BC Teachers have voted 87% to escalate the strike...

[Mash]

Hard to know where these people are coming from, Feanor. Social Security is a welfare program? This would be funny if it were not so simply nasty.

And the US medical system is not a good free enterprise system. If one wants a new car or truck in a free enterprise system, one can shop around and also compare buying services for weeks or even months.

If you have, say, a heart attack or a stroke, your shop-around-for-the-best-deal time is quite limited.

Strong opinions and wisdom seldom travel together.

[E-Stat]

I am discussing EVERYDAY treatments.

So, tie these anecdotes together with Bill's concept of *economic rights*.

By his reckoning, someone else should have paid for your wife's treatments.

[Mash]

You make no sense E-Stat. I have paid for a lot of other peoples' treatments. That is the idea. We help one another.

BTW I presume that by "someone else should have paid for your wife's treatments" you are referring to my wife's treatments that were covered by Medicare?

Well, surprise to you! 95% of my wife's medical care on a cost basis was paid for by the company I retired from (before she was 65) and not by Medicare.

See how little you really know, E-Stat?

[E-Stat]

We help one another.

Yes, we already do.

BTW I presume that by "someone else should have paid for your wife's treatments" you are referring to my wife's treatments that were covered by Medicare?

Nope. That was funded by your contributions. You need to read Feanor's comments to understand his perspective.

Well, surprise to you! 95% of my wife's medical care on a cost basis was paid for by the company I retired from (before she was 65) and not by Medicare.

Yes, your insurance paid for that. You're completely missing the point.

[Mash]

I do not think I am missing any points, E-Stat. I think you are. So lets get into the nitty-gritty.

BTW I forgot my wife's drug bills, paid by the company (and not by that Repubican POS Joke called Medicare Part D) that have summed to more than $60,000. These drug prices are negoitated by the company with the drug suppliers. Best (lowest) prices wins. So Medicare is really less than 1%. But why quibble?

Here is how the game works.

Medicare gets the biggest & best discounts on medical services.
Blue Cross / Blue Shield gets the next best discounts on medical services.
United HealthCare gets 1/2 the discounts on medical services (usually) that BCBS gets.

Following this so far?

The price of a (huge) group policy is determined significantly by how big a discount on medical services a particular insurer commands. BCBS is preferred when Medicare is NOT involved because, even with their higher charges, the discounts they obtain more that compensate.

But if the medical benefits are tied to Medicare then the Medicare discounts determine the patient billing, meaning United HealthCare can be used as the carrier with significantly lower costs to the company because Medicare is providing the discounts. Not United HealthCare.

We are discussing a LOT of money here, E-Stat. Your TeaPeePartyFreakFriends have no clue what is happening here.

[E-Stat]

I do not think I am missing any points, E-Stat.

Ok. Then discuss *economic rights*.

Here is how the game works.

You're a broken record that continues to miss the point above. I'm still waiting.

Following this so far?

I don't have any difficulty with the obvious. For some reason, you like repeat the same stuff ad nauseum.

Your TeaPeePartyFreakFriends have no clue what is happening here.

Are you coherent? I will respond to anything that I've actually said. Not your imagination.

[Mash]

Economic rights?

Get real, boy. When you work for a company you have no economic rights.

You only have what you can negotiate, and set into a contract. Nothing more.

What phantasy world are you in?

[Feanor]

Since I first used the term "economic rights", let me be clear that I'm talking about our mutual obligation to give material support to, and our right on occassion, to request support from our community.

I realized that some people don't consider this a valid concept. Some, like Ayn Rand, have even denounced it as immoral. Obviously I don't share the latter opinion.

Does this make me a socialist? I'm not sure. Pragmatically I think well-regulated capitalism with a major public sector is the best compromise. But I do believe that socialism, meaning a mutually supportive society, has a moral basis, where as capitalism, whatever its practical value, has none.

[Mash]

So, Feanor.... You reference Ayn Rand... another great thinker who is not connected to the real world.

Karl Marx is another.

Greal thinkers with great ideas that turn to crap when inplemented in the real world.

North Korea is a prime example of ideology that, when implemented, has turned to pure crap. Red China is another example.

When.... Oh when.... will people ever learn??

[E-Stat]

Since I first used the term "economic rights", let me be clear that I'm talking about our mutual obligation to give material support to, and our right on occassion, to request support from our community.

Does your universal health care only work on occasion and by request? If you recall, you introduced the term "economic rights" in context to the right for all to have universal healthcare.

