Honestly, you couldn't go far wrong by taking everything Kristol says is a good idea, and doing the opposite. I'm just trying to decide if he's really that stupid, or somehow profiting by lying through his teeth.

OH -SNAP-

Woah, what's a politician doing presenting a news program.

I loved this guy in When Harry Met Sally. He's gotten ooollllld.

Oh FFS. I think public healthcare is a fine idea, but this clip is just a load of bull. Kristol is saying that U.S. soldiers get expensive, quality medical services paid by the state that, if offered to everyone, would be too costly, but the soldiers have earned it. Stewart ignores the cost issue and uses this as proof the state should, in fact, provide a similar level of care to everyone.

Whether or not the state can provide good healthcare services at a high cost is not the issue. The question is whether the state can provide it at a reasonable cost to taxpayers. I think yes, but I can still see there is no good argument being made here for that point of view.

Well one of the arguments that conservatives use consistently is that they dont trust the government to run their healthcare. Stewart was arguing that the program being run by the government was in fact a good, well constructed program. Now what we need to do is create a similar program that is less costly.

Orrrr we could just stop fighting wars we dont belong in and save money for healthcare that way.
I keep hearing about the 1 trillion dollar price tag on a new health care plan, but the Iraq War to date has cost the US $860 billion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/weekinreview/01glanz.html?pagewanted=all
Not to sound like a hippy douche but we need to get patriotic about something BESIDES war.

He should've pointed out the obvious question of cost.

So curious that anyone would try to sell socialized healthcare in the middle of a recession.

It's curious how opponents claim the government is too incompetent to run any program, yet fail to remeber they're the same people claiming the govt runs the "best" military in the world.

It's curious how GOP presents a flow chart that means nothing and isn't even a flow chart, yet the current healthcare system is totally fucked as well.

It's curious how drug companies are allowed to spend money advertising to non-medical professionals yet always include "talk to you doctor".

It's curious how insurance companies are allowed to choose money over health, yet a no one realizes not-for-profit management would save costs AT THE LEAST just in administration.

It's curious how you find Keywords like "Sell", Socialized", and "Recession", more important than the actual relevant issues, if you want to talk about what is "curious" here.

It's also curious lies and misinformation are able to sway people when facts and reality are all around.

Funny how the "bible" has a little something to say on this as well (all religious books hold wisdom and logic as well as mistruths):

“Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’ Matthew 25: 45 & 46 - Then He will answer them, saying "Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it unto Me. And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."


Most curious, indeed. Not only is taking care of the weakest link beneficial to the collective (not killing it, in our case), it is the right thing to do regardless of religion. Sickening displays of selfishness and fear in this country.

If:

Your life can only be better if OTHER people would change their behavior...

...But you're in agreement that no one can EVER tell another what to do...

... and you can NEVER be allowed to force a change in someone's behavior.

Then:

YOU must AGREE to change YOUR OWN.



The only way to facilitate a better future for yourself and coming generations, is to volunteer -- to sacrifice --, willingly, with the understanding of the positive impacts you can have.

We know these impacts. We've seen them. If we can't fully heal ourselves, we CAN set it up so that future generations don't have the hurt to begin with.

This requires a broad vision. This requires planning, and dedication, and hard work, and persistency... because you must balance living now with living later.



Is there any way for your future to be better? Yes. Through our efforts.

Is there any way the future of coming generations can be shaped by our presence? Yes. Through our same efforts.

Therein lies inherent responsibility.

All I'm saying is that I'm FRIGGEN glad I don't live in the states thanks to your healthcare.

Australia... we have our issues, but I've taken my son to the ER a few times... and walked out after many treatments without paying a cent.

Our son (yep, same one), has a collection of congenital heart defects, has required a few surgeries to make him be able to... you know... live. Here, it cost us nothing, and HERE in Melbourne, we have some of the BEST damn heart surgeons in the world (so there goes that... well, if we didn't have private health we wouldn't have the best people shit). In the states, we are in contact with many heart families there, and it costs them a FORTUNE to have these treatments... a FORTUNE.

And there's the ongoing cost of medication. Here it costs us almost nothing, again, over there, a fortune.

To have an emergency... to go into an ER and actually have to think about cost.


That's disgusting, and I am STUNNED that anyone would argue to keep your system the way it is... STUNNED.

You do realize that you pay taxes?

You do realize that those taxes should be spent to make life better for everyone in the country yeah?

You do realize how much of your taxes have been spent on your puffed up bullshit military don't you?

Yeah... there's an efficient damn government at work.

Anyone who is against a free public health system is either so f*cking rich they don't care how much it costs, or in the medical business themselves and is making obscene amounts of money from everyone else.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

^ well said spoco, I'll second that. America, don't let the shitbag insurance companies dazzle you with bullshit. Demand nothing less than a full public option.

>> ^spoco2:
Anyone who is against a free public health system is either so f cking rich they don't care how much it costs, or in the medical business themselves and is making obscene amounts of money from everyone else.


You left out the brainwashed people...

Why stop with "free" health care? Doesn't everyone deserves a free home, food and automobile (plus for kicks a high-paying job that pays the same whether you're a brain surgeon or sweep floors)?

This communism sh*t has been tried. Doesn't work. People want private property and individual rights, and the profit motive is what makes the system work for saint and sinner alike.

Medicare fraud already costs the US 60 billion a year and no one's doing a goddamned thing about it.

Government has no interest or incentive to keep costs down. It can't be fired in a timely manner and the bureaucrats can't ever be fired, they're not going to give a rat's ass when they're the only game in town (the Govopoly).

Maybe someone should crack a history book instead of heeding the "wisdom" of Leibowitz's jerkoff joke-writing team when it comes to mattes of literal life and death.

arg. I think Jon was kind of annoying in this clip. Free public healthcare really does rock though (Jon too, usually).

You amaze me with your complete lack of looking into ANYTHING QM.

Have bothered AT ALL to look at other countries that do healthcare a SHITELOAD better than the US? How do you not think it's fair to provide necessary healthcare to everyone in your country? Under what warped logic do you think that only those that can afford it should be able to live, while those that can't die?

How does that work?

And your intro also speaks of being simple minded also:
Doesn't everyone deserves a free home
There is such a thing as government housing, and it's used by people who have fallen on hard times until they can afford something better. The houses are never fantastic, and you wouldn't want to stay in them, but they provide shelter while you try to pick yourself up... Of course you rally against such ideas and think they'll only be populated by the lazy, and how dare they get a roof over their head when you work for all you have...

food
Um... ok, if you don't think there's a need for 'soup kitchens' and other such ways for people who have become destitute, then I would LOOOOOVE for you to end up jobless sometime and not have any family support, and then you can say there should be nowhere for those without money to be able to find shelter and food.

I'd friggen love it.

automobile No, but free/heavily subsidized public transport works wonders for actually being able to get to... oh, I dunno... jobs.

(plus for kicks a high-paying job that pays the same whether you're a brain surgeon or sweep floors)?
Now you're just being a douche. You've got no concept of how any of this works do you? You think that those at or under the poverty line just LOVE living in government housing and surviving on handouts... hell, why bother working when life is so grand hey?

You're an idiot. People don't want to remain like that, people never want to GET like that, but some people do, some through no real fault of their own (some by their own fault, but so what). The idea is, you give them a hand through those times until they can once again become a constructive member of society. And people WANT to get a good job and be able to buy their own home/car and feel like they've been productive. I don't know anyone who enjoys relying on the handouts. But I sure as fuck know people who HAVE HAD to at one time or another and are bloody glad those things were in place to catch them during the tough times.

And some of these people now work for multinational companies in technical roles and are doing very well for themselves... because they were helped during the rough patches.

It ends up costing LESS in the long run you know.

Also... it'd be friggen hilarious if you got some illness that cost an enormous amount of money to treat, and your private health care provider decided that it wasn't covered (as they like to do)... then you'll be bleating that there should be public health.

>> ^vairetube:
It's curious how opponents claim the government is too incompetent to run any program, yet fail to remeber they're the same people claiming the govt runs the "best" military in the world.

I don't know who said that, but you do realize that the military can't be run by private citizens and has to be done by govt because it requires the use of force? Apples & oranges. Besides, that statement is not comparing private versus public, so I don't get the "curious" there.

It's curious how you find Keywords like "Sell", Socialized", and "Recession", more important than the actual relevant issues, if you want to talk about what is "curious" here.

The US is deeply in debt, mostly thanks to govt, and socialized healthcare has an enormous cost. Maybe we should be talking about healthcare when we actually have money to pay for it?

Most curious, indeed. Not only is taking care of the weakest link beneficial to the collective (not killing it, in our case), it is the right thing to do regardless of religion. Sickening displays of selfishness and fear in this country.

I wouldn't attribute that to selfishness or fear, but to an understanding of long term consequences. Taking care of the weak seems very honorable to me. However, forcing people to financially support a govt-run institution to provide for the weak is just a terrible idea.

Taking care of the weak seems very honorable to me. However, forcing people to financially support a govt-run institution to provide for the weak is just a terrible idea.
How do you not see a contradiction in what you're saying?

I don't see in any way why everyone putting in a bit so that anyone who needs healthcare can get it is a bad thing?

Works here, works in Canada, works in many, many countries.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Why stop with "free" health care? Doesn't everyone deserves a free home, food and automobile (plus for kicks a high-paying job that pays the same whether you're a brain surgeon or sweep floors)?
This communism sh t has been tried. Doesn't work. People want private property and individual rights, and the profit motive is what makes the system work for saint and sinner alike.
Medicare fraud already costs the US 60 billion a year and no one's doing a goddamned thing about it.
Government has no interest or incentive to keep costs down. It can't be fired in a timely manner and the bureaucrats can't ever be fired, they're not going to give a rat's ass when they're the only game in town (the Govopoly).
Maybe someone should crack a history book instead of heeding the "wisdom" of Leibowitz's jerkoff joke-writing team when it comes to mattes of literal life and death.


Thank god. One voice of reason in the midst of this big happy socialist circle-jerk. Maybe it's just me, but I thought Locke was on to something when he declared no one is entitled to the labor and effort of another. Selfish concept? You bet. You socialists rail against selfishness. It's immoral to hoard what you earn for yourself, you say. What is it, then, when you extort the unearned from another to provide for yourself or pay for the luxury of your own pity?

You want lower health care costs while preserving rights to private property? Create a more consumer driven market by allowing insurance companies to operate inter-state. Detach coverage from employers and force insurance companies to compete for business on an individual basis. Consider switching the paradigm of physician compensation from 'fee-for-service' to 'fee-for-care' to check queer incentives to over-prescribe and chase wild geese with the patient or insurer's money. Or maybe steer away from the insurer model and encourage people to allocate funds into personal tax-exempt health savings accounts and only insure against catastrophic events. Lack of disincentive to over-use is one of the primary pitfalls of the insurance model, and the problem stands to be exacerbated ten-fold when the government starts providing all this 'free' health-care without requiring a copay.

And for god's sake crack down on frivolous malpractice litigation.

>> ^spoco2:
All I'm saying is that I'm FRIGGEN glad I don't live in the states thanks to your healthcare.(...) That's disgusting, and I am STUNNED that anyone would argue to keep your system the way it is... STUNNED.

I'm very sorry to hear about your son's medical costs being so expensive. I'm sure they cost a fortune where you live too, and I think it's very fortunate that you're not the one stuck with the bill.

Remember, the US is a terrible example of private healthcare, it's already socialized in many ways. You shouldn't rush to assume that's what private healthcare ultimately looks like in terms of costs and insurance. Your indignance is misplaced.

You do realize that those taxes should be spent to make life better for everyone in the country yeah?

Yeah, it is actually because I care about making life better and because I think socialized healthcare is a costly delusion that I consider this a worthy discussion.

You do realize how much of your taxes have been spent on your puffed up bullshit military don't you?

Agreed 100%, terrible use of money.

Anyone who is against a free public health system is either so f*cking rich they don't care how much it costs, or in the medical business themselves and is making obscene amounts of money from everyone else.

That's nonsense, I'm not rich and not a doctor.

>> ^curiousity:
You left out the brainwashed people...

