Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
John Moosie
climber
|
|
"There is no way, however, that we can equate the two countries as equal entities in terms of healthcare dynamics and then adopt the whole thing, lock, stock and barrel over here."
Nobody asked you to accept it as it is. That is another one of your tapes. Of course we can tweak it to fit out needs.
The advantage of a single payer system is that we can take the profits of the multi payer system, reportedly anywhere from 12 to 25 percent of our current cost, and apply it towards those without health insurance. Thus giving them insurance and keeping them out of the emergency rooms which would further reduce cost.
We could also implement more preventive healthcare.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
|
|
No thanks Lois, I have no desire to argue with your ego. If you want to try and get your ego out of it, then maybe. Since you are the one interested. You start the thread.
Read this thread first.
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.html?topic_id=532795
Try to understand the points that shingle and moof make, then add Karl's. I don't think capitalism is evil, just as I don't think socialism is evil. If you follow either too precisely, then they create problems. Money shouldn't be your God nor should profits. If profits are your only goal, then we should kill everyone who doesn't add to your profits. There are goals besides profit that are also worthy. Such as providing healthcare for everyone.
If you really want to discuss this further, then start your own thread.
|
|
screelover
Mountain climber
Canuckistan
|
|
Lois,
Most of your response to Mighty H was nonsense, but you did hit on one difference between Canada and the U.S. that does help explain why the Canadian system is so much more effective and cost-efficient: lawsuits.
Canadian courts won't put up with the type of B.S. that U.S. malpractice lawyers get away with. If you really want to improve your system, tort reform could be a key part of it.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
"The only difference is that SOCIALIZED medicine will be a government clusterf*#k like Canada."
Umm, please define socialized if not socialism. Use small words, so that I can understand. If possible, explain the difference between the U.S., which is a liberal democracy, and other developed countries, most of which are also liberal democracies. Including Canada. Pay particular attention to red herrings, rhetoric, and history.
Please also explain the total government take of GNP in the U.S., as compared to most other liberal democracies - somewhere between 30 and 40 percent. As it has been for decades.
We don't have socialized medicine here, and it isn't a government 'thingie'. We have government financed and guided health care, as the social consensus is that it is a wise investment in the people and future of Canada. And although it could certainly be improved (not, for the most part, through 'privatization' i.e. gutting and pillaging), it works quite well, certainly much better than the U.S. 'system'.
"Socialism" is an all purpose ad hominem idiotic insult in the U.S. It has absolutely no meaning, and is generally used when someone has nothing intelligent to say about an issue. In fact, George W. Bush may be the biggest "socialist" ever to have been U.S. president, in terms of increasing government expenditures in proportion to GNP. (I will discount FDR, who had to address and pay for two real crises, the Depression and World War II.) Now little George's form of "socialism" is largely corporate rather than individual, but it's still socialism, isn't it?
A premier of Saskatchewan, Tommy Douglas, first introduced basic public health care there, in the early 1960s. He was with the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, a sort of populist farmer's movement, based on the strong co-operative tradition there. Nominally a social democratic party, in reality a bit left of centre. The establishment was horrified by the idea that the government should help provide and manage health care, and resisted through vicious propaganda, the courts, and other methods. Douglas persevered, and made it happen - his political skills may have been superior to Hillary's. Douglas' governments kept getting re-elected, and he was premier for 17 years, before becoming a widely-respected federal MP. And by the late 1960s government financed and organized health care was a reality throughout Canada, and is exceedingly well supported.
A year or two ago, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (more "socialism", of course, but a darn fine institution) did a series of programs and surveys to identify the "greatest Canadian". Tommy Douglas was the winner. He was a friend of my grandfather's.
|
|
Tomcat
Trad climber
Chatham N.H.
|
|
Here's a small word for you...REPUBLIC.The United States is a Republic,it's not a"liberal democracy",even if you wish it so.
However,to please you I will amend my post to read "Canada's",it will be clusterf*#k like Canada's.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
There may be very few political scientists or historians who'd agree with you. The U.S. is usually considered to be the model of a liberal democracy. They may have covered this in your civics 12 class.
Wikipedia isn't the most reliable source, but have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy The U.S. has virtually all the attributes of a liberal democracy.
A liberal democracy can be either a constitutional republic (like the U.S.) or a constitutional monarchy (like Canada, unfortunately).
The debate in the U.S., to the extent it's more than smoke and mirrors, is essentially as to how liberal a democracy it should be, and what that means. The Republicans would like us to believe that they want a more liberal democracy, although it's doubtful they really mean it. The Democrats like to portray the Republicans as reactionaries (not without cause), and are generally a bit more liberal in reality.
Reality is always more informative than rhetoric.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
Can anyone name another modern western democracy without universal health care?
Looking for socialism in the US. Better start with the military. Free Medical, even in peacetime, subisdized EVERYTHING at base stores, government housing, government chooses their jobs, government retirement, and the list goes on. If they were really fighting for the American way, why aren't they living it?
The system needs to change, and there's so much fat in it, the change could work out fine
Tort reform on medical once it's universal, saving on the 25% the insurance companies rake in, savings on the expense the hospitals incur dealing with multiple plans, butt covering tests, and going after the non-payers, and health savings from the people who don't get sick because we'd be motivated to keep people well for a change. Not to mention returning emergency rooms to emergencies.
