. Capitalism is the most effecient system for allocating resources, immoral and cruel maybe, but efficient.
I don't want the government to bail anyone out. I don't believe this mess will be solved by government intervention, I believe government intervention is only prolonging the recovery. Why fix your company when everyone is waiting for their bailout? Private homeowners are considering not paying their mortgages, hoping for government handouts. I was raised to be self-reliant. To rely on anyone, especially a government, to me is distasteful.
I also believe the current mortgage mess was caused more not from deregulation, but from implicit government backing of Fannie and Freddie. Had Fannie and Freddie been true private enterprises, allowed to fail, they would not have taken the financial risks they did. Had the government not "encouraged" them so hard to make risky loans to people who could not afford them, for the sake of getting more minorities into housing, again they wouldn't have made so many risky loans. It may have been a noble goal, but one the government had no business making at taxpayer risk, and it was not sustainable. I want government out of everything but the bare essentials, because the government (any government) has a proven track record of only looking out for its own government employees and contributors.
I've been in the military. I've seen the power of our government, and I wouldn't dare entrust it with anymore power than it already has. Maybe you're just a little too used to giving up your rights, not fighting for them?
Now there are proper functions for government, where general welfare must be looked after. Regulation of drugs, food, travel, infrastructure, environment, police, fire, defense. But I think your healthcare is one of those things self-regulated enough by capitalism, were "government protection" is really just government interference. Government should only run things that free enterprise cannot. And free enterprise should be allowed to profit or fail, with no government support, bail-outs, subsidies, tax incentives, tax breaks, etc.
You'll notice the US postal service was privatized many years ago, and is better for it. Similar with the phone company. Frankly, I'd privatize education as well. Works at the college level just fine. The government has truly fucked up public education, making it far too expensive and far too low quality, in the noble goal of providing education for all. In fact, education is very similar to nationalized health care. One has already become government run, in the goal of providing "education to all". And it just proves that government interference can result in lower quality for everyone. Privatize education, and standards for some improve dramatically. Other kids however, can't afford it, or remain in crappy government schools, kinda like our health care now. By the way, the constitution does not guarantee us the right to an education, and I'd be fine with states doing whatever they want, but I believe federal school funding is overstepping their constitutional bounds.
I don't want the government to handle anything in my life, other than provide common protections where free enterprise alone cannot.
"is it like I said in that other thread which, you were keen to cut-and-paste"
Only to fill in our other readers, not to corner you.
"Is there a way to find that right balance? What I said was I dunno. We're still working on it." And I agree with you on that. That's the beauty of the constitution, is that it is a growable, changeable government, provided it has support of the majority. But I believe the constitution is not only the basic framework of government, but also the limits of government, and the federal government has way overstepped its authority in the last 80 years.
"As to your Walter Reed example, I think you'd better go way, WAY back, and catch up on some information: those problems developed there, because the "government" had CONTRACTED OUT and PRIVATIZED a majority of the operations at that facility, including much of the basic care."
But they failed to fully privatize, in that the patients weren't given the right to take their business elsewhere when they weren't satisfied with their service. You can't do it halfway. You can't privatize the service, without privatizing the accountability.
"You're example of the health care YOU recieved in the military is"
I think I pretty much already said our opinions come from our experiences, and my opinion isn't necessarily any better than anyone elses. But I think a majority of people who had served would probably agree that private health care is far better than military health care. That said, my experiences are limited. I haven't spent time in the burn unit at Walter Reed, and I'm sure some military hospitals do just outstanding work. But most civilian specialty hospitals are pretty damn good as well. Its more the daily clinics and emergency rooms where service suffers.
"As far as the "affordability" of a universal health care system in the U.S., this is also largely a myth: with what has already been spent on Iraq alone"
Stop. Sure those billions would go a long way toward fixing everything in America. But Iraq really is a seperate topic. Life will always require the allocation of limited resources, who does it better, government or free enterprise?