You guys should try having a more open and critical mind, there are people out there who think different about politics, don't take the easy way out.

>> ^spoco2:
I don't see in any way why everyone putting in a bit so that anyone who needs healthcare can get it is a bad thing?

Me neither. The keywords are "government-run" and "forcing people". I'm fine with the rest.

Works here, works in Canada, works in many, many countries.

It might work, but have you considered that it also pushes costs up since there's no price competition? It poorly allocates resources because it's run by bureaucrats and politicians?

Unfortunately, spoco's example is playing the fiddle a bit. On one hand, I can see a need for public taxes to cover things like premature birth or kids born with major defects and handicaps, or total accidents, or random victims of violence. The reason is because it's something that is relatively rare and that we could all have happen to us with no way to prevent it from happening. But that's not the major cost culprit of public options by a long shot. The big spender is giving 85 year olds life-extending operations so they live to 90. It's giving retired people who decided to live a life without saving unlimited health care financed by some future generation. That's the type of ponzi mentality that turns every country who attempts things like Medicare upside-down fiscally. Our desire for life-extending procedures is infinite, but our productive capacity to finance it is not. Thus we borrow the difference until our national debt has gone from majority 30 year bonds to t-bills, majority domestic financed to foreign financed. Countries like Sweden and Australia and Canada pretend as though they can do it, but suffer huge wait times and have practically nothing left over for national defense. Countries like Britain and America tried to have their cake and eat it, too, and clobbered their economies and currencies.

And we have to remember also that any service in which the customer is spending someone else's money and not their own is going to be of higher cost and far more susceptible to fraud. Trust me, I have witness many older family members get unnecessary procedures and equipment sent to our house that is never used on the medicare bill. And Grandma didn't care because she paid virtually nothing out of her own pocket. Thus the high cost of these procedures is precisely because doctors can just charge the public whatever the hell they want since their patient has no premiums or deductible to pay. Without the fear of loss, the patient won't say no, and if the patient won't say no, then there's nothing holding doctors to a lower price.

>> ^spoco2:

Yeah... there's an efficient damn government at work.
Anyone who is against a free public health system is either so f cking rich they don't care how much it costs, or in the medical business themselves and is making obscene amounts of money from everyone else.


*ahem*

im in the medical business. im for a public option. i make a modest living.


however i am stunned at my peers. many many of them dont want "health care reform". amazing. considering how much we all bitch about the waste and inequities in our current system. but... oh yeah wait.. i live in texas.

>> ^BansheeX:

And we have to remember also that any service in which the customer is spending someone else's money and not their own is going to be of higher cost and far more susceptible to fraud. Trust me, I have witness many older family members get unnecessary procedures and equipment sent to our house that is never used on the medicare bill. And Grandma didn't care because she paid virtually nothing out of her own pocket. Thus the high cost of these procedures is precisely because doctors can just charge the public whatever the hell they want since their patient has no premiums or deductible to pay. Without the fear of loss, the patient won't say no, and if the patient won't say no, then there's nothing holding doctors to a lower price.


aaaha! ALOT of the procedures i do are mostly unnecesary. i have to do them because the dr order them. actually, i think a public option is the answer to this. federal regulation and imposed budget constraints could presumably, if done right, squeeze the vast majority of waste and fraud out of the system. the private sector is never good at squeezing out waste and fraud, its only good at making it.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

^with these kinds of comments I fear the US will once again get the healthcare it deserves. Now is not the time for quoting Locke. And if you disparage the elderly getting quality healthcare- I'd say your heart is two sizes too small. There should be a "common good" and care for the elderly falls into it.

A lot of what Americans think about Canadian health care is inaccurate at best, and cherry picking at worst. I challenge anyone on the sift, from countries with public health care, to come out and ask: Would you trade your current public health care for the American one?

America is a great place, and their quality of health care may be amazing, for those that can afford it. There's a reason why America is listed 57th (last I checked) for global health.

Also, was that Howard Dean doing a broadcast on MSNBC? That's getting into Fox territory right there.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Would you trade your current public health care for the American one?

I would absolutely not trade my Australian healthcare for anything the US offered, even a highend Bluecross or Blueshield plan - I'd be too afraid that the corporate wankers would find a technicality to disqualify me if something ever happened.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Why stop with "free" health care? Doesn't everyone deserves a free home, food and automobile (plus for kicks a high-paying job that pays the same whether you're a brain surgeon or sweep floors)?
This communism sh t has been tried. Doesn't work. People want private property and individual rights, and the profit motive is what makes the system work for saint and sinner alike.
Medicare fraud already costs the US 60 billion a year and no one's doing a goddamned thing about it.
Government has no interest or incentive to keep costs down. It can't be fired in a timely manner and the bureaucrats can't ever be fired, they're not going to give a rat's ass when they're the only game in town (the Govopoly).
Maybe someone should crack a history book instead of heeding the "wisdom" of Leibowitz's jerkoff joke-writing team when it comes to mattes of literal life and death.


Your post suggests that the American system is working. I'd say give it 30, 40 years, and the problems you had to face in '09 will look like happy times, compared to allowing business as usual to complete it's vicious cycle, and topple the American regime. Your rhetoric will be reminiscent of grampa and his wild, rambling stories about the good old days, as the world collectively wheels you and your insane ideology to the nut house. or, sorry man, naturally, you're 100% fucking right all the time. what was I thinking to even speak at you in your tower of logic.

>> ^dag:
^with these kinds of comments I fear the US will once again get the healthcare it deserves. Now is not the time for quoting Locke. And if you disparage the elderly getting quality healthcare- I'd say your heart is two sizes too small. There should be a "common good" and care for the elderly falls into it.


I'm not disparaging the elderly, I'm telling you straight up that there is a larger dynamic here than what you are suggesting. If given the choice between no SS/Medicare taxes throughout life or a million dollars worth of procedures when I'm 85, brother, I'm choosing the less taxes. That's an even easier choice for my generation than ones before it since SS/Medicare will implode long before we retire. But even if those were sustainable systems, the point is that some people would rather live a better life than a longer life. In the old days, people made these kinds of decisions and accepted the tradeoff. Now we run a giant ponzi scheme called Social Security (of which Medicare is a part) where the choice is made for us to live a longer life at the expense of a better one. Even that is debatable since a prudent investor would be able to get both. SS/Medicare intake isn't invested at all, just transferred from one generation to another, with a "trust fund" spent by congress decades ago and replaced with IOU bonds.

We don't have a 100% private system, far from it. The high prices are because of government involvement interfering with the market's pricing mechanism. What I fear most is idealist people like you who have zero understanding of what costs are incurred by such systems despite the fixed prices. The costs in the quality of life, the costs on your currency's value, the cost in being unable to compete with foreign production whose employers aren't strapped with paying for the abuse and fraud borne by a system in which people are spending other people's money on services. Like I said before, our economic wellbeing has changed dramatically since leaving the gold standard and borrowing at interest well in excess of our productive capacity. People like you don't understand how ugly our bond market looks, how it went from a normal mortgage to an ARM equivalent. You can't even figure out how to fix Medicare without cutting into some other socialist program you want, and you want more? Figure out how to pay for all the imports, interest obligations, military empire, and socialist services you currently have before dreaming up new ones and adding to the deficit. You think you can add to it in perpetuity, but one day foreigners really will scoff at the notion of buying our debt and we'll be SOL.

Would you trade your current public health care for the American one?

This is exactly the mentality I am talking about. You act as though health care systems exist in a vacuum. In reality, every country that has socialized medicine has to try and budget it AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHER THINGS. And each country has different OTHER THINGS. We have a shitload of OTHER THINGS we already have to borrow trillions year over year for. I blame our socialist education system if people spent all those years in school and can't figure out basic economics. Sure, Cuba spends a shitload on socialized medicine and manages to achieve a lower infant mortality rate, BUT AT WHAT COST ELSEWHERE? Cuba has little else to spend on other things and has a relatively poor standard of living compared to America. That's why people die on banana boats trying to get here, not the other way around. They don't have the privilege of being the reserve currency of the world where central banks will buy their debt in the most absurd circumstances.

>> ^dag:
^with these kinds of comments I fear the US will once again get the healthcare it deserves. Now is not the time for quoting Locke. And if you disparage the elderly getting quality healthcare- I'd say your heart is two sizes too small. There should be a "common good" and care for the elderly falls into it.


They don't call me 'frosty' for nothing. But yes, thank you for nursing such a bleeding heart and proposing to stop it with someone else's means. If you care so much for the elderly, here's what I suggest you do. Get through the grueling pre-medical curriculum. Get all A's. Get through four years of medical school and go well into six figures in debt. Maybe if you score high enough on your STEP 1 and are at the top of your class you can place into a geriatric subspecialty residency. Work 80-100 hour weeks at minimum wage for five years. Then and only then will I respect your 'generosity' and give you credit if you choose to devote your mind and effort to probono or reduced wage public sector work. In the mean time I suggest you leave the geriatricians to dispose of what is rightfully theirs as they goddamn well please.

Yeah the soldiers deserve the best health care because they risk their lives in war.

But the taxpayers are the ones that MAKE THAT WAR POSSIBLE. We PAY for the government to EXIST. But we're given shitty "customer service" because it's just "company policy" to treat your patrons--the ones who keep you in business--like shit.

Okay. I'll go shop elsewhere.

I hear Norway has great customer service!

Under this so-called 'awful' system in the U.S. I had a family member who was diagnosed with NHL and skillfully treated by excellent doctors in top-notch medical facilities. They recieved over a half-MILLION dollars in medical care and I paid a grand total of $5,000. I'd be paying just as much (or more) under a social system in the form of taxes and 'denied care'. Every social plan so far includes premium payments, copays, and prescription drug costs - so 'free' it ain't...

People get medical care in the US just fine. The sad-sack horror stories that neolibs drag out are rare exceptions. Most people in the US get fantastic medical care at very affordable prices. For every person who has a bad experience in the US system, there are equal numbers who have horror stories about thier socialized medicine.

This dictomatic language of "Oh my social system is PERFECT and your private one is hell on earth...!" is so typical of the neolib left. Neolibs can't have a discussion on an issues without resorting to propoganda, logical fallacies, exaggeration, and outright deception. They have no sense of nuance and substance.

The fact is that there are many very valid arguments against socialized medicine. The US government's current medical care programs are abject failures. With a track record like Medicare and Medicaid, why would anyone with a brain assume that the US government is going to run a clean, tight ship with its so-called 'public option' of Obamacare? And PLEASE... Spare me the bologna of "well the government runs medical care just fine for congress and the military..." People who say that crap are comparing grapes to basketballs.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Under this so-called 'awful' system in the U.S. I had a family member who was diagnosed with NHL and skillfully treated by excellent doctors in top-notch medical facilities. They recieved over a half-MILLION dollars in medical care and I paid a grand total of $5,000. I'd be paying just as much (or more) under a social system in the form of taxes and 'denied care'. Every social plan so far includes premium payments, copays, and prescription drug costs - so 'free' it ain't...
People get medical care in the US just fine. The sad-sack horror stories that neolibs drag out are rare exceptions. Most people in the US get fantastic medical care at very affordable prices. For every person who has a bad experience in the US system, there are equal numbers who have horror stories about thier socialized medicine.
This dictomatic language of "Oh my social system is PERFECT and your private one is hell on earth...!" is so typical of the neolib left. Neolibs can't have a discussion on an issues without resorting to propoganda, logical fallacies, exaggeration, and outright deception. They have no sense of nuance and substance.
The fact is that there are many very valid arguments against socialized medicine. The US government's current medical care programs are abject failures. With a track record like Medicare and Medicaid, why would anyone with a brain assume that the US government is going to run a clean, tight ship with its so-called 'public option' of Obamacare? And PLEASE... Spare me the bologna of "well the government runs medical care just fine for congress and the military..." People who say that crap are comparing grapes to basketballs.


I'm a cancer survivour and a type I diabetic, I had a tumour on a nerve branch, and had to have six weeks of radiation therapy, total cost to me: The parking at the hospital, and the skin cream for the therapy, which was fifteen dollars. The only thing I waited for was for my doctor get better, after he was recovering from surgery (which was two weeks.) I had all these procedures appraised (including talking with a nutritionist who rearranged my menu while I was having the therapy.) The surgery and radiation, going off a hospital in Virginia, came to just over 180,000 dollars. Most of it being the surgery on the nerves.

