Duke wrote: I would hardly say "better quality of life". I've vactioned in Europe. Stuff poor people take for granted in the States even rich people don't have in England, like decent plumbing that works and a kitchen that's bigger than a postage stamp.
I say better quality of life, cause they live longer and take much more vacations.
I see that you want to live longer........and better your "quality of life" care to enlighten our poor souls to your altruistic insight in this area? Or are you just words without meaning?
ignorant wrote:Doc_1 wrote: If you are too lazy to read the bill then read history.Ok.. I'll read history... Like most civilized devloped countries have had universal care since 1900 or so and haven't fallen the apart yet.... Ohh and they generally have 1. a better quality of life and 2. longer life spans....
Dayumn. So all them folks getting their 'scrips cheap because their gummint pushes the R&D off on US shoulders or who show up here 'cause there is no better care anywhere don't have a clue? The Brits got it made, right?
Maybe not so much:
http://business-school-blog.elliottback.com/79/health-care-rationing-and-the-nhs-londons-troubling-precedent/
http://www.physorg.com/news97738082.html
Or the O's Health Care Czar. What does he have to say/
http://reason.com/archives/2008/12/23/tom-daschles-plan-for-health-c
Or straight from that bulwark of leftist thought, the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/magazine/19healthcare-t.html?pagewanted=all
As a first take, we might say that the good achieved by health care is the number of lives saved. But that is too crude. The death of a teenager is a greater tragedy than the death of an 85-year-old, and this should be reflected in our priorities. We can accommodate that difference by calculating the number of life-years saved, rather than simply the number of lives saved. If a teenager can be expected to live another 70 years, saving her life counts as a gain of 70 life-years, whereas if a person of 85 can be expected to live another 5 years, then saving the 85-year-old will count as a gain of only 5 life-years. That suggests that saving one teenager is equivalent to saving 14 85-year-olds. These are, of course, generic teenagers and generic 85-year-olds. It’s easy to say, “What if the teenager is a violent criminal and the 85-year-old is still working productively?” But just as emergency rooms should leave criminal justice to the courts and treat assailants and victims alike, so decisions about the allocation of health care resources should be kept separate from judgments about the moral character or social value of individuals.
But in the end the old coot gets booted out. 
Maybe our friends in the Great White North fare better:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124451570546396929.html
Not long ago, I would have applauded this type of government expansion. Born and raised in Canada, I once believed that government health care is compassionate and equitable. It is neither. My views changed in medical school. Yes, everyone in Canada is covered by a "single payer" -- the government. But Canadians wait for practically any procedure or diagnostic test or specialist consultation in the public system. The problems were brought home when a relative had difficulty walking. He was in chronic pain. His doctor suggested a referral to a neurologist; an MRI would need to be done, then possibly a referral to another specialist. The wait would have stretched to roughly a year. If surgery was needed, the wait would be months more. Not wanting to stay confined to his house, he had the surgery done in the U.S., at the Mayo Clinic, and paid for it himself.
The problem down here is spiraling costs more than quality of care. As I said in another post, I am more than willing to give up ficus trees and draperies in the lobby, valet parking, free coffee and those plaques bragging about the architect who designed the building if the cost of health care down here would be lowered.
ignorant wrote: I say better quality of life, cause they live longer and take much more vacations.
Truly, a model for the US to emulate - higher and more chronic unemployment than experienced here, countries paralyzed with strikes by national unions, stagnant economies, immigration/assimilation issues more problematic than here, a lower infant-mortality rate because extra-ordinary measures aren't taken to sustain an endangered newborn's life, etc, etc.
As an aside, euro living standards are not dissimilar from my own, but my circumstances are a personal choice, not one dictated by governmental socio-economic policy.
There is a lot of pain involved if the US's goal is refute the "American dream".
The Muslims living in France damn near burnt the country to the ground a little while back. In Spain, an al Quaida offshoot blew up a commuter train. In Britain, double decker buses were bombed.
Yeah, sounds like places that are doing so much better than us. Oh, wait; I forgot one guy tried to blow up his underwear while flying into Detroit.
If this Health Care Bill is soo wonderful then why not ask those in America that ALREADY HAVE IT! The American Indian has had government run health care for nearly 200 years. Anyone care to call some sorry bastard on the reservation and ask him how its WORKING?????
I am sure they have a better quality of life AND live long too.
Efforts to save the republic from the health care are already underway. We need to support these efforts! Write your congressman and DEMAND that these children remain uninsured. Our freedom depends on it.
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0329/guaranteed-coverage-sick-children-health-bill/
Doc_1 wrote: If this Health Care Bill is soo wonderful then why not ask those in America that ALREADY HAVE IT! The American Indian has had government run health care for nearly 200 years. Anyone care to call some sorry bastard on the reservation and ask him how its WORKING?????