"each and every man, woman and child in the entire United States could have had health care coverage by now. a simple, basic coverage, i.e., you need a life-saving operation.....you get it. You're in an accident......you get care without a bill. You need sutures? Fine. No bill. But for crying out loud....don't treat it like a profit-driven priviledge, or competition."
Well technically the poor are already guaranteed emergency room care in an accident, even though they'll never pay. But ok, government provides a basic level of healthcare. So you have back pain, and need an MRI and back operation to live without pain, well you won't get that in a government run system, at least not without considerable wait. Your kid gets cancer, does the government provide the same level of care? You get heart disease at 70, well you're already fucking old, you don't need some experimental quadruple bipass or implantable defibrulator!
And what's wrong with competition? What drives hospitals to improve services and care? What drives drug companies and medical device companies to come out with the next better product? Sure the drive for profit, but also the risk of losing that profit to competition. Profit is a necessary evil forever driving improvement of service, and better allocation of resources. A government run system has no competition, and that's why any drive for improvements grinds to a halt, and eventually the system sucks.
"As to your morbid fear of having your taxes raised..."
My morbid fears are already realized at the state level. But I would also support higher taxes, if it was spent correctly. However, I simply have no faith that government is even capable, much less willing to correctly spend that money. Therefore, I would rather each and every American keep more, and spend more of their own money, as they see fit. I don't see it as my right to tell you how to spend your money Canuck! If I need health care, I'd rather spend $1000 myself, directly to a doctor or hospital, for a service I researched, I compared prices on, and I know the benefits of. Rather than give $1000 in taxes for the government to tell me the bare minimum I need, and eventually get around to providing me $300 of service, with no one to bitch to if I don't like the service.
"George said he wouldn't raise your taxes, and now some folks wonder why there's no money in the kitty to pay for two wars he's waged. "
Try to stay on topic. The Iraq war has NOTHING to do with nationalized healthcare. If America had 10 trillion dollars surplus, instead of debt, I still wouldn't support nationalized healthcare.
"And to add insult to injury...why, gee, lookit all the problems the PRIVATIZED ARMY in Iraq have caused. Nice, huh?"
Yet another example of privatizing the work, without privatizing the accountability. How about those Blackwater guys get hired directly by Iraqis, accountable to Iraqis? What if the US army had the option of re-contracting with a competitor, because they didn't like the service Blackwater provided? Well this doesn't apply very well to defense needs, which is why defense is government run, not free enterprise. But I'd support bringing back the draft, and doubling the size of our military.
"See, unlike folks like yourself who occupy that particular belief of "government" in general being "bad"......I prefer to think (or believe) in "good government", i.e., a government that will be held to account to act in the best interests of its society, and to administer the things they are SUPPOSED to administer in a fair, just and competent manner. "
Its not that I believe all government is bad, they just aren't forever motivated to excel. And I don't want to relinquish control of my health care to some stranger who supposedly has my best interests at heart. I don't trust my government any farther than I have to. Placing undue trust in government is nieve, and can only lead to dissappointment. After all, the government had our best interests at heart when it chose to invade Iraq right?
And when was the last time you saw "government" and "competent" used together in a sentence?
"Up here, we are constantly trying to find that balance, instead of writing-off the whole concept of "government" as being "bad". "
As are we... But I'm in Minnesota, I'm still kinda up there. I don't assume all government is bad, ok yes I do. I'd keep everything in private control, until I see that private control has fucked things up.
"maybe it's meant to be on-going" Well of course it is!
"And definitely NOT a simple black-and-white issue." Like I ever said it was.