How much would all those tests and surgery, and therapies cost in the US, with all the hidden costs of pharmaceuticals etc. And yes, Canada does have other expenses, we're helping fight in Afghanistan, so we're shouldering the cost at the same time. I doubt anyone has ever said their public health care is perfect, but everyone can agree: It's a lot better than Americas current one. So "every social plan" includes premium payments, copays, and prescription? Well, they don't cover all prescriptions, but they reduce the cost on a lot of them in Canada. But, I didn't have to pay for a damned thing for my cancer surgery and treatments, other than parking at the hospital and some cortazone. I pay my taxes, and I'm glad I can help people like me or who are worse off than me.

Bill Kristol is very ignorant on military healthcare. As a former soldier during peace time I have to say the health care sucked. No choice whatsoever!! I was a paratrooper so I got injured a lot and have plenty of experience with military medicine hackery. Had to deal with wait times, referrals and all that crap. So yeah, I prefer my insurance provided civilian health care.

I'll just say one thing.

As my father lay dying in the hospital from the effects of cancer treatment (not the cancer but the 'cure') a Doctor came in and told us they believed there was one last thing they could try that might save him. It had been done in 2 other cases of the same problem and had worked both times, they had what they needed and were ready to go but they needed approval from the insurance company. Hours later my father was dead with no approval yet from his insurance company.

Now, tell me how having the government making decisions about my health care is worse than having profit driven corporations making those decisions. Tell me how corporate beuracracies are inherently more efficient than anything the government can design.

One thing seems obvious, if this sort of thing happens within a government program we have the opportunity to insist on change and things can improve. When this happens because of a private corporation we accept it as unassailable because we know we're powerless.

You amaze me with your complete lack of looking into ANYTHING QM.

I don't need to look much beyond the Constitution, which says nothing about 'free' healthcare for all or robbing one group of people who worked hard to pay off others who didn't.

Have bothered AT ALL to look at other countries that do healthcare a SHITELOAD better than the US? How do you not think it's fair to provide necessary healthcare to everyone in your country? Under what warped logic do you think that only those that can afford it should be able to live, while those that can't die?

How does that work?

Life isn't fair and no amount of government force will make it fair. I wonder if you lefties even know what's going on in America. Socialized medicine practically exists NOW. WTF is Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security? S-Chip? You'd have to work pretty hard to not get the care you need, especialy if 20 million Mexican illegals are getting it.

And your intro also speaks of being simple minded also:
Doesn't everyone deserves a free home
There is such a thing as government housing, and it's used by people who have fallen on hard times until they can afford something better. The houses are never fantastic, and you wouldn't want to stay in them, but they provide shelter while you try to pick yourself up... Of course you rally against such ideas and think they'll only be populated by the lazy, and how dare they get a roof over their head when you work for all you have...

I don't object to safety nets, but you know and I know that's not what we're talking about here. Also, with the Christianity bashing that goes on here at liberalsift, I wonder where the morality of the left exists on its own merit? Was every atheist born knowing 'the right thing to do'?

Um... ok, if you don't think there's a need for 'soup kitchens' and other such ways for people who have become destitute, then I would LOOOOOVE for you to end up jobless sometime and not have any family support, and then you can say there should be nowhere for those without money to be able to find shelter and food.

I'd friggen love it.

Well that's just fucking wonderful. With all the shit you've been through, you'd rather just wish harm on others that disagree with you, eh?

You're making shit up that has nothing to do with my argument, so here it is again worded slightly different: is it the government's obligation to provide "free" basic everything ALL the time the way they claim to want to do with healthcare?

automobile No, but free/heavily subsidized public transport works wonders for actually being able to get to... oh, I dunno... jobs.

I'm not against local public transportation. In some places it works, in others it's been an expensive disaster. And it's not my point. But if you think people with no car have a right to a "free" bus, so be it.

(plus for kicks a high-paying job that pays the same whether you're a brain surgeon or sweep floors)?

Now you're just being a douche. You've got no concept of how any of this works do you? You think that those at or under the poverty line just LOVE living in government housing and surviving on handouts... hell, why bother working when life is so grand hey?

You're an idiot. People don't want to remain like that, people never want to GET like that, but some people do, some through no real fault of their own (some by their own fault, but so what). The idea is, you give them a hand through those times until they can once again become a constructive member of society. And people WANT to get a good job and be able to buy their own home/car and feel like they've been productive. I don't know anyone who enjoys relying on the handouts. But I sure as fuck know people who HAVE HAD to at one time or another and are bloody glad those things were in place to catch them during the tough times.

And some of these people now work for multinational companies in technical roles and are doing very well for themselves... because they were helped during the rough patches.

It ends up costing LESS in the long run you know.

Yeah, that's why we're several trillion dollars in debt. I have another theory about those success stories: those people might have made it whether there was government aid available or not.

Also... it'd be friggen hilarious if you got some illness that cost an enormous amount of money to treat, and your private health care provider decided that it wasn't covered (as they like to do)... then you'll be bleating that there should be public health.

If an American with a serious illness that requires expensive treatment knocks on Canada's door seeking asylum, do they let him in? Any Canadian sifters, let me know.

If you take nothing else away from this: I don't pretend to have all the answers, while Big Government tyrants do. I oppose socialism in general and in particular this health scam the Obamunists are trying to pass as quickly as possible before the people realize what they thought were brownies are really dog turds.

A government big enough to pay for your kid's "free" health care is also big enough to say, "You're over the limit for treatment costs. Back of the line."

>> ^TheFreak:

Now, tell me how having the government making decisions about my health care is worse than having profit driven corporations making those decisions. Tell me how corporate beuracracies are inherently more efficient than anything the government can design.
One thing seems obvious, if this sort of thing happens within a government program we have the opportunity to insist on change and things can improve. When this happens because of a private corporation we accept it as unassailable because we know we're powerless.

I'm sorry that happened to your father. Remember, the US is not the best example of completely private healthcare, there are many govt programs and tons of regulations that are a burden to competitiveness and cost reduction.

If healthcare was truly free of unnecessary regulations, you'd have many more options for your father's healthcare and the companies would have to actually compete for your money, which would tend to make these options less expensive.

The govt on the other hand, has no incentive to reduce costs or be efficient, they would institute a monopoly also affecting anyone dealing with this govt provided service (professionals, healthcare institutions, pharmaceutical companies, etc.). So even in countries where the taxpayer picks up the bill, the net cost of the whole system is way above what it should be if it were provided by the private sector.

The biggest mistake is when people assign the US's healthcare problem to lack of government, when what actually made the US healthcare industry so great once was the private sector. After many years abusing the healthcare industry, the govt wants to convince us that just letting them run the whole thing is the solution.

If you want to solve the problem of healthcare and nail the culprit of our economy's recession, you do that by reducing the size of govt, not by making it even bigger.

If you want to solve the problem of healthcare and nail the culprit of our economy's recession, you do that by reducing the size of govt, not by making it even bigger.


how is reducing government size going to affect the "culprit" of america's current financial crisis?since when did goldman-sachs and the federal reserve become government agencies?

>> ^quantumushroom:
If an American with a serious illness that requires expensive treatment knocks on Canada's door seeking asylum, do they let him in? Any Canadian sifters, let me know.


It depends on the province and the circumstance. There isn't a universal Canadian health care, it's run by the provinces and territories. The only thing the Federal gov't really does is keep pumping money into it. Every province has different rules. I know in Ontario, if it were desperate enough, they would. Eg. It needs to come out, or you've been in a car accident etc. If it's someone in the US who came to Canada to get treated, they would either charge them, or not admit them. It depends on the situation. The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto is famous for taking in families with kids in dire need, and charging OHIP for it, which no one seems to mind.

How much would all those tests and surgery, and therapies cost in the US, with all the hidden costs of pharmaceuticals etc.

The more pertinent question is, how much did the tests cost you in taxes or provincial premiums? I paid $5K ONE year. The previous and subsequent years I paid very little (in the low hundreds) because I didn't have big needs. You, on the other hand, pay 2 or 3 thousand (average) a year into the Canadian tax system whether you need it or not. Over the course of your lifetime you are spending many thousands more than I am.

I doubt anyone has ever said their public health care is perfect, but everyone can agree: It's a lot better than Americas current one.

No - we don't have to agree with that because it is a patently false statement. Our system is different than your, but it is FAR from 'inferior'. The US system creates far more innovation, has better doctors, and far more rapid treatment times. It has its problems, but it is not a clear-cut obvious answer that a single-payer public option would solve those problems. Socialized medical plans are different. Not better. You pay for those so-called 'free' systems with higher taxes, longer wait times, and 'denied coverage' where in our super-evil private system we have no health tax, extremely fast treatment, and everyone gets treated whether they can pay or not. It isn't as black & white an issue as neolibs try to pretend it is.

Now, tell me how having the government making decisions about my health care is worse than having profit driven corporations making those decisions.

A tragic story. Not to pour salt, but you really should be asking yourself a much different question. "Would it have been any different under a government system?" Have you even HEARD the comments from Obama, Biden, Pelosi, and the other geniuses pushing this nightmare? Was your father over 60 at the time? If he was, then you would be comforted to know that Obama (or some government panel) would probably have decided that it was "time for him to take a pain pill". You think that's exaggeration? Those were Obama's EXACT WORDS when asked whether his system would treat an old person.

Fovernment health care is not going to approve every person that comes for treatment. You think they're going to approve every possible treatment, no matter how expensive or what condition the patient is in? Puh-leeze. If anything, it is FAR more likely that FEWER treatments will be 'covered' under a government system than are approved by a private one. If you think your father's outcome was tragic, imagine it being repeated with far greater frequency as Obamacare bungs the elderly into hospice HOPING they die quickly rather than giving them all kinds of expensive drugs, treatments, and care.

The more pertinent question is, how much did the tests cost you in taxes or provincial premiums? I paid $5K ONE year. The previous and subsequent years I paid very little (in the low hundreds) because I didn't have big needs. You, on the other hand, pay 2 or 3 thousand (average) a year into the Canadian tax system whether you need it or not. Over the course of your lifetime you are spending many thousands more than I am.

I don't think you understand how taxes work in Canada and the provinces. The answer is zero. I pay my federal and provincial and municipal taxes. I went up into a higher tax bracket not too long ago, and that's the only time I've had to change what I pay. We may pay a little more, I think it's 3-4% more, and I'm okay with that, if I'm helping pay for an MRI to help someone know they don't have cancer.

No - we don't have to agree with that because it is a patently false statement. Our system is different than your, but it is FAR from 'inferior'. The US system creates far more innovation, has better doctors, and far more rapid treatment times. It has its problems, but it is not a clear-cut obvious answer that a single-payer public option would solve those problems. Socialized medical plans are different. Not better. You pay for those so-called 'free' systems with higher taxes, longer wait times, and 'denied coverage' where in our super-evil private system we have no health tax, extremely fast treatment, and everyone gets treated whether they can pay or not. It isn't as black & white an issue as neolibs try to pretend it is.

There actually isn't any "denied coverage" in Ontario. They don't turn you away if you have a problem, they will take care of it. Wait times, do happen, but make sure you looking at all the numbers. There's something called: "The 90th percentile" Yes, if you have a non life threatening condition, lets say a new hip or knee, then yes you will wait.. But, the doctors know how the system works, so they will schedule you for that surgery down the road, when you will need it. Ninety percent of the numbers Republicans are using are from that, they don't look at the stats for people with life threatening conditions. As for better, Canada is ranked higher than the US in healthcare. Infact, lets count the third world countries that are ranked higher than one of the greatest industrialized nations in the world; or lets look at how much of the GDP is spent into health care and look at the results, if you're America, you're not number one, you're far from it, which is a shame for such a great country.

>> ^quantumushroom:
You amaze me with your complete lack of looking into ANYTHING QM.
I don't need to look much beyond the Constitution, which says nothing about 'free' healthcare for all or robbing one group of people who worked hard to pay off others who didn't.


