|
(USA) The House passes the Senate health care bill... 219-212. (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by miketg23
The post quite clearly states a drop of 0.28% to 4% |
The post made no sense in the first place, talking about defense spending as a percentage of GDP (as opposed to actual government spending), and casually slipping in a tax hike on top. I was merely highlighting the insanity of including "Canada" in the same sentence as "defense spending."
It's such a drearily predictable moonbat talking point, too: "Oh, you need more money for health care? Just look how much is WASTED on the military, take it from there!" How about they take it from other useless government programs like the War on Drugs or the War on Poverty or the U.N. instead? |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
\ How about they take it from other useless government programs like the War on Drugs or the War on Poverty or the U.N. instead? |
amen |
|
|
| mute79 |
 |
|
|
| Skipper |
I see and understand the argument about the US financial situation, and the questions around whether increased taxes on the wealthy and lower medicare expenses will actually bring down the deficit. I get that it's a big unknown for the most part.
But the US needed to do this. The healthcare system there is horribly unjust, and really quite sad. I complain about the 50% in taxes that gets swiped from my paycheque, but only because I think the government is a pathetic administrator of public funds. At the end of the day, would I rather pay those taxes as a form of reeeeeally expensive insurance? Sure. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by mute79
|
Nice, but heres the flaw. Most of those things mentioned either works with or is private enterprise. Alot of it is REGULATION as opposed to actual implementation.
For example, the FCC regulates broadcasts but the FCC isnt actually the broadcast itself.
The DOT regulates roads and determines where they will be built. Private enterprise competes to build them.
And so on with electricity etc etc.
That is not socialism.
Socialism is when the government is the be all and end all. Socialism eliminates any possibility of competition. Socialism is OUR health care system, not Obamacare. Although it can be argued that Obamacare is on the path to socialism, it is not socialism. Socialism is the CBC. Socialism is the LCBO.
Regulation isnt always a bad thing either. As long as regulation is GENUINELY used for the safety and protection of the populace and is justified in that manner then it's not a bad thing. Where regulation goes wrong is when its used as a method of control, either behavioural control or monetary control. This is the path Ontario has headed down in the past while under Mcguinty and mayors like Miller.
This little piece that you pasted in does little to demonstrate what socialism really is because for the most part it doesnt yet exist in the US like it does here.
I do say that Obama is a socialist and is trying his best to implement socialism in the US. Obamacare is a shift to the left but until they start banning private practice like they have in canada (hospitals anyway) you cant call it socialism. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Nice, but heres the flaw. Most of those things mentioned either works with or is private enterprise.
That is not socialism.
Socialism is when the government is the be all and end all. Socialism eliminates any possibility of competition. Socialism is OUR health care system |
interesting that your distinction actually classifies our system as not being socialist; as health care providers own private businesses... hell even hospitals are private entities. We have a one payer system (almost) but by your assessment it is not a socialist system. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
interesting that your distinction actually classifies our system as not being socialist; as health care providers own private businesses... hell even hospitals are private entities. We have a one payer system (almost) but by your assessment it is not a socialist system. |
there are a few P3 hospitals now being tried out in Ontario which is def a good start, thanks to mike harris i might add. And private doctors/walk ins are technically their own business. But there is no true competition as of yet. Also, you are not allowed to take private insurance unless its not covered by OHIP. THAT is what really is the most socialist about our system.
Canadian medicine would be fair if we were allowed to opt to buy private coverage and be allowed to use private, non government funded facilities. But this is illegal under canadian law.
Look at dentistry. Dentists are now starting to compete for new patients. "teeth whitening for life for new patients" etc etc are everywhere.
Id love to see a hospital advertise that they will see you within 30 mins in emerg like some do in the US |
|
|
| infinity HiGH |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Id love to see a hospital advertise that they will see you within 30 mins in emerg like some do in the US |
"SIGN UP NOW AND RECEIVE A FREE KIDNEY!! WHILE SUPPLIES LAST!" |
|
|
| thesauce23 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Canadian medicine would be fair if we were allowed to opt to buy private coverage and be allowed to use private, non government funded facilities. But this is illegal under canadian law.
|
ok i'm starting to understand your viewpoint more and more. so what do u think about the people who cannot afford health insurance- the unfortunate or poorer people. under universal coverage they are covered, but under private industry they are screwed. so i'm just curious as to your stance on that situation- how can those people be helped when they can't help themselves? |
|
|
| yankeeBaby |
I am having a big argument with myself about whether this is going to be a huge step forward or a huge failure on the USA's part.
I am not as informed about how the government works, per se, however, I have many seen many resources for those without insurance to aquire just that.
People who are employed full time, in a school or job training, pregnant women, military and vets (and their families), Disabled and elderly, all families (up to the age of 18 or 23 if in college), poor people with low income, etc, are all CURRENTLY eligible for decent, affordable healthcare here. So, who are we missing? People who dont work/underemployed? Illegal immigrants (even here, there are still options if they have children)?
I am all for people having access to insurance, but at what price, and to what groups is this money going to? LOL, I need a pie chart :) :stongue: I cant be too happy to pay MORE taxes (I already lose about $500+ per paycheck) to have the possibly of weaker services in the healthcare system.
Someone care to explain, because I am a little confused about the new Bill and where our money is going. I have read too many conflicting opinions and reports about this and wish to have a more concrete idea of what will probably happen in the next few years. |
|
|
| Skipper |
The crux of the 2 tiered debate is that given the massive skills shortage in canada, doctors would flock to private sector employers as they would likely pay more, leaving publicly funded care in even worse condition than it is now.
I realize this means the government should simply match salaries but if the government undertook it to match private sector salaries for doctors, you can imagine how slippery that slope is.
There is no real way to structure the system in Canada so that everyone, regardless of income, is able to receive equal care, which is the whole purpose of our public system. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
The crux of the 2 tiered debate is that given the massive skills shortage in canada, doctors would flock to private sector employers as they would likely pay more, leaving publicly funded care in even worse condition than it is now.
I realize this means the government should simply match salaries but if the government undertook it to match private sector salaries for doctors, you can imagine how slippery that slope is.
There is no real way to structure the system in Canada so that everyone, regardless of income, is able to receive equal care, which is the whole purpose of our public system. |
its easy. regulate salaries in both systems and overhaul the college of physicians and surgeons who are in effect, causing the shortage. Problem solved.
As for "equal" care. I think signature quote explains that one best. |
|
|
|
|