"why should this corrupt scumbag (or ANY politician, corrupt or not, for that matter) recieve better health care then YOU or YOUR family? You see what a profit-driven health system has bred now? "
They shouldn't receive better health care then they're willing to pay for themselves. But society cannot afford to simply give everyone the level of health care they enjoy, that's not the answer. Society should take away their health care perk, and make them pay for it like we do. This is pure corruption, because the lawmakers can vote for their own healthcare benefits. This is government corruption at its finest, and nothing to do with free enterprise. This is the same government you would willingly trust to look out for your best interests. The same government that invaded Iraq, sent troops to Vietnam, dumped nuclear fallout across America in the 50s, and told you it was safe.
"You telling me that an HMO private company is going to deny ANY procedure for THEM or THEIR children?" I got news for you, politicians probably aren't in any HMO plan.
I respect your view and it seems well thought out and very well articulated. Though a bit uneducated. That is alright... I am here but to serve. However, this is more about perspective.
Americans (through not fault of our own) have been prone to the thought process that the "S" word is a four letter word. This word being Socialism.
Perhaps there was a time for that nonsense. No longer.
The US is virtually the only country not involved in a wide scale form of socialism, although they do engage in various sects of it. They just fear to call it that. Childish and hanging on to a fading flag, if you will.
It must be wonderful to feel that to this point in your life, you are entirely self reliant and blissfully ignorant of the majority of your fellow Americans and their plight. But when you reach 65, retire, have no other income and must throw your 'self reliance' to the wayward wind do not feel bad about it. I know that when you cash your Social Security check each month you will not fret about this little version of socialism that at that point will not only joyfully acceptable, but regretably necessary.
I know that when Medicare pays for part of your medical for your vericose veins, incontinence, or other such geriatic normalities you will have forgotten long about your self reliance. Especially when the nurse in your medicare covered hospital bed wipes the spittle from your dry age worn lips.
Cover it all up however you want. It's all socialism. Yes, tell me you paid into it and it's rightly yours. Canadians pay into their healthcare as well... and it's rightly theirs.
Another perspective...
A single mother with a sickly child. A mother who has to work a schedule based on childcare availablity. A deadbeat who won't and is not steadily persued through the legal system for his lack of child support or medical coverage. This same mother who begs for him to help send their daughter to the doctor. A mother who doesn't want to revert to welfare but faces the possibility that this may be the way of it as she also has to file bankruptcy for medical bills she can't pay. The medical organizations that call her house looking for payment even at the county level. A job that barely meets the minimum requirements of income and wishing to the Gods that she could find a way. Self reliant... yes.
But to not want some form of goverment healthcare? That's stupidity. I bet you've never walked in my shoes from that perspective. Lucky you.
So maybe you think, I'm healthy... I don't want to pay for some who isn't. Well the beauty is that you probably won't always be healthy. Someday you will be old and wilted... and sick (Because we all do die.) And if you die by some sort of accident... well lucky you. But unlucky to your family that will be left with any medical bills as a result of an ambulance that was called to assist you or try to bring you back.
The difference is thusly...
Canadians will not have to wait for the age of 65 to see this help. They will not be too old to appreciate it or remember it.
I have had two MRI's. (By misfortune I have a slipped disc in my back.) I got the MRI's quickly... without wait. I picked my own doctor. A fantastic man who see's me regularly. I picked him from the phone book. Just kind of closed my eyes, zipped my paper over the page and landed where I felt lucky.
Since I moved to Canada...
I don't wait in long lines to get my daughter seen... and she does now get medical treatment. And I don't have to rely on anybody to get it...except myself. I pay for it... ME. I pay for it through my taxes and I don't care if they raise them another 20%. It just means that the next I need DR. Hill to come to my house (yes, I said COME TO MY HOUSE) to see my ailing daughter, I won't have to mortgage my house, take out a payday loan, or give the money grubbing lenders a dime... not ... a... dime.
Don't buy into the rhetoric... free healthcare is not the devil... sometimes... it's just free.
And THAT, Dear Sir, is an anecdotal (such that it is) of at least one American's perspective, who has seen and experienced this issue on both sides of the proverbial fence.