Bingo!

You treat the constitution like others (you perhaps also?) treat the bible... your one stop shop for everything. Everything begins and ends with one document and you'll be damned if any further discussion will be had because apparently that document is perfect. (Let's ignore the raft of amendments... they... um... just fine tuning and already perfect document aren't they?)



Have bothered AT ALL to look at other countries that do healthcare a SHITELOAD better than the US? How do you not think it's fair to provide necessary healthcare to everyone in your country? Under what warped logic do you think that only those that can afford it should be able to live, while those that can't die?
How does that work?


Life isn't fair and no amount of government force will make it fair. I wonder if you lefties even know what's going on in America. Socialized medicine practically exists NOW. WTF is Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security? S-Chip? You'd have to work pretty hard to not get the care you need, especialy if 20 million Mexican illegals are getting it.

No one is saying that the US system is GOOD now at all. But what you DO have is the situation where private health companies are consulted BEFORE you get treatment to see if you will be covered for that treatment. THAT is absolutely insane. Look, here in Australia we have public and private... public health guarantees you all the necessary health care you need, and you pay a levee on that in your taxes (Medicare levee), if you take out Private health care (as most do), then you don't have to pay that levee as you are paying your own way via the private insurer. You don't suddenly stop getting public health, just the hospitals get paid by the private insurer rather than the government. Also, private health care gives you elective benefits and better rooms in hospitals etc. (ie. your own room rather than shared). The deal is, you can get better 'extras' etc. surrounding core health care by being on private, but you never miss out on the necessary care by not being able to afford it... and that's the way it should be.


And your intro also speaks of being simple minded also:
Doesn't everyone deserves a free home
There is such a thing as government housing, and it's used by people who have fallen on hard times until they can afford something better. The houses are never fantastic, and you wouldn't want to stay in them, but they provide shelter while you try to pick yourself up... Of course you rally against such ideas and think they'll only be populated by the lazy, and how dare they get a roof over their head when you work for all you have...
I don't object to safety nets, but you know and I know that's not what we're talking about here. Also, with the Christianity bashing that goes on here at liberalsift, I wonder where the morality of the left exists on its own merit? Was every atheist born knowing 'the right thing to do'?

Wah? Huh? I don't get the point of this comment at all. If you're going down that religious path of 'well, I have this book that tells me my morals, and what is right and wrong... you must have no morals and not know what's right and wrong because you don't have a book', then sorry, but that's an insanely stupid tree to be barking up. If you truly believe that you would do 'bad things' if you didn't have the fear of god punishing you for breaking his commandments for doing so then you are a 'bad person'. Most of us don't do 'bad things' because we don't want to hurt other people or make life worse off for others, not due to some selfish fear for ourselves.


Um... ok, if you don't think there's a need for 'soup kitchens' and other such ways for people who have become destitute, then I would LOOOOOVE for you to end up jobless sometime and not have any family support, and then you can say there should be nowhere for those without money to be able to find shelter and food.
I'd friggen love it.
Well that's just fucking wonderful. With all the shit you've been through, you'd rather just wish harm on others that disagree with you, eh?

I didn't wish harm on you. I wished destitution on you (which doesn't have to physically harm you at all, just take your ego down a few notches). I wished that you ended up with no money and therefore be reliant on the very things that you think shouldn't exist, because apparently you lack a iota of empathy and are incapable of ever seeing how someone could end up poor and without help and need some help to get back on track. Sometimes, for some people such as yourself, the only way to get through that 'it's other people' mentality is for it to affect you directly.


You're making shit up that has nothing to do with my argument, so here it is again worded slightly different: is it the government's obligation to provide "free" basic everything ALL the time the way they claim to want to do with healthcare?


No, and no one is suggesting that the government should provide everyone with free everything. What we're saying is access to healthcare should not be dictated by your bank balance. I, because I earn a good wage, should not be able to get a heart replacement if I need it, but let someone else die because they couldn't afford the operation. That just isn't right, and nowhere in the bible does it say anything about looking after only those who can afford it. In fact, I'm pretty sure it talks about taking care of the weak and needy.


automobile No, but free/heavily subsidized public transport works wonders for actually being able to get to... oh, I dunno... jobs.
I'm not against local public transportation. In some places it works, in others it's been an expensive disaster. And it's not my point. But if you think people with no car have a right to a "free" bus, so be it.
No, people who have no access to their own transport through not being able to afford it, despite their best efforts, should be able to use public transport to get around. If you deny people the ability to get around, how are they ever going to get to the jobs to make the money to be able to pay for these things themselves?



(plus for kicks a high-paying job that pays the same whether you're a brain surgeon or sweep floors)?
Now you're just being a douche. You've got no concept of how any of this works do you? You think that those at or under the poverty line just LOVE living in government housing and surviving on handouts... hell, why bother working when life is so grand hey?
You're an idiot. People don't want to remain like that, people never want to GET like that, but some people do, some through no real fault of their own (some by their own fault, but so what). The idea is, you give them a hand through those times until they can once again become a constructive member of society. And people WANT to get a good job and be able to buy their own home/car and feel like they've been productive. I don't know anyone who enjoys relying on the handouts. But I sure as fuck know people who HAVE HAD to at one time or another and are bloody glad those things were in place to catch them during the tough times.
And some of these people now work for multinational companies in technical roles and are doing very well for themselves... because they were helped during the rough patches.
It ends up costing LESS in the long run you know.
Yeah, that's why we're several trillion dollars in debt. I have another theory about those success stories: those people might have made it whether there was government aid available or not.

Um... you're several trillion dollars in debt for many, many reasons, not least of which is the trillions of dollars you spend on your damn military. You can't take anything you don't agree with and try to suggest THAT is why you're in debt... sorry, doesn't work.

And in regards to those that would have made it one way or another... not necessarily so at all, although you'd LOVE to think so, because that's the right wing brain. "Successful people will always be successful with no help from anyone else". Which is a load of crap. SOME people pick themselves up completely independently and become successful with no external help, but ALMOST ALL have support from many places. A particular case I'm thinking of (a friend), spent years being horrendously insecure in themselves and doing f-all for his career and being effectively 'a drain' on society as you would say. But now he earns a good wage and is giving back to society through his taxes, so therefore paying back for his time. He needed that time being supported to get out of that rut. If there was no support... well, I don't know what would have happened to him, but it wouldn't have been nice.


Also... it'd be friggen hilarious if you got some illness that cost an enormous amount of money to treat, and your private health care provider decided that it wasn't covered (as they like to do)... then you'll be bleating that there should be public health.
If an American with a serious illness that requires expensive treatment knocks on Canada's door seeking asylum, do they let him in? Any Canadian sifters, let me know.
If you take nothing else away from this: I don't pretend to have all the answers, while Big Government tyrants do. I oppose socialism in general and in particular this health scam the Obamunists are trying to pass as quickly as possible before the people realize what they thought were brownies are really dog turds.
A government big enough to pay for your kid's "free" health care is also big enough to say, "You're over the limit for treatment costs. Back of the line."


Huh? You've given up again... you've obviously got some hardwired words in your brain that are 'bad':
'Socialism' = bad
'Big Government' = bad
without really thinking through what you're saying.

Saying that a government can turn around and deny care is, well ridiculous when you're comparing it to private companies that do it ROUTINELY. If government does it (please do give me examples where they have... hmmm? I can pull out stupendous amounts of private health examples), then they have public outcry from the country to contend with because it's health care that WE are all paying for. If a private company denies treatment then you'd just say 'Well... it's a free market, go with another provider'.

I really think that you've been taught to believe these right wing mantras but, like most right wingers, you haven't thought through the consequences of those actions AT ALL... You run on an endless loop of 'hard work will get you what you need', whereas we run on one that says 'a fair go for everyone'. Your loop ignores how people get started in the first place, how people need help to get up from being poor and uneducated and pull themselves up to be really productive members of your country. You think that anyone who can't afford to go to university or get healthcare or have a car only lacks those things purely through their own laziness. We think that maybe you help people to have the opportunity to become educated and not be sick, and maybe that gives them a better chance to spend time learning a trade and becoming skilled and earning a great wage and getting their family moving on and up rather than staying poor and a drain on society for ever.

>> ^gtjwkq:
It might work, but have you considered that it also pushes costs up since there's no price competition? It poorly allocates resources because it's run by bureaucrats and politicians?

There is price competition in Ontario and many other provinces in Canada. Hospitals are mandated by law to operated in "positive" budgets, as well private clinics do exist here. Generally when dealing the a persons health you don't want "price competition" you want to aim for best service at reasonable price for the public dollar. So you use general oversight rules.

If there is one overriding issue with the current round of debates in the US over "healthcare", is that they want to have it at the federal level for one and all. Sorry, bad idea. Hell it's a terrible idea. The only way it'll work efficiently(due to the way the government exists in the US & at the state level) is to have each state responsible for their own level of care like Canada.

If an American with a serious illness that requires expensive treatment knocks on Canada's door seeking asylum, do they let him in? Any Canadian sifters, let me know.

Canada doesn't do asylum based on illness, that's reserved for other things. We do however bring people back into Canada from around the world who actually need medical care and can't get it in 2nd and 3rd world countries for treatment all the time. That aside, if you show up in Canada and require critical care for some emergency condition. You'll get it. Whether or not you'll have to pay for it(being that you're out of country and a non-payee into the system) is another question altogether different. Healthcare isn't free here either, that's where that 50% tax rate comes in along with country wide equalization payments. Since Canada already deals with Americans, and other foreign nations entering the country for healthcare, I'm sure you can figure out how much of a strain the puts on the system. And yes, there's a special division relating to healthcare fraud from non-Canadian nationals in every province.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Why stop with "free" health care? Doesn't everyone deserves a free home, food and automobile (plus for kicks a high-paying job that pays the same whether you're a brain surgeon or sweep floors)?


While sweeping floors is unskilled labour, I think I'd be affected more by having nobody clean the areas around where I lived than if the brain surgeons stopped their work. Without anyone removing rubbish all the time, the rat infestations and associated disease would probably harm and kill more people than brain surgeons save.

Don't underestimate the importance of core workforce like cleaners.

I don't really have a position on the healthcare debate. I think our current system needs an overhaul, but I certainly don't know what the right answer is. I don't mind the tax increase if the public option is an improvement, thought I'd rather see them allocate money from other budgets.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Under this so-called 'awful' system in the U.S. I had a family member who was diagnosed with NHL and skillfully treated by excellent doctors in top-notch medical facilities. They recieved over a half-MILLION dollars in medical care and I paid a grand total of $5,000. I'd be paying just as much (or more) under a social system in the form of taxes and 'denied care'. Every social plan so far includes premium payments, copays, and prescription drug costs - so 'free' it ain't...

You probably mean you paid $5000 on top of the insurance premiums you've paid all year. That would be the case for most people, anyway. How do your costs look then?


>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Neolibs can't have a discussion on an issues without resorting to propoganda,

What is "neolibs" if not propaganda? You're comparing people arguing for public health care with a violent right-wing political movement.


>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
The fact is that there are many very valid arguments against socialized medicine. The US government's current medical care programs are abject failures. With a track record like Medicare and Medicaid, why would anyone with a brain assume that the US government is going to run a clean, tight ship with its so-called 'public option' of Obamacare? And PLEASE... Spare me the bologna of "well the government runs medical care just fine for congress and the military..." People who say that crap are comparing grapes to basketballs.

This part baffles me as well. I've never known military healthcare to be anything but the worst of the worst. I've not experienced it, mind you, I've just always heard from every soldier I've known that military healthcare is garbage and most of the doctors are there because they couldn't make it in the real world.


>> ^TheFreak:
As my father lay dying in the hospital from the effects of cancer treatment (not the cancer but the 'cure') a Doctor came in and told us they believed there was one last thing they could try that might save him. It had been done in 2 other cases of the same problem and had worked both times, they had what they needed and were ready to go but they needed approval from the insurance company. Hours later my father was dead with no approval yet from his insurance company.

Unfortunately there's no real 'cure' for cancer... basically they poison the shit out of you and hope the cancer dies first. However, if I'm not mistaken, what you describe is illegal. I believe doctors are required to take any action necessary to save a life regardless of whether the patient can pay or not. I don't believe approval from the insurance co should have even been considered.