As much as I am opposed to the bill, you really cannot use this example for a number of reasons.
My opinion is that none of this matters. They are blowing smoke up our skirts, politically.
There will not be any effective reform.
The big effects of the legislation don't go into effect until 2014. There's going to be elections between now and then. Think some folks are gonna want to change stuff before it goes into effect?
Additionally, when it does go into effect, companies will opt out, because the fine ($2000 per year per employee) will be a LOT less than the cost of the insurance.
Then, employees will be forced to buy their own, or they get to pay a fine too. (I love how the government gets paid TWICE in this deal!)
If they can't pay the fine, the government will be forced to have an alternative- ie: a government paid option.
It's just a HUGE welfare program.
Shaun wrote: Efforts to save the republic from the health care are already underway. We need to support these efforts! Write your congressman and DEMAND that these children remain uninsured. Our freedom depends on it. http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0329/guaranteed-coverage-sick-children-health-bill/
our freedom depends on it?
wow.
oldsaw wrote:ignorant wrote: I say better quality of life, cause they live longer and take much more vacations.Truly, a model for the US to emulate - higher and more chronic unemployment than experienced here, countries paralyzed with strikes by national unions, stagnant economies, immigration/assimilation issues more problematic than here, a lower infant-mortality rate because extra-ordinary measures aren't taken to sustain an endangered newborn's life, etc, etc. As an aside, euro living standards are not dissimilar from my own, but my circumstances are a personal choice, not one dictated by governmental socio-economic policy. There is a lot of pain involved if the US's goal is refute the "American dream".
which is worth more the euro or the dollar....
Some times having the weaker currency can be an advantage.
You wana build stuff cheaply or buy stuff cheaply?
GlennS wrote: Some times having the weaker currency can be an advantage. You wana build stuff cheaply or buy stuff cheaply?
I am well aware of the benefits of a weaker currency. However, Currency valuation can also be utilized as a relative barometer as the wealth/health of a nation.
Unfortunately the American Indian is a classic example of how government's view people. Take some time and ponder that fact. It (how the Indian IS/was treated) is not up for debate it is a fact. View the past to be see the future.
Jensenman wrote: The problems were brought home when a relative had difficulty walking. He was in chronic pain. His doctor suggested a referral to a neurologist; an MRI would need to be done, then possibly a referral to another specialist. The wait would have stretched to roughly a year. If surgery was needed, the wait would be months more. Not wanting to stay confined to his house, he had the surgery done in the U.S., at the Mayo Clinic, and paid for it himself.
Opponents of public health care always throw out examples like this as proof that the Canadian system is a failure. I don't get the argument. If someone occasionally electing to pay out of pocket for a procedure is an example of the the horrible things that happen in a single payer system, how can you then ignore that around a third of americans would also end up having to pay out of pocket (or go bankrupt) if they needed the same procedure? The lack of access to affordable, timely care is actually much more common here, even though we pay significantly more overall.
Josh wrote:Jensenman wrote: The problems were brought home when a relative had difficulty walking. He was in chronic pain. His doctor suggested a referral to a neurologist; an MRI would need to be done, then possibly a referral to another specialist. The wait would have stretched to roughly a year. If surgery was needed, the wait would be months more. Not wanting to stay confined to his house, he had the surgery done in the U.S., at the Mayo Clinic, and paid for it himself.Opponents of public health care always throw out examples like this as proof that the Canadian system is a failure. I don't get the argument. If someone occasionally electing to pay out of pocket for a procedure is an example of the the horrible things that happen in a single payer system, how can you then ignore that around a third of americans would also end up having to pay out of pocket (or go bankrupt) if they needed the same procedure? The lack of access to affordable, timely care is actually much more common here, even though we pay significantly more overall.
I'm throwing the BS flag on that story. He wouldn't pay. He has health insurance in canada. They'd pay for his surgery. So... If their system sucks why aren't there millions of them down here getting proceedures done?
Things may not be so "rosy" for the financial health of Canada's system:
"These are stark and unpalatable choices that we face with respect to health care, but there is no magic solution," he said. "We absolutely must have an adult debate about how we deal with this. Finding solutions in this area is extraordinarily difficult, but it is imperative."
Quotes excerpted from this:
http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Carbon%20topic%20Liberals%20conference/2735249/story.html
One interesting point (also from the article) is the emphasis on Canada implementing a carbon tax that will force a behavioral change in those who consume energy.
If dramatic cost increases face the health care program, does that mean people will alter behavior so they don't get sick?