Well perspective makes all the difference. I don't have perfect health, my wife and kids even less so. That said, I still prefer to have some choice in my healthcare provider, some competition for my business, and less dependence on the government (even if it is a trade for dependence on expensive private health insurance).
I fully agree there is socialism in America, social security is but one example, and I personally feel this is overstepping any constitutional authority granted to the federal government. But this is another issue. I expect to pay far more in my lifetime to social security than I will ever receive, especially since the entire system may well be bankrupt by the time I retire. When I go completely dependent on others, I would probably find that situation so distasteful as to assist myself in leaving this world.
I don't fear socialism. I fear the government growth, loss of personal rights, and economic stagnation that results from it. America has so far provided a higher standard of living to more people, through capitalism, not socialism.
We already have socialist Medicare to take care of our elders who lack their own health insurance. We already have socialist medical assistance to help poor single mothers afford health care for their kids. I already pay considerable taxes to support social security, Medicare, and medical assistance. Do we really need more socialism? Is your thinking that we're already in so far, might as well go full out?
Do you really deserve more government dollars for anything than you contribute in taxes? Our bill of rights gives you life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It does not guarantee you education, healthcare, or a minimum standard of economic prosperity, because to do so, takes away from others rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Your rights extend only to where they infringe on others rights.
No one is entitled to federal government aid. You may receive endless charity from the generosity of your fellow man, your local church, or your state (which is free to provide whatever its constitution supports). Your fellow man may choose to help you, or me, with healthcare needs. But it is no ones right to force their fellow man, through taxation, to pay for others healthcare. Just as it isn't fair to force people to pay for a war they vehemently oppose.
I'm glad to hear your healthcare experience in Canada has been pretty good. This is certainly not the case for all Canadians, or all citizens of other nations with nationalized health care. I could point out examples of people suffering under nationalized health care, but this is of no value. There are people suffering, or being successfully treated and remaining healthy under either private or nationalized health care. Your personal experiences do not prove nationalized health care is better for all, or even that nationalized health care has been better for you. My wife has had several MRIs, and surgeries, under private health insurance, with no wait.
Your statement reflects volumes on your never-ending trust of big government:
"I pay for it through my taxes and I don't care if they raise them another 20%. "
If everyone thought that way, you would be paying an additional 20% or more. This is a balance between what you believe is better managed by government, vs. better managed by private industry. I for one can never understand expecting to force my fellow man to pay for anything provided to me or my family. I can say please help me, I can be grateful for support, but to expect it, to feel entitled to it, that's just not how I was raised. So if I pay taxes on it, then I'm entitled right? Well yes, if the majority of Americans support this. But since this is taking away considerable wealth from others, this should require a 2/3 majority constitutional ammendment, not just 51% majority.
The state can provide whatever it wants far beyond the federal government. If my state wants to provide state healthcare to all, they can do so. Why has no state yet done so? Everyone afraid to go first? Your government healthcare if any, should be guaranteed at the lowest level of government possible, to ensure it is most reactive to you. That is the state, not the federal government. When one state champions state health care, and proves its worth, then we can talk about federal health care.
I'm sorry... didn't canuck say he would stop posting on glumbert when Obama was elected? All you do is fling shit at fans man. Get over yourself already. No one wants to hear you bitch n' moan anymore. Obama has been elected the new President of the United States... you should be looking forward to the future now, instead of harping on the past.
Hope Canadamama and Stream continue, along with the inevitable editorial commentary from the ubiquitous Canuck....this discussion and its citations are proving to be a grand education for me.
I too believe the US medical system needs fixing. I too have no confidence at all in a government-run healthcare system. That is based on the history of inefficiency and graft our esteemed political leaders have demonstrated in past affairs, pun intended.
I hear from one side the marvellous strengths of "single payer" systems (read: government controlled), and then from another side the callous rationing of health services such systems generate.