I don't think you understand how taxes work in Canada and the provinces. The answer is zero... We may pay a little more, I think it's 3-4% more, and I'm okay with that...

So - which one is it? Zero or 3-4% more in taxes? :eyeroll: You're talking out both sides of your mouth here. No one believes the baloney that you don't have to pay any money in a public system. Of course you do. You pay higher taxes to fund your system. Don't pervaracate. Just admit it! All the papers I've read say that the average Canadian pays between $2,500 and $4,000 a year in taxes either as a federally withheld charge, or as a provincial premium.

There actually isn't any "denied coverage" in Ontario. They don't turn you away if you have a problem, they will take care of it.

Delayed care is denied care.

...better rated...third world...

Penn & Teller have a TV show that describes what I think of THAT claim. No 3rd world country has better health care than the U.S. The lists you're talking about tend to be weighted (deliberately) in favor of socialized systems. If we swapped over to a social system IN NAME and did nothing else, they'd rank us #1.

My apologies, you worded it to sound like we pay premiums on top of our taxes. So, yes I pay premiums, I also pay them for Unemployment Insurance, I also pay for paving fees to make sure the roads are maintained, and I pay a surcharge on keeping the electrical grid functioning as well =P

In my current tax bracket, comparing the 2008 numbers, I pay 6% more than Americans in my bracket. But, of that, I reclaim up 25% of my income in medical expenses, and various other things I can write off. I'm not an accountant, but I'm sure the numbers work out that we're in the same ball park for finance. Your papers, like many senators and congressmen, are wrong. Personally, I don't believe anything the news says in the US. I get more truth out of the Daily Show and Colbert report than MSNBC, CNN or FOX. But which papers are reporting that? I'd love to see the links to the articles.

Delayed care is denied care.

If you have an emergency, they will treat you. They won't say, come back in an hour when we have time. If you have a tumour that needs to be operated on, they won't say, well lets see how it is in six months. They did ask me to wait, but gave me the option of having the surgery right away. I chose to wait for my own doctor, who is a great ENT surgeon; and suffered no nerve damage to my face. But, they gave me options to choose from, and I did. Are there wait times? Yes, for non life threatening conditions. I have to have an MRI and CT scan every year. I have to wait a long time, but they schedule me knowing that. I had one scheduled last October, and I have it this September, when I'm supposed to have it.

Again, not knowing how the insurance works down in the US, but I don't have 180 grand. That would have broken the piggy bank for sure. Would your insurance cover the 180 grand for the same procedure and operation, and would your rates go up afterwards? Would they still cover you afterwards? Maybe you should ask them =P

I don't need to look much beyond the Constitution, which says nothing about 'free' healthcare for all or robbing one group of people who worked hard to pay off others who didn't.

Bingo!

You treat the constitution like others (you perhaps also?) treat the bible... your one stop shop for everything. Everything begins and ends with one document and you'll be damned if any further discussion will be had because apparently that document is perfect. (Let's ignore the raft of amendments... they... um... just fine tuning and already perfect document aren't they?)

The Constitution limits government power and says any powers not expressly given to the federal mafia is given to the States. That balance is already long gone. If "you" wish to circumvent those limits, even and especially for "the common good", then you may as well admit you support a benevolent dictatorship where the thugs at the top can do anything they want as long as you FEEL they're doing the right thing, or they appear to be.

The Constiution is not a "living document" nor written on an Etch-a-Sketch. It is, however, simply ignored by the scum in the federal mafia. If an Amendment was needed to outlaw alcohol, why is there no proposed amendment mandating 'free' health care? Because the current shits are anarchists, or monarchists.

No one is saying that the US system is GOOD now at all. But what you DO have is the situation where private health companies are consulted BEFORE you get treatment to see if you will be covered for that treatment. THAT is absolutely insane.

And you're basing this massive dissatifaction on what, exactly? Or is the mythical "46 million" uninsured going to come out of the woodwork again?

Look, here in Australia we have public and private... public health guarantees you all the necessary health care you need, and you pay a levee on that in your taxes (Medicare levee), if you take out Private health care (as most do), then you don't have to pay that levee as you are paying your own way via the private insurer. You don't suddenly stop getting public health, just the hospitals get paid by the private insurer rather than the government. Also, private health care gives you elective benefits and better rooms in hospitals etc. (ie. your own room rather than shared). The deal is, you can get better 'extras' etc. surrounding core health care by being on private, but you never miss out on the necessary care by not being able to afford it... and that's the way it should be.

"But you never miss out on the necessary care by not being able to afford it."

You would be hard pressed to find average Americans dying in the streets due to a lack of health care. Like I wrote, 20 million illegal aliens seem to know where the emergency rooms are, even when the sign is written in English.

From wikipedia:

The health care industry is likely to be the most heavily regulated industry in the United States. A study published by the Cato Institute suggests that this regulation provides benefits in the amount of $170 billion but costs the public up to $340 billion.[159] The study concluded that the majority of the cost differential arises from medical malpractice, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations, and facilities regulations. Part of the cost is attributed to regulatory requirements that prevent technicians without medical degrees from performing treatment and diagnostic procedures that carry little risk.

It appears that once again, the soaring costs of medical care can be largely attributed to government interference. (And trial lawyers, but that's another story).


It's perplexing that numbers of people claim religion is evil yet believe that a true source of goodness is a government program which people are forced to enroll in at gunpoint. There's some confusion that this recent Obamunist government intrusion isn't the same as mandatory "universal halth care" but that's where it will end up. The camel's nose is poking into the tent.

I didn't wish harm on you. I wished destitution on you (which doesn't have to physically harm you at all, just take your ego down a few notches). I wished that you ended up with no money and therefore be reliant on the very things that you think shouldn't exist, because apparently you lack a iota of empathy and are incapable of ever seeing how someone could end up poor and without help and need some help to get back on track. Sometimes, for some people such as yourself, the only way to get through that 'it's other people' mentality is for it to affect you directly.

Yes, you wished harm on me, but that's due to your "left wing brainwaves"as the socialist believes that when one person wins, another must automatically lose; that's why the scramble for an "equality of outcomes" is so important. This isn't Dicken's "A Christman Carol" and I'm not Scrooge. And because not everyone agrees with your one-size-fits-all mentality on this or that issue does not mean they they're A) automatically wrong and B) in need of an ego resizing. Don't worry, I've had hard times aplenty.


Seems to me the only thing missing from your plan is personal responsibility. Are smokers or fat folks given less priority care or charged more in Australia? And forgive me in advance for going here, but at what point under the government system does some bureaucrat say, "Your child ain't gonna make it anyway because such-and-such condition has a 20% survival rate" and cut off treatment, or the more expensive treatments. From my point of view, you should at least entertain the idea that giving the government power over life and death when they can't even deliver the mail is a serious risk. They're serving you at their convenience and if they decide to cut you off, you're in a lot more trouble than some insurance company which can be sued.

You're making shit up that has nothing to do with my argument, so here it is again worded slightly different: is it the government's obligation to provide "free" basic everything ALL the time the way they claim to want to do with healthcare?

No, and no one is suggesting that the government should provide everyone with free everything.

There's a whole political system based on the idea that government should provide everyone with free everything, via the abolition of private property. And really, since no one is driving the train, it makes perfect sense for the communist to demand that everyone be fed for "free" all the time. Food is a more immediate and vital basic need than health care, isn't it? Even the healthy must eat to stay they way...so is "free" bread a 'right'?

What we're saying is access to healthcare should not be dictated by your bank balance. I, because I earn a good wage, should not be able to get a heart replacement if I need it, but let someone else die because they couldn't afford the operation. That just isn't right, and nowhere in the bible does it say anything about looking after only those who can afford it. In fact, I'm pretty sure it talks about taking care of the weak and needy.

Things cost money. Either you pay or someone else does. Your argument in a nutshell is that socialized medicine is less expensive, and in some ways---brace yourself---you might be right. As stated, I don't claim to have all the answers, but for America a completely government-run health care system (which is what the taxocrats are after) will be a disaster.

Um... you're several trillion dollars in debt for many, many reasons, not least of which is the trillions of dollars you spend on your damn military. You can't take anything you don't agree with and try to suggest THAT is why you're in debt... sorry, doesn't work.

The military is a tiny slice of the US budget compared to all the "free" social programs. We don't have the money to pay for all of the "free" goodies we have now, including Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Someone has to pay for all this stuff. Under socialized health care is it "fair" that the healthy guy with no major medical problems gets little return on his health care taxes while the fat smoker spends two years in a hospital bed before expiring?

And in regards to those that would have made it one way or another... not necessarily so at all, although you'd LOVE to think so, because that's the right wing brain.

"Successful people will always be successful with no help from anyone else". I said no such thing, but I will say this: government is the problem more often than not, and per your friend, your government system could just as easily and cheerfully kept him on the dole to suit its own purposes. Apparenlty he made a choice which brought him desired results. Which brings me to another point: some people are beyond helping, they will fk up everything all the time by constantly making the wrong choices no matter how much help you give them. There's no reason to hurt such people more than they hurt themselves, but there's also no reason to let them game the system forever.

Huh? You've given up again... you've obviously got some hardwired words in your brain that are 'bad':
'Socialism' = bad
'Big Government' = bad
without really thinking through what you're saying.

It must be cultural. Americans--the real ones--don't trust authority. Our government was founded by revolution and rebellion against the idea of kings, or ten thousand pint-sized would-be kings holding clipboards.

Saying that a government can turn around and deny care is, well ridiculous when you're comparing it to private companies that do it ROUTINELY. If government does it (please do give me examples where they have... hmmm? I can pull out stupendous amounts of private health examples)

Government consider plans to deny NHS treatment to smokers and obese

Anger over NHS restrictions for osteoporosis treatment

Vulnerable And Frail To Get Substandard Medical Care, Australia

Australia's health care system basically 'broke'

Left-wing socialist ideals have given you a certain perspective not shared by all. Your "culture", like many in the world, believes that the group is more important than the individual.

I'm sayin' that sooner or later, that belief will bite you on the buttocks, because the operators of such systems remain human. Less government = better.

The basis of the idea that every human being is entitled to "free" health care is a made-up "right" based on nothing. Even among the world's major religions' mandates to selflessly help others there is no call to establish gigantic government entities to take care of the public.

It's repugnant to suggest that because one does not fall to his knees in praise of The System, one then must automatically be for suffering or letting others starve.

Government is a necessary evil that creates nothing and can only take by force and shuffle around what already exists. The answers to the health care 'crisis' will be found among the people, not bureaushits.

-----------------------
-----------------------

While sweeping floors is unskilled labour, I think I'd be affected more by having nobody clean the areas around where I lived than if the brain surgeons stopped their work. Without anyone removing rubbish all the time, the rat infestations and associated disease would probably harm and kill more people than brain surgeons save.

Don't underestimate the importance of core workforce like cleaners.

I'm not berating unskilled labor, but doesn't the medical student with half a million dollars in loans and 10 years of college study deserve more financial reward for their efforts? The socialist says, 'No, doctors' labor is a publicly-owned commodity whereas other occupations are not.'

-----------------------

If an American with a serious illness that requires expensive treatment knocks on Canada's door seeking asylum, do they let him in? Any Canadian sifters, let me know.

Canada doesn't do asylum based on illness, that's reserved for other things. We do however bring people back into Canada from around the world who actually need medical care and can't get it in 2nd and 3rd world countries for treatment all the time. That aside, if you show up in Canada and require critical care for some emergency condition. You'll get it. Whether or not you'll have to pay for it(being that you're out of country and a non-payee into the system) is another question altogether different. Healthcare isn't free here either, that's where that 50% tax rate comes in along with country wide equalization payments. Since Canada already deals with Americans, and other foreign nations entering the country for healthcare, I'm sure you can figure out how much of a strain the puts on the system. And yes, there's a special division relating to healthcare fraud from non-Canadian nationals in every province.

Thank you for this information.

Wait..QM..how do you think health care works if you adopted the..say, canadian system.

