jbg Posted April 7, 2012 Report Share Posted April 7, 2012 That's right... If he had any chutzpah (how's that,Jim? ) he would have forced it through when he had most of the people on his side...This would have exposed the loons on the right for what they were/are. Great use of Yiddish but as I explained above, forcing something through, even with a Congressional majority, is impossible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted April 7, 2012 Report Share Posted April 7, 2012 (edited) We finally agree.I strongly disagree.Which is why Obamacare is the wrong idea. It should have been medicare for everyone.IOW, you want a "single payer" system. We have such a system in Canada, and it doesn't work. Or at least, it works at first and then after a few decades, it doesn't.Canada's health system is now Soviet. It will soon be utterly corrupt as boomers/their children seek special treatment through contacts. US liberals prefer a single-payer system but think that it only poses a (political) problem because of the implicit tax. The level of a State health care premium or tax is the least of the problems of a single-payer system. The broader, more important questions are: what health care to cover, and who is to get it? With "single payer", the single payer is suddenly involved in making choices. Naive Americans believe that if they had one single State/government-run HMO, life would be better. It just ain't so. I'm Canadian and I live in such a "single-payer" system. Thirty years ago, it was easy to find a GP. Now, people go to a clinic, queue for an x-ray and wait overnight in emergency rooms. Doctors misdiagnose breast cancer, women suffer mastectomy, and there is no penalty. Worse, Canada's health system does not innovate. Patient files in Canada are still recorded on paper and doctors don't use email. Innovation? Our provincial government bureaucrats want to build super-hospitals and put all sick people under one roof. Edited April 7, 2012 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted April 7, 2012 Report Share Posted April 7, 2012 IOW, you want a "single payer" system. We have such a system in Canada and it doesn't work. Or at least, it works at first and then after a few decades, it doesn't. Pure opinion, presented as fact. This habit is one of your faults, which has been pointed out to you several times, but you appear to be oblivious to this problem of yours. I'm Canadian and I live in such a "single-payer" system. Thirty years ago, it was easy to find a GP. Now, people go to a clinic, queue for an x-ray and wait overnight in emergency rooms. Doctors misdiagnose breast cancer, women suffer mastectomy, and there is no penalty. Hyperbole. No penalty for incompetence ? Not true. You can show that the system isn't as good as it once was, is more expensive, or what have you. You *can* show it, that is, if you bother to use the numbers. I have seen them and I can back them up. But to say that the system is "broken" is an opinion only. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted April 7, 2012 Report Share Posted April 7, 2012 IOW, you want a "single payer" system. We have such a system in Canada and it doesn't work. Actually, it does. Now, that doesn't mean there aren't problems, but the system overall works well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted April 7, 2012 Report Share Posted April 7, 2012 Actually, it does. Now, that doesn't mean there aren't problems, but the system overall works well. That's pretty much the only thing you can do with an opinion: retort with another opinion. "Apple pie is better than blueberry." "No, blueberry is better !" And there we are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted April 7, 2012 Report Share Posted April 7, 2012 I strongly disagree. IOW, you want a "single payer" system. We have such a system in Canada, and it doesn't work. Or at least, it works at first and then after a few decades, it doesn't. Canada's health system is now Soviet. It will soon be utterly corrupt as boomers/their children seek special treatment through contacts. US liberals prefer a single-payer system but think that it only poses a (political) problem because of the implicit tax. The level of a State health care premium or tax is the least of the problems of a single-payer system. The broader, more important questions are: what health care to cover, and who is to get it? With "single payer", the single payer is suddenly involved in making choices. Naive Americans believe that if they had one single State/government-run HMO, life would be better. It just ain't so. I'm Canadian and I live in such a "single-payer" system. Thirty years ago, it was easy to find a GP. Now, people go to a clinic, queue for an x-ray and wait overnight in emergency rooms. Doctors misdiagnose breast cancer, women suffer mastectomy, and there is no penalty. Worse, Canada's health system does not innovate. Patient files in Canada are still recorded on paper and doctors don't use email. Innovation? Our provincial government bureaucrats want to build super-hospitals and put all sick people under one roof. Besides your over the top (and infantile) libertarian tripe... Folks like you wanted tax cuts... You got 'em... So,with that tax cut money,you can now go and pay for private insurance... Let the free market reign... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted April 7, 2012 Report Share Posted April 7, 2012 That's pretty much the only thing you can do with an opinion: retort with another opinion. Well, no, I could go into health incomes and wait times, but, I don't see the point...so I'll just give an opinion. Although, saying that overall, the system works; isn't so much an opinion as a generalization. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted April 7, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 7, 2012 In the U.S., without a supermajority in the Senate that's simply not possible. He had a supermajority in both houses of congress, and squandered it. He used it to pass a crappy stimulus bill, and an even crapier health care bill. The senators you mentioned that couldn't have voted for anything besides the crap that was offered lost re-election anyways. So they should voted, or Obama should of had them vote on something meaningful, but constitutional. But as already stated by other members. He's an ineffectual leader. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted April 7, 2012 Report Share Posted April 7, 2012 He had a supermajority in both houses of congress, and squandered it. He used it to pass a crappy stimulus bill, and an even crapier health care bill. The senators you mentioned that couldn't have voted for anything besides the crap that was offered lost re-election anyways. So they should voted, or Obama should of had them vote on something meaningful, but constitutional. But as already stated by other members. He's an ineffectual leader. He had a majority with two independents Shady don't lie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted April 7, 2012 Report Share Posted April 7, 2012 (edited) Pure opinion, presented as fact. This habit is one of your faults, which has been pointed out to you several times, but you appear to be oblivious to this problem of yours.Huh?Random article: Five million Canadians without family doctor Hyperbole. No penalty for incompetence ? Not true.Huh?CBC Misdiagnosed --- Michael, the Canadian system worked in the 1970s and 1980s. Now, it is broken. It is 1960s Soviet broken and about to become 1980s Soviet broken: utterly corrupt with money in envelopes. When the boomers need care, they and their children will use every contact available to receive help. My advice, Soviet style, is that if you have an older family member ("loved one" in US MSM politically correct language), you should have a good contact within the provincial health system. You'll need to know how the provincial bureaucracy works. A good contact is sometimes simply someone smart who works in a hospital. Edited April 7, 2012 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted April 7, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 7, 2012 (edited) Random article: Five million Canadians without family doctor In Ontario it's really bad. The only way to have a doctor accept you as a new patient is if they already see one of your family members. Other than that, you're pretty much screwed. Edited April 7, 2012 by Shady Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted April 7, 2012 Report Share Posted April 7, 2012 That problem exists across the western world...but this isn't about Canadian healthcare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted April 7, 2012 Report Share Posted April 7, 2012 (edited) That problem exists across the western world...but this isn't about Canadian healthcare.No, it doesn't exist across the Western world. This problem is peculiar to Canada and the Soviet Union because they are/were "single payer".---- My point was that some American liberals/leftists (and some Canadians) seem to think that "single payer" would be better than "individual mandate" except that "single payer" is a difficult political sell in the US today. I argue here that "single payer" is a lousy idea in the long run; it's not sustainable. (And with that said, I nevertheless think that the State should be involved in delivery of medical services and so I favour socialised medicine.) ---- Anyway, the OP asks whether the US Supreme Court will approve Obamacare and its "individual mandate". God knows but I suspect that they won't. IMHO, the US Constitution may allow the federal Congress to tax as it wants but it does not give the federal government the power to force individuals to eat/buy broccoli, subject to a fine if they don't. Edited April 7, 2012 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted April 7, 2012 Report Share Posted April 7, 2012 No, it doesn't exist across the Western world. This problem is peculiar to Canada and the Soviet Union because they are/were "single payer". There is a shortage of medical practitioners across the western world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted April 7, 2012 Report Share Posted April 7, 2012 (edited) There is a shortage of medical practitioners across the western world.There is a shortage of Big Macs across the entire world.We would all like to have nice shoes, a wide bathtub/shower and a warm bed. Heck, some of us want to fly to Mars. Smallc, shortage is a fact of life. ----- When it comes to health care shortage, the first obvious question is how to choose who gets what. And the second more important question is how the answer to the first question makes the world a better place for the future. Edited April 7, 2012 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted April 7, 2012 Report Share Posted April 7, 2012 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted April 7, 2012 Report Share Posted April 7, 2012 No, it doesn't exist across the Western world. This problem is peculiar to Canada and the Soviet Union because they are/were "single payer". ---- My point was that some American liberals/leftists (and some Canadians) seem to think that "single payer" would be better than "individual mandate" except that "single payer" is a difficult political sell in the US today. I argue here that "single payer" is a lousy idea in the long run; it's not sustainable. (And with that said, I nevertheless think that the State should be involved in delivery of medical services and so I favour socialised medicine.) ---- Anyway, the OP asks whether the US Supreme Court will approve Obamacare and its "individual mandate". God knows but I suspect that they won't. IMHO, the US Constitution may allow the federal Congress to tax as it wants but it does not give the federal government the power to force individuals to eat/buy broccoli, subject to a fine if they don't. Hey look!! It's Colin M. Brown tilting at windmills again... Steve appreciates your tenacity... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted April 7, 2012 Report Share Posted April 7, 2012 (edited) It's Colin M. Brown tilting at windmills again... I had to use wikipedia to know that Colin M. Brown is part of the National Citizens Coalition.As to tilting at windmills, I understood this reference: I am more comfortable with Cervantes. ----- The fact remains that millions of Canadians have no family doctor. I take the metro in Montreal and sometimes, I have an early morning meeting. My walk to the metro takes me by a local xray clinic. As I go by at 8 am or so, whatever the season or cold weather, there's a long line of ordinary people on the sidewalk waiting to enter. The clinic's door opens at 9 am. Edited April 7, 2012 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted April 7, 2012 Report Share Posted April 7, 2012 I had to use wilipedia to know that Colin M. Brown is part of the National Citizens Coalition. As to tilting at windmills, I am more comfortable with Cervantes. ----- The fact remains that millions of Canadians have no family doctor. Part of?? He founded it... A multimillionaire insurance weasel elitist from London,Ontario... And you've become his modern day mouthpiece... You wanted tax cuts...You're reaping the whirlwind... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted April 7, 2012 Report Share Posted April 7, 2012 Right. Because Obama's new medical device tax totally leads to higher profits. No, because theres way more demand for medical insurance now. Why would the insurance industry write legislation that doesnt benefit them? What has happend to insurance industry profits so far? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted April 7, 2012 Report Share Posted April 7, 2012 My advice, Soviet style, is that if you have an older family member ("loved one" in US MSM politically correct language), you should have a good contact within the provincial health system. You'll need to know how the provincial bureaucracy works. A good contact is sometimes simply someone smart who works in a hospital. Or someone in a nearby, English-speaking country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted April 7, 2012 Report Share Posted April 7, 2012 Huh? Random article: Five million Canadians without family doctor Huh? CBC Misdiagnosed I could google some example of American failings, and what of it ? I already acknowledge that there are problems, and indeed I have gone as far as to say that the system needs reform. I wouldn't go as far as to say it's broken, I would say it's breaking. --- My advice, Soviet style, is that if you have an older family member ("loved one" in US MSM politically correct language), you should have a good contact within the provincial health system. You'll need to know how the provincial bureaucracy works. A good contact is sometimes simply someone smart who works in a hospital. Have you ever worked in business ? I'm not sure what your background is, but from your writing you seem to have been a theatre critic or something. In business, Auguste, problems are stated, then examined, then a solution is tried. Healthcare is a business, whether it is public or private. The problems can be solved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted April 7, 2012 Report Share Posted April 7, 2012 I argue here that "single payer" is a lousy idea in the long run; it's not sustainable. (And with that said, I nevertheless think that the State should be involved in delivery of medical services and so I favour socialised medicine.) Why not ? What makes single payer systems decline ? Single payer systems require strong administration, and management and government doesn't do that well, especially when the masses don't/can't pay attention to the finer points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted April 7, 2012 Report Share Posted April 7, 2012 I strongly disagree. IOW, you want a "single payer" system. We have such a system in Canada, and it doesn't work. Or at least, it works at first and then after a few decades, it doesn't. Canada's health system is now Soviet. It will soon be utterly corrupt as boomers/their children seek special treatment through contacts. US liberals prefer a single-payer system but think that it only poses a (political) problem because of the implicit tax. The level of a State health care premium or tax is the least of the problems of a single-payer system. The broader, more important questions are: what health care to cover, and who is to get it? With "single payer", the single payer is suddenly involved in making choices. Naive Americans believe that if they had one single State/government-run HMO, life would be better. It just ain't so. I'm Canadian and I live in such a "single-payer" system. Thirty years ago, it was easy to find a GP. Now, people go to a clinic, queue for an x-ray and wait overnight in emergency rooms. Doctors misdiagnose breast cancer, women suffer mastectomy, and there is no penalty. Worse, Canada's health system does not innovate. Patient files in Canada are still recorded on paper and doctors don't use email. Innovation? Our provincial government bureaucrats want to build super-hospitals and put all sick people under one roof. That's just silly August. Our health care system is not as troubled as you think. We do face significant challenges as the aging of the baby boomers puts more demand on the system, but it is also true that the system has had the benefit of our wage earning/taxpaying years to prepare for this entirely predictable demographic challenge. The difficulty in getting a family doctor is perhaps a new phenomenon, though I'm not entirely convinced of that either. I think there was always a sizable group of Canadians who relied on emergency room medical services, and we're simply hearing more about them lately as hospitals are trying to clear the decks to cope with the aging demographic challenges. There are some challenges due to constraints put on doctors' pay, but in my opinion that's a good thing: I find modern doctors much more driven by altruistic motives these days than the ARROGANT SOB DOCTORS of past decades who were in it for the money and prestige. The explosion in numbers of women doctors is having an effect in clearing out the a$$holes too, I think. Emergency rooms have always had wait times. That hasn't changed much. Your other complaints are unsubstantiated, and don't indicate any systemic issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted April 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 9, 2012 More Obamacare shenanigans... Obama administration diverts $500M to IRS to implement healthcare reform lawThe Obama administration is quietly diverting roughly $500 million to the IRS to help implement the president’s healthcare law. The money is only part of the IRS’s total implementation spending, and it is being provided outside the normal appropriations process. The tax agency is responsible for several key provisions of the new law, including the unpopular individual mandate. AP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.