Objectively, the arguments have been pretty even, tho' it has been "two against one", Stream being the resourceful defendant against two intelligent antagonists). I was impressed by Dr. David Gratzer's article (Stream's citation re:City Journal, above)...and somewhat encouraged...perhaps a hybrid system might be a better answer?
At any rate, be nice to each other....your inputs are revelatory, relevant, and now should be respectful.
First you said: "The implication of universal health care is spending more money, which is the typical lefty solution. Since you did not openly swat Canuck's silliness, I took your response to be in accord with his. If I am mistaken, please elucidate."
As I have said twice already, I don't think the US need spend any more than it is already spending. It is already outspending everyone else by a mile; just spend that money WISELY and you can create a health care system that will be the envy of the world.
As for Canuck, I agree with him in that I vastly prefer the flawed Canadian system over the flawed American system. That said, I have a different debating style (plus he is a big boy and doesn't need my help), so I will stick to replying to what you have written to me.
Then you said: "Life expectancy and infant mortality rates are not good measuring sticks for efficacy of a nation's health care. (I know you this because you spoke of canards in your response to me.) Further, as I said before, our deficiencies in methodology and application do not necessarily mean a cry for further government involvement. Unless you can't think outside the box. (Please read the following: www.nationalcenter.org/NPA547ComparativeHealth.html for some balance.)"
The National Center for Public Policy Research? You sent me to the National Center for Public Policy Research for BALANCE? Seriously?? OK - the Government of Canada Human Resources and Social Development web page (http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/indicator.jsp?indicatorid=2&lang=en) which compares infant mortality does caution readers that, "Results should be interpreted with caution because live births are registered differently in different countries." Fair enough. HOWEVER, it also goes on to say that, "Canada and the United States include very premature babies with lower chances of survival, which results in higher mortality rates compared to other countries." This seems to indicate that our definitions are similar - do you have any evidence that they are different? We are not talking about Switzerland here - we are talking about Canada and the US.
Let's bring this back around. You said that the American health care system is better than the Canadian system. By what measure? Let's stay away from anecdotes here, because that is just a war of attrition - it merely tests our willingness to keep coming back with one more statistically-irrelevant story after another, and frankly, while I can win that one (it's easy, if only because I have a much larger base to draw from, based on the relative sizes of our populations), I would get bored, and in the end it proves nothing.
So, seriously, what do you base that claim on? It's a helluva claim to make based on nothing but your opinion. Results are what really count, so how is your system better, in terms of how the American system of delivery of health care positively impacts the population as a whole? Are Americans, as a whole, healthier? Does that enter into it for you? If not, then what does?
In my view, life expectancy and infant mortality are great indicators of the health of a nation - we have imperfect numbers, but they are better than random opinions with nothing but decibels and insults to support them. In your view, they are not good indicators, sooooo - what ARE the indicators that you can offer to support your position? Give me some numbers, man - stop wallowing in rhetoric.
Hopefully you three debaters will continue this discussion....it has been educative for me, and I suspect, others as well.
I fear government-provided healthcare, as government has a well-earned reputation for inefficiency and graft...hence those arguments suggesting overall increases in an already runaway cost situation. On the other hand, single-payer systems have at least the appearance of simplicity and improved control, and universal application apart from health insurance issues, aspects devoutly to be desired.
I particularly appreciated Stream's citation of the City Journal's article by David Gratzer, a seemingly well informed professional involved in the Canadian system, and the US system as well. Perhaps a hybrid system would be the best approach?
In any event, be nice to each other....your exchanges have been relevant, revelatory, and now should be respectful. I, for one, appreciate the input.
Shoot ! I misplaced my first post (several posts above) and thought I had inadvertantly cleared it...hence my second similar post. Ah well, my meaning is at least clear, if overly stated. Stream, Cmama, Cman.....all intelligent posters.