Do you think people really just walk in and out without doing anything? We don't pay anything, but we have to present a valid health card..which is government distributed.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Penn & Teller have a TV show that describes what I think of THAT claim. No 3rd world country has better health care than the U.S. The lists you're talking about tend to be weighted (deliberately) in favor of socialized systems. If we swapped over to a social system IN NAME and did nothing else, they'd rank us #1.



Really? You think if you suddenly call your health care system socialized, everyone will take your word for it? There's a saying "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, it's still not a good fucking health care system"

>> ^quantumushroom:
I don't need to look much beyond the Constitution, which says nothing about 'free' healthcare for all or robbing one group of people who worked hard to pay off others who didn't.

The Constitution limits government power and says any powers not expressly given to the federal mafia is given to the States.

Actually, the Constitution does allow the federal government to "rob one group of people ... to pay off others...."

The 16th Amendment grants Congress the "power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." Furthermore, there is nothing in the Consitution which circumscribes how Congress may spend those revenues, except as it may infringe on the rights of the States or the People (10th Amendment). In fact, Congress is explicitly granted the power to "provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." (Article I, Section . If the good health of its citizens is not considered part of the general welfare of the United States, what can be?

You might have a constitutional argument against a single payer system by claiming it infringes the rights of the People to rip each other off, but you definitely do not have one against a government sponsored health insurance plan designed to compete with private insurance.

I'm not an accountant, but I'm sure the numbers work out that we're in the same ball park for finance.

That may be the case. You can then see why I’m not particularly keen on starting to have to pay another 3 or 4 thousand a year into an untested, unproven, potentially disastrous government boondoggle. I don’t necessarily object to the CONCEPT of a public option. It might work. What I object to is the idiotic effort being undertaken by Obama & the Democrats to ram this bill through without reading it and without testing it. What’s more, they’re doing so over the objections of the American public who in every poll have stated they don’t want this.

If reforming health care is so important, then what is the reason for such recklessness and haste? Implement the plan small scale in 5 or 6 test cities. Learn what works and what doesn’t. Conduct research to measure in detail whether this plan actually saves money, or if it is just a pointless shuffling the idiocy deck. Take what is learned and test it again in a larger market. Test test test test. Go slow. Take your time. There is no reason to rush this and screw it up like they did the so-called ‘stimulus’ bill.

Would your insurance cover the 180 grand for the same procedure and operation, and would your rates go up afterwards? Would they still cover you afterwards? Maybe you should ask them =P

Yes, and they’d cover afterwards. As I said before, I had a family member with cancer who underwent over a half MILLION in treatment. Your condition was chump change by comparison. She’s still covered by the same insurance. That year I paid a total of $5K out of pocket. In other years after the treatment I’ve paid as little as a few hundred. She’s had emergency treatments for other issues several times, and we’ve never once been turned away, told to come back later, or asked to ‘wait’ for approval. I fully expect that the great medical care we received in the AMERICAN (gasp!) system would change under a government plan, and she’d probably have died twice over.

And no trotting out the lame, "Well that worked for you because you can afford it..." line please. If you can't afford health care in the US then doctors offices, hospitals, and emergency rooms around the country STILL treat you. Even illegals are treated - no questions asked. In fact, if you are a legitimate participant in the system you have MORE hassles and red tape than people who just mooch off it for free. So this "42 million uninsured" garbage is pure bunk. They may be 'uninsured' but they sure as heck are NOT 'untreated'.

That's the biggest misconception that all you non-Americans need to get your facts straight about. Canadians & Europeans look down their noses and say, "Oh how awful that you evil American's don't 'cover' all your people..." Bullcrap. There is a difference between being 'covered' and being TREATED. I would venture to say that the end result of the evil American system is that far more people are TREATED than in the precious socialized countries where everyone is 'covered' but is routinely denied treatment. I'd rather have a system where 42 million people weren't 'covered', but almost everyone was being treated as opposed to a system where everyone was 'covered' but that people are not treated.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

That's the biggest misconception that all you non-Americans need to get your facts straight about. Canadians & Europeans look down their noses and say, "Oh how awful that you evil American's don't 'cover' all your people..." Bullcrap. There is a difference between being 'covered' and being TREATED. I would venture to say that the end result of the evil American system is that far more people are TREATED than in the precious socialized countries where everyone is 'covered' but is routinely denied treatment. I'd rather have a system where 42 million people weren't 'covered', but almost everyone was being treated as opposed to a system where everyone was 'covered' but that people are not treated.


Via Wiki

One complaint about both the U.S. and Canadian health care systems is waiting times, whether for a specialist, major elective surgery, such as hip replacement, or specialized treatments, such as radiation for breast cancer. Wait times in each country are affected by various factors. In the United States, access to health care is primarily determined by whether a person has access to funding to pay for treatment and by the availability of services in the area and by willingness of the provider to deliver service at the price set by the insurer. In Canada the wait time is set according the availability of services in the area and by the relative need of the person needing treatment.

A report published by Health Canada in 2008 included statistics on self-reported wait times for diagnostic services.[47] The median wait time for diagnostic services such as MRI and CAT scans is two weeks with 89.5% waiting less than 3 months.[47][48] The median wait time to see a special physician is a little over four weeks with 86.4% waiting less then 3 months. [47][49] The median wait time for surgery is a little over four weeks with 82.2% waiting less than 3 months. [47] [50] In the U.S., patients on Medicaid, the low-income government programs, can wait three months or more to see specialists. Because Medicaid payments are low, some have claimed that some doctors do not want to see Medicaid patients. For example, in Benton Harbor, Michigan, specialists agreed to spend one afternoon every week or two at a Medicaid clinic, which meant that Medicaid patients had to make appointments not at the doctor's office, but at the clinic, where appointments had to be booked months in advance.[51]

In Canada, waiting is prioritized by patient according to relative urgency, with urgent patients receiving immediate access and the least urgent waiting longer. [52] Studies by the Commonwealth Fund found that 42% of Canadians waited 2 hours or more in the emergency room, vs. 29% in the U.S.; 57% waited 4 weeks or more to see a specialist, vs. 23% in the U.S., but Canadians had more chances of getting medical attention at nights, or on weekends and holidays than their American neighbors without the need to visit an ER (54% compared to 61%).[53] However, statistics from the free market think tank Fraser Institute in 2008 indicate that the average wait time between the time when a general practitioner refers a patient for care and the receipt of treatment was almost four and a half months in 2008, roughly double what it had been 15 years before.[54]

A 2003 survey of hospital administrators conducted in Canada, the U.S., and three other countries found dissatisfaction with both the U.S. and Canadian systems. For example, 21% of Canadian hospital administrators, but less than 1% of American administrators, said that it would take over three weeks to do a biopsy for possible breast cancer on a 50-year-old woman; 50% of Canadian administrators versus none of their American counterparts said that it would take over six months for a 65-year-old to undergo a routine hip replacement surgery. However, U.S. administrators were the most negative about their country's health care system. Hospital executives in all five countries expressed concerns about staffing shortages and emergency department waiting times and quality.[55][56]

In a letter to the Wall Street Journal, the President and CEO of University Health Network, Toronto, said that Michael Moore's film Sicko "exaggerated the performance of the Canadian health system — there is no doubt that too many patients still stay in our emergency departments waiting for admission to scarce hospital beds." However, "Canadians spend about 55% of what Americans spend on health care and have longer life expectancy, and lower infant mortality rates. Many Americans have access to quality health care. All Canadians have access to similar care at a considerably lower cost." There is "no question" that the lower cost has come at the cost of "restriction of supply with sub-optimal access to services," said Bell. A new approach is targeting waiting times, which are reported on public websites

In the U.S., patients on Medicaid, the low-income government programs, can wait three months or more to see specialists. Because Medicaid payments are low, some have claimed that some doctors do not want to see Medicaid patients.

This is why people don't like what Obama's administration is pushing. Obama's plan is essentially a nationalization of the Medicare program, and your own reference shows that the current 'public' option in the US is inferior to the private one. That said, everyone is still getting treated. This proves that (A) private care is superior and (B) everyone in American (insured or not) is getting covered but (like Canada) service in the 'public option' is much slower.

For example, 21% of Canadian hospital administrators, but less than 1% of American administrators, said that it would take over three weeks to do a biopsy for possible breast cancer on a 50-year-old woman; 50% of Canadian administrators versus none of their American counterparts said that it would take over six months for a 65-year-old to undergo a routine hip replacement surgery.

This gives me no desire to move to a Canadian system where services are routinely delayed/denied. Regardles, the point is that there is no reason to rush this bad law through without due deliberation and testing. A public option COULD be OK. But there is not a lot of evidence that 'public' health care results in 'better' or 'more' health care. In fact, there is a lot of evidence to the contrary.

What I object to is the idiotic effort being undertaken by Obama & the Democrats to ram this bill through without reading it and without testing it.

That's something I can agree with, Obamas health care package is crap. I get riled up when people start spouting misinformation about the Canadian one, and then use that as an example as why not to use Public Health Care.

Yes, and they’d cover afterwards. As I said before, I had a family member with cancer who underwent over a half MILLION in treatment. Your condition was chump change by comparison. She’s still covered by the same insurance. That year I paid a total of $5K out of pocket. In other years after the treatment I’ve paid as little as a few hundred. She’s had emergency treatments for other issues several times, and we’ve never once been turned away, told to come back later, or asked to ‘wait’ for approval. I fully expect that the great medical care we received in the AMERICAN (gasp!) system would change under a government plan, and she’d probably have died twice over.

If you want to play, I'm more sick than you, that's fine. But, if it were the same type of cancer and operation etc. I doubt that OHIP paid more than you. That's still more than the parking and pharmacy bill I paid. I'll say again, that if you need something to be treated in Canada, you will get treated right away. Everyone brings up the hip replacement surgery. Look at the province that it's coming from, not the national median wait time, then look at the fact it's a hip! If that wonky hip was causing life threatening situations, then you'd be wheeled into the operating room asap! I hope your family member is doing well and cancer free. I'm glad that hearing all the stories about costs in the US system, you guys got through, by the sounds of it, very well.

Everyone gets treated in Canada, you can even choose to go private health care, if you want. Though, there has been a bad run of doctors breaking the laws doing that =\ Like I said before, there are problems with a lot of the provincial systems. Those points are so glaring, that it needs to change, but those aren't the ones that are being propped up in the US. That's where I have to stand up and fight against it, because it's simply not true. Honestly, if they won't to downplay the systems we have, fine. Just use the facts about the stuff that doesn't work up here, don't make things up or cherry pick stats to prove your point. Imo, the Canadian system is still better than the US one, hands down.

I'll say again, that if you need something to be treated in Canada, you will get treated right away

I disagree with your assessment that you get treated 'right away'. Every paper on Canadian health care delays indicates that is not true. I think what you mean to say is that they 'get treated for emergencies'. IE If you go into a hospital with a broken leg or with cancer they don't just toss you in the street.

If that is the standard you are using, then the American health care system is no different. People that come to a doctor with a medical need are not turned away. They are not denied care. They are not thrown in the street and told, 'sorry'. They get the care they need the same way you do. And if they don't have money or insurance then they don't pay for it.

Since we already HAVE this 'universal care' inherently active in our current system, I see no need to throw the baby out with the bath water and conduct a MASSIVE national experiment with Obama's plan all in a rush. If his plan is so fantastic, then implement it small scale and prove it. Then do it in a couple big markets and prove it again. Learn from mistakes and prepare for issues by doing a few practice runs. Above all, let's wait for a point in time when our economy is not in a massive recession, don't have almost 2 trillion in debt, and our unemployment isn't at almost 10%. Maybe his plan will be OK. Fine. But NOW is not the time.

Imo, the Canadian system is still better than the US one, hands down.

Emphasis added to give your statement accuracy. Your opinion is your opinion, and is based on no factual evidence. American health care is just fine. People get care who need it, and it is done quickly, with high skill and great innovation. Both systems have issues. You've shown no quantitative evidence that your system is superior.