The aging population is going to be a problem in both countries.
zomby woof wrote: The aging population is going to be a problem in both countries.
America is not Canada. Here in America, the whole point is that you have the opportunity to create enough wealth to provide for your well being. If your insurance dumps you because you are getting too expensive to keep alive, man up and earn more money, and buy yourself some health. The shareholders deserve a dividend. That why bonuses get paid out to CEO's. SHAREHOLDER VALUE. If you are too feeble to be able to create enough wealth to be able to afford health insurance, or are a child with a pre-existing condition, tough E36 M3. Socialism is a slippery slope, it leads to totalitarianism, and eventual slavery. Read some Ayn Rand ferchrisake.
The hyperbole in this thread is strong.
Socialism to totalitarianism to slavery? Wow. That's a leap.
Are higher taxes inevitable to pay for health care? Probably. Does it bother me? No. The fact is, I have a quality of life and standard of living that are both measurably higher than at least 90 percent of the world. I consider myself lucky. I also am perfectly pleased with my freedoms and liberties. No danger in becoming a slave in Canada (please read our Charter, Shaun :))
Shaun wrote: Read some Ayn Rand ferchrisake.
you are cut off. Don't go throwing that whacko around...
Don't be ignorant...
First, American "poor" lead lifestyles similar to the middle class in most of the rest of the world. That will likely be changing thought as we bring them and the middle class down to more average standards through socialism.
Second, the studies that show longer life, better infant mortality, etc... in other countries are badly flawed when used to compare against US statistics. They are not corrected for a myriad of "other" influences (race, lifestyle, etc) and some items are measured very differently.(especially around infant mortiality).
In more specific comparisons (survivability after certain diesaeses, procedures) the US almost invariably comes out on top, often by a large margin.
So if you want to claim anything, you can say that those in other countries live longer in spite of their healthcare system, not because of it.
Ann Rand lived in both communist and capitalist systems and used her writings to draw a distinction... you have lived only in a capitalist system with romanitic notions about how wonderful socialism must be. I bet you have a Che t-shirt or two as well.... and she's the wacko?
wcelliot wrote: Don't be ignorant... First, American "poor" lead lifestyles similar to the middle class in most of the rest of the world. That will likely be changing thought as we bring them and the middle class down to more average standards through socialism. Second, the studies that show longer life, better infant mortality, etc... in other countries are badly flawed when used to compare against US statistics. They are not corrected for a myriad of "other" influences (race, lifestyle, etc) and some items are measured very differently.(especially around infant mortiality). In more specific comparisons (survivability after certain diesaeses, procedures) the US almost invariably comes out on top, often by a large margin. So if you want to claim anything, you can say that those in other countries live longer in spite of their healthcare system, not because of it. Ann Rand lived in both communist and capitalist systems and used her writings to draw a distinction... you have lived only in a capitalist system with romanitic notions about how wonderful socialism must be. I bet you have a Che t-shirt or two as well.... and she's the wacko?
For truth! Ayn Rand has some weirdness, but she makes more sense than you, iggy.
ZOO wrote: The hyperbole in this thread is strong. Socialism to totalitarianism to slavery? Wow. That's a leap. Are higher taxes inevitable to pay for health care? Probably. Does it bother me? No. The fact is, I have a quality of life and standard of living that are both measurably higher than at least 90 percent of the world. I consider myself lucky. I also am perfectly pleased with my freedoms and liberties. No danger in becoming a slave in Canada (please read our Charter, Shaun :))
What works well for you is not the issue.
After experiencing the questionable success of the US government's prowess in managing entitlement programs, people have no confidence in the claimed cost/benefit ratio of reform legislation.
The economic melt-down has already resulted in life-style changes, and people are very aware of their personal roles in the failure. They also see how government and business actions factored in the downturn and are VERY wary of futher expansion and intrusion.
People in the US are not against reform; they are against the contents of this specific bill, how the contents were realized, and that the government has ignored the most pressing issue - getting the economy on the right track.
Socialism to totalitarianism to slavery? Wow. That's a leap
Not really... history has shown that's the typical progression.
Capitalism is the natural state of things and can exisit with no Government whatsoever... and is completely voluntary to participate in.
A socialist state must use repressive Government power to force participation...(like fining you if you don't buy a certain product)... otherwise socialism falls apart to a capitalist black market... once a Government has that sort of power, it's already well down the road to totalitarianism.
I guess it depends on your definition of "slavery", but if the Government forces you to work for them, takes a sizeable percentage of your productivity, but provides you with protection, housing, food, and healthcare... how is that so very different than living on a plantation?
But often the frog in the pot vehemently denies that the water is heating up...
You'll need to log in to post.