I am having a hard time staying motivated to continue this discussion, especially after Streamline's honest and straightforward statement that his preferred body of evidence is anecdote over statistics. Neither of us will ever satisfy the other's requirements to make our point, as I do not accept anecdote as decisive and he rejects numbers and statistics. This indicates a very basic incompatibility which can't be overcome.
If anyone besides Stream wishes to discuss this then OK but for now I am out.
Cmama
(and it's Canuck1963, not Canadaman that has been debating here)
You guys (and I mean all of you) should seriously consider finding a forum or BBS to debate this, and all the other topics that have been so eloquently (some more than others) debated on the Glumbert video comments suggestion. The atmosphere would be much more conducive to such a debate, you'd probably find many others willing to chime in intelligently, and it's my guess that once you all got the name calling and epitaphs out of the way you could have a constructive debate, or at least a conversation.... and if you do, make sure to let the rest of us know where you go, because I'm sure i speak for more than just myself when I say that I find these quasi-debates fun, informative, and eductaional.
Oh yeah, happy christmahanakwanzaka to y'all :) cheers!
Cmama....a while back "Cman" was Canuck's shortened moniker...I guess Canadaman's appearance makes that an uncertain reference these days.
Stream raises questions many of us have. For me, at least, it is not who's right, the US or Canada....it is more like, where to we (US) go from here, because most know, we MUST go from here to somewhere else.
In changing, we hopefully will not move to another lame plan...hence the challenges to the Canadian model that has garnered so many horror stories regarding waits, and callous handling of intensely mortal issues.
So.....please don't leave the field of controversy, unless, of course, it's just become too non-fun.
The thing is that while the questions are legitimate, it is my feeling that the answers can only be found by really, truly looking at how things are, for real - not stories of this or that instance or individual case, but the BIG picture, because there will ALWAYS be gaps and cracks that people fall through. The measure of success should be the OVERALL success, not an assumption that if there are flaws in the system it has failed altogether. There is no single system to emulate which will solve every problem, but with the amount of money the U.S. is spending on health care already, they can afford to cherry-pick the best from around the world, and to offer it universally to their citizens. For instance, the infant mortality rate IS something to look at seriously, and comparison with other countries is valid - if the information is being collected differently in different places, find ways to even out the stats so that they ARE compatible, and go from there. I have been doing some reading and every indication is that the definitions of live birth in Canada and the US are very similar if not identical, and so the comparison between the infant mortality rate can be reasonably considered to be legitimate, which takes us back to my original point: 4,500 babies dying in the US every year who would survive if the US medical system matched the Canadian one IN THIS REGARD. This is a catastrophe that far outstrips 9/11 in terms if loss of life and yet it is dismissed as a statistical blip by the VERY SAME PEOPLE (far right conservatives like the good people at the National Center for Public Policy Research) who scream and howl over abortion rights. How can THOSE babies go forgotten? What - are they just "collateral damage" in the war against the provision of quality health care for all citizens?
If it is possible to offer this to the citizens of the United States, why would anyone object to it? It CAN'T be because of money, as is consistently claimed - the system you have is the most expensive in the world, so it's not a money-saver. It's definitely not about choices - when I gave birth in Canada I had more health care choices available to me, and FAR more control over my birth experience than any of the many women in the States I was in contact with at the time.
As always in America, it is about money and power.
Those with the most money and power have the very best health care, those with the least money and power have no health care.
Congress has the best socialized health care program in America, and from that platform of privilege and influence they will decide what is best for the peasants...as long as their corporate handlers are getting the decisions they paid for.
As we have seen lately, government has a very important role in the regulation of the private sector, but refuses act against the wishes of the corporations that pay them so well. This same government philosophy is what all the propaganda is about, in regards to health care.
The medical industrial complex will have what it pays congress for... Effective and unregulated financial rape of the average citizen, death for the poor, and huge profits raked in by the 'money or your life' that the current structure has managed to engineer.