You're arguing wait times, I'm arguing price. We both agree that those in need get treated right away. I'm saying that our system is better because we don't get hammered on cost, and we don't have to go through insurance companies. Most Canadians do have private insurance, to help cover dental and pharmaceuticals. Canadians pay less for health care than Americans do. Do we have wait times? Yes, but it's for stuff that can wait, and it's either not that long, or they plan for it. But, since we both acknowledge that people in dire straights get cared for, then your wait times argument has a lot of it's power taken away.

Does it have problems, yes. But, it's still better than the American system, because everyone gets great health care, that everyone pays for, together, and no one goes broke over health costs. Can America say the same?

They are not denied care. They are not thrown in the street and told, 'sorry'. They get the care they need the same way you do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94KpSLBCenk

I couldn't find the sift for it.

>> ^enoch
how is reducing government size going to affect the "culprit" of america's current financial crisis?since when did goldman-sachs and the federal reserve become government agencies?


You're kidding, right? The Federal Reserve is as much a creature of government as any other agency or department that was brought into existence through legislation, granting it exclusive power over our nation's currency. The only remotely "private" aspect of the Fed is its secrecy and lack of oversight (something not even private companies fully enjoy anymore).

The subprime mess was only possible because of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac.

In an economy, it's the private sector that is productive, and the public sector mostly lives off of that production. In a recession, we need more savings and productivity to grow ourselves out of it, but that won't happen if govt keeps expanding and spending/borrowing even more money than it already does, because that adds even more of a burden to the productivity that we need to dig ourselves out of this hole in the first place.

>> ^Mashiki:
Generally when dealing the a persons health you don't want "price competition" you want to aim for best service at reasonable price for the public dollar.

Price competition is *exactly* what allows any kind of push for quality of service at lowering prices, you can't have one without the other. What is a "reasonable" price anyway? Can you appreciate the irony of a bureaucrat deciding whether a price is reasonable dealing exclusively with other people's money? There is no question that the market process is a far superior judge of what prices should be than even the smartest and most well informed group of bureaucrats could ever be.

If there is one overriding issue with the current round of debates in the US over "healthcare", is that they want to have it at the federal level for one and all. Sorry, bad idea. Hell it's a terrible idea.

That's a good point: If 100% socialized healthcare were ever implemented in the US, it would be better (less worse) if it existed at the state level as opposed to federal. That would institute a faint glimmer of competition between the separate systems, and people would be able to "vote with their feet", which is terribly ineffective, but better than being completely helpless.

There's obviously no changing people's minds here.

But to just address one point of QM "Under socialized health care is it "fair" that the healthy guy with no major medical problems gets little return on his health care taxes while the fat smoker spends two years in a hospital bed before expiring?"

Well, we handle the smoking issue here in Australia by taxing the shite out of them. Over 63% of the cost of cigarettes is tax. This is fair... you don't NEED to smoke, you shouldn't really smoke, by doing so you are indeed vastly increasing your chances of becoming ill and costing the rest of us money. So... we make the buying of the product cover the probably cost of taking care of you... the more you smoke, the more you've paid towards your own care.

Seems fair.

Same could be applied to fast food etc. and less tax being put on fresh food and healthy options. It becomes murky as to what you class as what around the edges, but by and large you can make those that chose to be unhealthy pay more to be so.

You're not outlawing such behaviour, you're not stopping people smoking, you're just encouraging people not to in the first place by making it expensive, and if that doesn't stop them at least they are contributing money to the rest of us.

>> ^spoco2:
Seems fair.
Same could be applied to fast food etc. and less tax being put on fresh food and healthy options. It becomes murky as to what you class as what around the edges, but by and large you can make those that chose to be unhealthy pay more to be so.
You're not outlawing such behaviour, you're not stopping people smoking, you're just encouraging people not to in the first place by making it expensive, and if that doesn't stop them at least they are contributing money to the rest of us.

It does make sense when your health is being paid by others. One more reason why it shouldn't.

If government is deemed responsible for our healthcare, can you imagine where to draw the line for this kind of control? How much more easily justifiable is any kind of tax or subsidy they come up with?

Being someone who has used the US military health care, let me just add this... it certainly is not top notch. I could use it right now for free being a veteran, but I refuse to do so.

A little over a year ago I broke my hand. Did I go to the VA hospital, which would've been free? No. I had to get surgery and occupational therapy which cost me out of pocket per session (co-pay). Did I go to the VA for this, which would've been free? No.

I had experienced 2.5 years too many of that kind of "top notch" public health care and I want no more of it.

>> ^gtjwkq:
>> ^enoch
how is reducing government size going to affect the "culprit" of america's current financial crisis?since when did goldman-sachs and the federal reserve become government agencies?

You're kidding, right?


um...no.
it is a private institution, while the federal reserve act of 1913 may have given the fed it's birth and a charter,it is a still private.a charter is how every bank in the country need to operate,does that mean that every bank is government owned?they were basically hired to do a job,and the abuse has been going on for almost a century.
http://www.land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/federal_reserve.shtml
"Permit me to issue and control the money of the nation and I care not who makes its laws. — Mayer Amsched Rothchild, a prominent European banker in the eighteenth century"
whose family coincidently is part owner of the federal reserve.
"If the American people ever allow the banks to control issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers occupied. — Thomas Jefferson

through the past century,every recession,inflated bubble and depression there has been ONE financial institution GOLDMAN SACHS.with incredibly strong ties to the federal reserve and the world bank and the cute and cuddly international monetary fund.i am not going to write a report just to make a point.
you think its fannie and freddie?
ok..i say fannie and freddie were planned....by?
well...i already stated as such who i think holds the blame for that.
great article:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/28816321/the_great_american_bubble_machine#
and i would recommend one book that is vital,especially now.the man has called it since 2004 while everybody treated him as a pariah.interesting how this man is now thinking of running for senator.see what happens when you call it right?
peter schiff and his amazing book "crash proof"
great short vid here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NvjrfC6i0I

but hey,you go ahead and keep thinking it was the government and freddie and fannie.
but i was not kidding.

>> ^spoco2:
There's obviously no changing people's minds here.
But to just address one point of QM "Under socialized health care is it "fair" that the healthy guy with no major medical problems gets little return on his health care taxes while the fat smoker spends two years in a hospital bed before expiring?"
Well, we handle the smoking issue here in Australia by taxing the shite out of them. Over 63% of the cost of cigarettes is tax. This is fair... you don't NEED to smoke, you shouldn't really smoke, by doing so you are indeed vastly increasing your chances of becoming ill and costing the rest of us money. So... we make the buying of the product cover the probably cost of taking care of you... the more you smoke, the more you've paid towards your own care.
Seems fair.
Same could be applied to fast food etc. and less tax being put on fresh food and healthy options. It becomes murky as to what you class as what around the edges, but by and large you can make those that chose to be unhealthy pay more to be so.
You're not outlawing such behaviour, you're not stopping people smoking, you're just encouraging people not to in the first place by making it expensive, and if that doesn't stop them at least they are contributing money to the rest of us.


It's not just fast food, though, that can make you unhealthy. It's soda pop, pastries, too much starch, too much sodium, too much hamburger, too many eggs, too much cheese. What the fuck are you going to do, start taxing everything except raw vegetables? Some things are perfectly healthy choices depending on how often you eat them and how much you exercise. The government hasn't a fucking clue what each individual's exercise habits are. This is the most dictatorial, socialist-engineering nonsense I've ever heard anyone say. The only way to dissaude someone who is eating irresponsible amounts of junk food relative to exercise is to penalize people who eat a responsible amount relative to exercise. It's like having a lineup of 10 suspects in which 1 is the murderer, but you don't know which one, and so you shoot them all. I think that's morally bankrupt to punish the innocent to get to the guilty.

Part of living in a free country is to be able to take personal responsibility for one's own health choices. There's a huge difference between having a public option for car accidents and crack babies vs having a public option for conditions that may have been the result of that individual's own poor life habits. I think that people should be on their own to finance health problems that they incur past the age of 30. It is impossible for the government to distinguish whether the condition was the result of such choices, thus is cannot fairly administer a general tax to provide unlimited coverage without disproportionately benefiting those who made bad choices. And I think individuals need to be the customer for insurance companies, not employers.

Well, that really is the crux of the issue isn't it. I'm convinced that neolibs want socialized medicine for one reason and ONE reason only... Misplaced guilt over the utterly false perception that life is a zero-sum equation. It is all a big shell game played by small-minded, petty, lazy, self-righteous twits with other people's money and freedoms.

There is no evidence that a socialized medical system improves health care. There is also no evidence that it supplies more people with more care than a private system. When you boil away the rhetoric and start actually drilling down into the facts, socialized systems accomplish very little in terms of medical care output.

But neolibs are dominated by their personal guilt. To them it is unfair that 42 million people are 'uninsured'. Therefore to assuage their misplaced guilt, they vote for a social system that allows them to say everyone is 'covered'. It doesn't matter that in actual truth the poor guy is getting slow, substandard care. It doesn't matter that everyone has less freedom and everyone is equally miserable. All that matters is that the priggish, smarmy little git can ignore poor people in the street while telling himself, "I'm doing something..."

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Well, that really is the crux of the issue isn't it. I'm convinced that neolibs want socialized medicine for one reason and ONE reason only... Misplaced guilt over the utterly false perception that life is a zero-sum equation. It is all a big shell game played by small-minded, petty, lazy, self-righteous twits with other people's money and freedoms.
There is no evidence that a socialized medical system improves health care. There is also no evidence that it supplies more people with more care than a private system. When you boil away the rhetoric and start actually drilling down into the facts, socialized systems accomplish very little in terms of medical care output.
But neolibs are dominated by their personal guilt. To them it is unfair that 42 million people are 'uninsured'. Therefore to assuage their misplaced guilt, they vote for a social system that allows them to say everyone is 'covered'. It doesn't matter that in actual truth the poor guy is getting slow, substandard care. It doesn't matter that everyone has less freedom and everyone is equally miserable. All that matters is that the priggish, smarmy little git can ignore poor people in the street while telling himself, "I'm doing something..."


wow..just WOW..
that has to be the most inane,ill-thought comment i have ever seen you post.
you just stated the intentions and emotional motivation for an entire group of people.
based ON?
your own prejudices.
where are your statistics to back up your premise?
who are these people who want a public option to assuage their guilt of success?
or have you been taking game plays from rush limbaugh and glenn beck again?
you are SO cute when you get all neoconservative../pinches WP's cheeks

>> ^gtjwkq:
That's a good point: If 100% socialized healthcare were ever implemented in the US, it would be better (less worse) if it existed at the state level as opposed to federal. That would institute a faint glimmer of competition between the separate systems, and people would be able to "vote with their feet", which is terribly ineffective, but better than being completely helpless.

This is something I have discussed before in other places, and on other forums. Both with Americans and Canadians. If you look at Canada's federal health act, it comes down to a whopping 24 sections or so. That's it. When I started reading the American one, and hit section 100, I thought that the guys in Washington were insane.

The whole point of the Cdn. federal health act is to say: Hey, we don't know how the provinces operate, we don't know what the people need, and we sure don't know where you need the resources or where. You deal with it, and if there's budget shortfalls come let us know and we'll pick up the cost, by taking it out of the general revenue fund(or equalization payments). We'll make sure it's spent properly(oversight), and make sure that it's running smoothly, and if the system needs help, we'll do what needs to be done. But if people are dying because you can't provide care, you and I are going to have a big talk. Fed to province.

End of story.

Now, sounds pretty good. There's other issues in Canada on this. But the reality is, Canada and the US in forms of government aren't that different at a state/provincial level. Both are highly independent, and both want the federal government to piss the hell off. So if you want this to happen, that's what I'd suggest and people should be telling their congressmen the same as well. To make it work, it may require one of two things. Either nationwide tax(icky), or each state will be required to pay a 'health coverage' surcharge or levy(akin to a tax) excess funds are then dumped to a general health revenue fund for all states(offlimits to anything else), and states which come up short can with oversight get money from it to cover deficits. We have something similar up here for it as well. Again long drawn out thing that I don't want to yammer on about right now.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
There is no evidence that a socialized medical system improves health care. There is also no evidence that it supplies more people with more care than a private system. When you boil away the rhetoric and start actually drilling down into the facts, socialized systems accomplish very little in terms of medical care output.