Peace
Karl
|
|
Tomcat
Trad climber
Chatham N.H.
|
|
So"government financed and guided healthcare" does not fit your definition of socialized medicine?What would?
Would you feel better if I called it universal health care?
Karl,can you explain why you think this would work so well after looking at Social Security?
|
|
Ricky D
Trad climber
Sierra Westside
|
|
Karl - your description of the military matches my career Marine brother's description of the military being nothing more than a sophisticated form of "government workfare with the possibility of death or serious injury."
|
|
bob d'antonio
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
Tomcat wrote:So"government financed and guided healthcare" does not fit your definition of socialized medicine?What would?
It not government financed...you ever hear of thing call taxes that citizens pay and in return get a service!
Karl...we are the only western/first world country that does not have a national health care system for all of it's citizens.
Tomcat wrote: Karl,can you explain why you think this would work so well after looking at Social Security?
SS was just fine (until Bush) and one of the most successful programs in US history. It is a trust and it has been basically rape by Bush and Co.
A simple, small taxes increase will pay full benefits after the year 2047.
|
|
Tomcat
Trad climber
Chatham N.H.
|
|
Hi Bob,I'm quoting Mr.Hiker.
Your taxes are not going to pay for the insurance plans proposed Bob.Have you looked at them?They are going to require that every currently uninsured person buy the government program.Like Social Security.
|
|
Tomcat
Trad climber
Chatham N.H.
|
|
No worries.
I don't think Social Security has been on stable ground in the last twenty years though.
P.S. I pay the max SS each year,but favor an increase to make it work.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Upthread I mentioned that residents of B.C. pay about $650/person/year medical insurance premium, one way or the other. Plus (possibly) additional premiums for extras, often available through employers - extended medical (non-essential, but often convenient), dental, disability. Plus (sometimes) payment or partial payment for certain products or services, although all medically-necessary expenses are tax deductible, and they are often covered in part through government programs or insurance.
That may have been a bit misleading.
The $650/person/year adds up to perhaps 10% of the total spent on health care, if that. The proportion of our GNP spent on health care is something like 8 - 10%. Probably 90% of that is from various taxes.
Doesn't this debate come down to what is a public good? In Canada, we've decided that mandatory public health insurance is in our country's best interests. Our system could work better, but it works pretty well. There's still a significant role for private providers in our system. In the U.S., you've decided to go with what is advertised as a wholly private system - but which in fact is nothing of the sort. It's a mixed system, with the government simply taking a smaller and rather haphazard role, without a broader strategy.
In Canada, we happen to think that things like reasonable health services (all types), the public education system, infrastructure, etc are public goods. We're perhaps less blinded by mostly self-interested rhetoric. We pay for it, it works for us. Perhaps the U.S. should look to its pragmatic roots, and ask "What's best for our country, as a whole?", then go from there, rather than being misled by agitprop.
|
|
bob d'antonio
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
Anders wrote: Doesn't this debate come down to what is a public good? In Canada, we've decided that mandatory public health insurance is in our country's best interests. Our system could work better, but it works pretty well. There's still a significant role for private providers in our system. In the U.S., you've decided to go with what is advertised as a wholly private system - but which in fact is nothing of the sort. It's a mixed system, with the government simply taking a smaller and rather haphazard role, without a broader strategy.
And there is the crux for me...we invest in what is good for all Americans and in return get a mostly healthy and educated society.
Leb wrote: I can't even begin to fathom it. Sooooo.....if we don't want our collective butts conscripted, then maybe we ought not be bad mouthing (or else ridiculing) those amongst us who signed on.
If America wasn't in a constant state of war and invading other countries we wouldn't be talking about that issue at all.
|
|
Ricky D
Trad climber
Sierra Westside
|
|
No draft for me Lois - too old now and just barely missed the party in Southeast Asia by a few months. But believe you me- HAD the SOB's called my number up back in the '70's - I had my trip to Canada already mapped out.
As for today's situation - my Marine Major brother has no qualms in stating that the vast majority of kids who signed up prior to Iraq did so for the bennies. In no way did they expect to actually have to go to war!
As for me - I've got no problem using my tax dollars to offer support to these guys and gals for their personal lives as a small token of recompense for their misuse and abuse by our government.
But I do also believe in caveat emptor. Putting one's live and livelihood directly in the hands of ANY government is a fool's game.
|
|
Tomcat
Trad climber
Chatham N.H.
|
|
Nothing like signing up to be a warrior,and then griping about going to war.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
|
|
"then maybe we ought not be bad mouthing (or else ridiculing) those amongst us who signed on."
Lois, Who bad mouthed the troops? No one. Just another case of Lois confusing the issue by thinking that recognizing the faults of the system is the same as bad mouthing those in the system. Grow up Lois. Please stop confusing this issue.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
|
|
Lois, you behave like an idiot. He made a mistake in how he phrased something. At least he admitted it.
You have no right sneering at someone when you know you will never have to serve. Be it John Kerry or karl.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!