OK I understand that - from where I sit it looks like the insurance companies in particular are making off like thieves. If I were in the US I would really feel like that money would be far better spent on providing actual care. That is what I am talking about. There is no argument that can be made that this system is saving the American taxpayer any money at all, and it certainly is not benefiting the majority (who are paying through the nose above and beyond the crazy amount the government is already paying). From the outside, this system looks like nothing so much as a machine whose object is to make as much money as possible. I know that is in line with capitalist principles, and that the idea is that this will produce the best, most efficient system. My question is: has it? Does America now have the best, most efficient system? I am not asking if the system is perfect - I am asking if you really feel you are getting the best value for your tax (and insurance premium) dollar, compared to the the rest of the industrialized world. What about if all that money were channeled into a universal system, so that the insurance companies STOP bleeding all that money out of the system, and everyone has access to health care? Is it really so hard to imagine that it can be done?
The health care industry exists to produce profit, with actual health care as a fiduciary annoyance. It is very similar to GM, with the same goal, and having to actually build those cars, If only there were a business that made money, but required no manufacturing...Like GMAC credit services! DOH! But, I digress with this comparison, although it is just.
The confusion here arises from the idea that the US government we have now is the same one that we had in 1970.
We all know that the government should not administrate the health care, because the massive deregulation of all private and public corporations since the 80's. This has made the insurance and health care industries evolve from local non-profit hospitals into multinational medical and insurance giants.
The corporate lobbyists have succeeded in controlling federal, state, and local governments with gobs of cash paid to the people with the power to prevent the system from becoming what it is today. The current government seems to exist solely for the support of the corporations, and those people at the very top of those corporations, and so cannot be trusted with taxpayer dollars, because they will just be funneled into the bank accounts of the CEO's. Currently there is no clear dividing line between the actions of government, and that of corporate America, and IMHO is why Americans feel the government is not suited to handle these functions.
If the government were a true regulatory entity imposing the regulatory environment in the best interests of 'The People of the United States', then no such discussions of socialized health care would be needed. The entire problem is systemic, and is entirely due to the loss of representative government.
So what can be done? What you are describing is corruption, plan and simple. I think that you are right on the money, but a general admission that the American government has become corrupt to the point that you outline here is pretty radical. Do you have any hope for change? Not "Change", but just plain old change...
Speaking of "Change", do you think that Obama and his all-blue House and Senate will address any of this??
"So what can be done?" IMO Congress should be restored to representative government by getting the profit out, and bringing the pain of ordinary American lives in.
First, this would require that representation have a personal wealth and benefit limit on the representatives. Millionaires make decisions that benefit millionaires, not the average American, to understand the need they have to be living without the royal privilege that comes from inherited or positional wealth and power.
Second, The government must be separated from the corporate influence, and return to the legislative and regulatory body, that it must be to make the best environment to meet the needs of the people and business.
Those two changes alone would swing the pendulum of corruption back enough to make every Americans life more healthy and secure.
How this could be achieved is beyond me, because I don't think what the people want or need matters anymore, and thus the representative link is broken. Also, I'm not saying that everyone in government is corrupt, but that those who try to do the honorable thing, get marginalized or become so disillusioned that they themselves just give up.
Canadamama go get them. LOL
I am sitting in Hotel Libertaor in Trujilo Peru. This is a great old hotel . I am flying into the Amazon basin in a couple of days to see the Tahuayo river and rain forest. I wish you were here so we could make babies I need some one smarter than me to supply the eggs.
Anyways flew into Lima , city okay but Pucallpa is like a time warp going backwards. Rented a small motorbike just tripping around lots to see and do .
Hey Miter do you want a 18 ft python skin belt ? It would make cool snow shoes .
I hope to meet the native tribes in the Tahuayo river area . Got a connection so I brought them some of the medicine I brought and glasses so they could see better. They say there is 100's of species of birds and reptiles,butterflies. Keep giving them shit .