Generally the more that people get healthcare, the longer they live. The longer they live, the longer and more productive members of society they are. Generally when someone goes to the hospital when they don't have healthcare, it's because it's do or die. That is, they're about to die. They're not ready, so better off to live. Unfortunately, that's a rather huge burden to place on the system, compared to say treating the underlying cause the first time a round.

An example: A man goes to his doctor, finds out that he's got an ulcer. Get medication. Ulcer goes away.
Flip it around: A man doesn't go to his doctor, ulcer keeps going, becomes peptic, nearly kills him. Spends 3-8 weeks in the hospital in recovery, may have lost their job that they couldn't afford to lose in the first place.

Now depending on the province, not all medications are covered. However, a lot of doctors do swing things on the by-and-by to get you what you need for next to nothing. They're generally pretty good folks, and walk in clinics will help you out the same with pharmacies. Now if you look at the NHS in the UK where it's more-fully socialized including medication. It's a non-issue unless you're dealing with idiots who believe that treatment will kill you(luckily for them stupidity isn't considered a psychiatric disorder, because you can get treatment for that too).

Generally the more that people get healthcare, the longer they live. The longer they live, the longer and more productive members of society they are.

As far as human health care is concerned, there are only two 'blocks' of people identified (A) by how much they produce and (B) by how much health care they consume. Block 1 is age 17 to 64 which produces the bulk of a nation's GDP, and consumes (on average) low amounts of health care. Block 2 is the very young and the very old which produce low amounts of wealth, and consume the bulk of the nation's health care. The claim 'the longer you live the more productive you are' is untrue. As far as a socialized medical system is concerned, it would be ideal if human beings died the second they stopped working so they wouldn't be freeloading off the system.

Generally when someone goes to the hospital when they don't have healthcare, it's because it's do or die.

In a word - baloney. Here's a story about a guy that calls the ambulance rides for every little tiny thing.
http://www.wgrz.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=69029&catid=37&provider=email
And his story is NOT all that unusual. Sure, he takes it to the furthest extreme perhaps, but everyone runs to the doctor for every little cough, ache, or twinge. That includes poor people with no insurance who end up getting free doctor visits on the tab of the honest paying citizens who play by the rules. When you have no insurance you don't just 'not go' to the doctor in the U.S. You go anyway and it's free. Sure, the office tries to get you to pay. But if you can't pay they just make it up off the insurance compaines.

All I'm saying is that there's not any real evidence that a social system is going to result in one red cent of savings. It is also NOT a given that it will result in 'more people being covered'. The devil is in the details, and Obama's plan is being rushed through pell-mell without due dilligence by the media, the Congress, or anyone else who should be putting the brakes on this mess. The 'stimulus' plan was rammed through with no watchdog, and look what a fiasco that has been. Government should never be allowed to do things in haste (ahem Iraq War ahem!). When goverment acts hastily, the people should stand up and shout NO. Haste is the enemy of sensible policy.

who are these people who want a public option to assuage their guilt

Quite simply, anyone who wants to vote for a health care plan with no testing, no fact checking, no peer reviews of efficacy, and no attempt to apply the rigor of science, analysis, and cost effectiveness - AND IT MUST BE DONE THIS YEAR OMG OH NOS! Though I will have to ammend my statement that there is only ONE kind of person who'd do this... There are really TWO kinds of people... 1. Is the guilt-addled neoliberal (like you perhaps?) who votes for any socialist system that comes down the pike. 2. Is the brain-dead Obama-zombie neoliberal lemming who just dutifully follows the wash of "Me too!" propoganda that gives him his marching orders. Obama sent out his orders this week to his army of lemmings. Guess the community agitator didn't like it very much when the community was agitating against HIS plans...

Actually, the Constitution does allow the federal government to "rob one group of people ... to pay off others...."

The Constitution allows for no such thing, though since it's now ignored, the robbery goes on all the time. The federal mafia collects taxes from the States, which in effect makes them slave-states with no real sovereignty, and then the States, in order to recoup their losses, must fight for "pork", which is their money being spent on garbage the federal mafia wants, not necessarily what they want. Career politicians live or die depending on how much pork they can bring to their home states. I recall one dickweed senator, angry at Texas, saying, "Texas gets back 80 cents of every dollar they send to DC!" Somehow to the dickweed, 80 cents recouped from shipping the money out of state is worth more than a dollar kept. Madness.

There is legitimate taxation (with representation) for the feds to provide for the common defense and a few other things, but the massive robbing of Peter to pay Paul was never the Founders' intent.

The 16th Amendment grants Congress the "power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." Furthermore, there is nothing in the Consitution which circumscribes how Congress may spend those revenues, except as it may infringe on the rights of the States or the People (10th Amendment). In fact, Congress is explicitly granted the power to "provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." (Article I, Section . If the good health of its citizens is not considered part of the general welfare of the United States, what can be?

If the Founding Fathers intended the phrase "promote the general welfare" to mean a bottomless Treasury providing for any and every whim of the people, they wouldn't have taken pains to listing specific powers in Article I, Section 8.

You might have a constitutional argument against a single payer system by claiming it infringes the rights of the People to rip each other off, but you definitely do not have one against a government sponsored health insurance plan designed to compete with private insurance.

It is the height of naivety to believe any government claiming it only wants to "stop here" with power granb. The Obamessiah has already been caught admitting he wants socialized medicine in statements which he then modified or covered up depending on the audience at hand.

The destruction of liberty has been incremental over the past century. We're just about finished and this socialized medicine will be the near-death blow for a once-free society.

Stop pretending the federal mafia knows what's best for everyone. Let people suffer the consequences of their actions. Restore the balance of power between the federal dorks and State dorks. Disallow the federal mafia from using taxation as a weapon to punish whatever behavior the health and safety nanny-state prigs dislike at the moment. Accept freedom has inherent risks or move away to safety-helmet Europe whose civilization is d(r)ying out, and wait for the Muslims to take over.

>> ^fford:
Actually, the Constitution does allow the federal government to "rob one group of people ... to pay off others...."

>> ^quantumushroom:
The Constitution allows for no such thing, though since it's now ignored, the robbery goes on all the time.

Well, I was just using your words. But let's be honest. All taxes are a form of wealth redistribution. So, if you're going to call one instance of taxation and spending "robbing and paying off," then you're calling all instances of it that. So, unless you have some Constitutional law to back up the claim that Congress is not allowed to levy taxes and appropriate those revenues as it sees fit, then just concede the point. Ranting about it just makes you look silly.


>> ^quantumushroom:
There is legitimate taxation (with representation) for the feds to provide for the common defense and a few other things, but the massive robbing of Peter to pay Paul was never the Founders' intent.

If the Founding Fathers intended the phrase "promote the general welfare" to mean a bottomless Treasury providing for any and every whim of the people, they wouldn't have taken pains to listing specific powers in Article I, Section 8.

You talk about the Founders' intent as though they were some sort of hive mind of uniform thought. They disagreed heavily about what the role of the federal government was. If, when they came to a concensus, they had intended to strictly limit Congress' authority to spend revenues, they would have done so. Instead they did just the opposite by including the "common defense and general welfare" clause.

The general welfare clause is analagous to the 9th Amendment. Where the 9th Amendment notes that the previous 8 do not delineate all of the rights held by the people, the general welfare clause provides Congress with broad appropriation authority over and above those specifically listed. Realizing that it would be foolhardy to try to delineate all possible reasons for the Congress to appropriate funds, several very important ones are specifically noted, and then a clause is included to make sure that Congress was not limited to just those listed.


>> ^quantumushroom:
It is the height of naivety to believe any government claiming it only wants to "stop here" with power grab.

I don't believe any such thing. Of course all institutions will hold onto and try to expand their authority. But the logical conclusion of your point is anarchy. We create institutions and grant them power realizing that they will tend to grow and need to be limited. I agree with you that the federal government oversteps its bounds all the time. The Commerce clause is more abused than a foster child. But the reality of institutional power cannot by itself be a reason not to create an institution. Every agency of every government has this problem, especially those dealing with law enforcement. But we're not going to abolish them for that reason. We implement oversight, accountability, and reform when necessary.


>> ^quantumushroom:
The Obamessiah has already been caught admitting he wants socialized medicine in statements which he then modified or covered up depending on the audience at hand.

Government sponsored insurance is not socialized medicine. Socialized medicine would entail all health care providers being government employees and hospitals being owned and operated by government agencies. Government sponsored health insurance is just what it says it is. Insurance. This already exists in nearly every other insurance domain - auto insurance, flood insurance, home owner's insurance in hurricane zones, etc. None of those insurance programs have displaced private insurers. (Flood insurance is solely available from the National Flood Insurance Program only because no private insurer will underwrite flood policies - you can't make money doing that.)


>> ^quantumushroom:
The destruction of liberty has been incremental over the past century. We're just about finished and this socialized medicine will be the near-death blow for a once-free society.
Stop pretending the federal mafia knows what's best for everyone. Let people suffer the consequences of their actions. Restore the balance of power between the federal dorks and State dorks. Disallow the federal mafia from using taxation as a weapon to punish whatever behavior the health and safety nanny-state prigs dislike at the moment. Accept freedom has inherent risks or move away to safety-helmet Europe whose civilization is d(r)ying out, and wait for the Muslims to take over.


Your arguments would carry much more weight if you didn't act like a child by using phrases like "Obamessiah," "federal mafia," "wait for the Muslims to take over," etc. Seriously, stuff like that just makes you sound like an ultra-right-wing nutjob. There are cogent arguments to be made against government sponsored health insurance, but when you embed them in language like that, they tend to be laughed at, as do you.

>> ^gtjwkq:
>> ^curiousity:
You left out the brainwashed people...
You guys should try having a more open and critical mind, there are people out there who think different about politics, don't take the easy way out.


I enjoyed the passive aggressiveness of your response. Thanks!

This was a flippant remark. Let me explain. A "shallow, or lacking in seriousness" comment that was made because it was late at night and I was tired. I will try to make the flippancy of future remarks more noticeable, should they be flippant.

Did it really look like an effort to have add a serious comment? I'll try to make up for the misunderstanding with a more serious response. I find it ineffective and irritating to discuss health care because it is rare for people to sit down and discuss a topic thoroughly. Near impossible on the internet. Why do you believe it? What information are you using? Is that information reliable? Has that information been interpreted or affected by how the it was obtained that skewed it in a direction and can you correct for it... and agree on the correction? Just look at some of the arguments above. Try to remove yourself from your personal beliefs and read both sides from a critical point of view. There are many different issues being discussed and people are fairly set in their beliefs. This won't end in a rational discussion because people approach it as an argument. In an argument, someone wins and someone loses (wins and loses broken up into partials.) However, on the internet, arguments usually end up in stalemates.

Let's be honest here. Although my original comment was flippant, there was a twinge of seriousness there. There are brainwashed people who are against free public health care. I'm referring to the people who get information from their favorite tv/radio host or some personally-respected person and believes them verbatim. No effort to investigate, no curiosity at all. That's fine because we can't be curious about everything, but those people will hold onto their beliefs, pushing them as facts, in the face of evidence to the contrary. Of course, these people exists on all sides of an issue.

As for military medical, I spent 6 years in the Navy. Most of the medical was atrocious. There were a few good doctors and you did your best to become friends with them. Of course it is just anecdotal evidence, but there is quite a bit of it.

^ Oh I just bunched up your remark with spoco2's there, wasn't even talking to you personally, just quoting your "me too". Forgive me if I missed your flippitude, and if my answer, which was aimed at spoco2 and those who might agree with him, made you feel misunderstood.

I like your analysis of internet discussions, I'm somewhat optimistic about swaying people to different points of view though. It's like a shrink, they might not have or need all the facts about your life, but, by listening into what you say, they might help you spot the apparent contradictions, rethink deeply rooted assumptions. Most people make bad assumptions and deceive themselves in their thinking. I consider arguments a way of testing someone's beliefs, somewhat.

Facts are very important. However, you should be wary of people who often recur to "facts" as a distraction from their faulty logic.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by critical_d.

Awarding critical_d with one Power Point for fixing this video's dead embed code.