Oh, reading this stuff on an old computer in the coffee shop [its so slow] . Abento Canadaman
Well great! Surely those completely inept and incompetent Democrat senators and congressman should finally be able to come up with some valid impeachment charges they could actually make stick! Or maybe they knew all along, and just didn't really care enough.
Who should you be madder at? The stupid president who's leaving office in a month, or the congressmen who truly believed the president lied, yet did nothing?
I respect your view and it seems well thought out and very well articulated. Though a bit uneducated. That is alright... I am here but to serve. However, this is more about perspective.
Americans (through not fault of our own) have been prone to the thought process that the "S" word is a four letter word. This word being Socialism.
Perhaps there was a time for that nonsense. No longer.
The US is virtually the only country not involved in a wide scale form of socialism, although they do engage in various sects of it. They just fear to call it that. Childish and hanging on to a fading flag, if you will.
It must be wonderful to feel that to this point in your life, you are entirely self reliant and blissfully ignorant of the majority of your fellow Americans and their plight. But when you reach 65, retire, have no other income and must throw your 'self reliance' to the wayward wind do not feel bad about it. I know that when you cash your Social Security check each month you will not fret about this little version of socialism that at that point will not only joyfully acceptable, but regretably necessary.
I know that when Medicare pays for part of your medical for your vericose veins, incontinence, or other such geriatic normalities you will have forgotten long about your self reliance. Especially when the nurse in your medicare covered hospital bed wipes the spittle from your dry age worn lips.
Cover it all up however you want. It's all socialism. Yes, tell me you paid into it and it's rightly yours. Canadians pay into their healthcare as well... and it's rightly theirs.
Another perspective...
A single mother with a sickly child. A mother who has to work a schedule based on childcare availablity. A deadbeat who won't and is not steadily persued through the legal system for his lack of child support or medical coverage. This same mother who begs for him to help send their daughter to the doctor. A mother who doesn't want to revert to welfare but faces the possibility that this may be the way of it as she also has to file bankruptcy for medical bills she can't pay. The medical organizations that call her house looking for payment even at the county level. A job that barely meets the minimum requirements of income and wishing to the Gods that she could find a way. Self reliant... yes.
But to not want some form of goverment healthcare? That's stupidity. I bet you've never walked in my shoes from that perspective. Lucky you.
So maybe you think, I'm healthy... I don't want to pay for some who isn't. Well the beauty is that you probably won't always be healthy. Someday you will be old and wilted... and sick (Because we all do die.) And if you die by some sort of accident... well lucky you. But unlucky to your family that will be left with any medical bills as a result of an ambulance that was called to assist you or try to bring you back.
The difference is thusly...
Canadians will not have to wait for the age of 65 to see this help. They will not be too old to appreciate it or remember it.
I have had two MRI's. (By misfortune I have a slipped disc in my back.) I got the MRI's quickly... without wait. I picked my own doctor. A fantastic man who see's me regularly. I picked him from the phone book. Just kind of closed my eyes, zipped my paper over the page and landed where I felt lucky.
Since I moved to Canada...
I don't wait in long lines to get my daughter seen... and she does now get medical treatment. And I don't have to rely on anybody to get it...except myself. I pay for it... ME. I pay for it through my taxes and I don't care if they raise them another 20%. It just means that the next I need DR. Hill to come to my house (yes, I said COME TO MY HOUSE) to see my ailing daughter, I won't have to mortgage my house, take out a payday loan, or give the money grubbing lenders a dime... not ... a... dime.
Don't buy into the rhetoric... free healthcare is not the devil... sometimes... it's just free.
Check This Out!! Watch my sexy videos.. Also i have my own sex videos!!For free!! 100% Guaranteed Satisfaction!! Just Simply Click This Link To Access My Videos!! --------->>>http://budurl.com/mcvt
Comments (76)
To post a comment, you need to login or signup.