"So I would proposes that it is your mutual obligation to protect the lives of each other by, for example, providing a reasonable minimum of heath care through a universal coverage system."

The founding fathers weren't thinking insurance when they spoke of "inalienable rights endowed by their creator".

[RGA]

Just wondering why civilization can't grow and add new things and make society better. Nope - a document written 40 or 200 years ago - we must stick to that and never ever change.

[Feanor]

Does your universal health care only work on occasion and by request? If you recall, you introduced the term "economic rights" in context to the right for all to have universal healthcare.

"So I would proposes that it is your mutual obligation to protect the lives of each other by, for example, providing a reasonable minimum of heath care through a universal coverage system."

The founding fathers weren't thinking insurance when they spoke of "inalienable rights endowed by their creator".

Universal health care works very well. Most implementations have a few minor problems but results are always preferable to whatever came before.

Some universal plans are based on some sort of insurance, other are more purely government-run. But they pretty much all have these characteristics: (1) nobody can be denied coverage, (2) a defined basic set of services that must be provided, (3) premiums, (where there are premiums), don't differ based on age or pre-existing condition.

There are a variety of opinions about exactly what the FFs had in mind; in any case it's certain that they had quite different ideas about many things. Nevertheless I'm sure you're right that they weren't thinking of health insurance, (or education or the environment or consumer protection or worker protections or gay rights, etc., etc.). Fortunately Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 did stipulate ... "The Congress shall have Power To ... provide for the ... general Welfare of the United States ...". This has enabled Congress to pass laws for the benefit of the people that weren't specifically listed in the Constitution.

Historically we ought to understand that the American Revolution was actually a revolt instigated by and mainly in the interest of the relatively wealthy -- such as George Washington, a trans-Appalachian land speculator wanted the British out so he could expel the native Americans and sell the land to poor farmers at a big profit.

[E-Stat]

Universal health care works very well. Most implementations have a few minor problems but results are always preferable to whatever came before.

You didn't answer the question. Here it is again:

Does your universal health care only work on occasion and by request?

mainly in the interest of the relatively wealthy -- such as George Washington, a trans-Appalachian land speculator wanted the British out so he could expel the native Americans and sell the land to poor farmers at a big profit.

It's always about class warfare.

[Feanor]

You didn't answer the question. Here it is again:

Does your universal health care only work on occasion and by request?
...

It always works when I have occasion to ask for it. And sometimes when I don't explicitly ask for it, e.g. I get biannual reminders for convert blood stool testing.

[E-Stat]

It always works when I have occasion to ask for it. And sometimes when I don't explicitly ask for it, e.g. I get biannual reminders for convert blood stool testing.

So, those who are to fund this via additional taxes are only asked to pay "on occasion" when services are "requested from our community" ?

[RGA]

The idea of Canada's health care is to create a safety net. Everyone pays X percent income tax and the safety net is that no one goes bankrupt should they get sick.

I don't see the evil in this proposition. The rich pay a higher percentage of taxes but the rich in Canada don't seem to mind (Doctors recently petitioned the government to raise their taxes because they felt they were not being taxed enough). Rich people like Bill Maher want the government to raise taxes on the top 1% of which he is one.

It's really no skin off their nose to pay it. If it's the "principle of the thing" then that's lame when lives are at stake. Yes the leaky bucket argument - but so what - even if 10% of tax revenue is lost in the transfer from rich to poor by corruption or incompetence 90% still gets there.

The middle class and poor should want a system where you pool a defense against bankruptcy and coverage for all.

Anyone can get access in Canada - it has been illustrated that with the exception of elective surgery it's just as fast, just good as the U.S. system. Rural parts of Canada is problematic in the same way rural parts of the U.S. is a problem.

I've used the emergency a few times over the years in Canada and I've waited less than 20 minutes each time (and my injuries were not emergencies) - hamstring, ankle sprains, tonsils.

Frankly the biggest positive isn't so much the actual medical care but the fact that you never have to "worry" about going bankrupt. Gee Granny is 88 and she's going to be expensive if she has to go to the hospital - may as well stick some drugs into her pudding to put her down cause we'll lose the house paying for her hospital bills.

Or Michael Moore and the finger guy - sorry mate you only have enough money to save one of your fingers - which finger are you going to choose.

I dunno but if I am a doctor and I supposedly went into the medical protection to save people's lives and future discomfort as opposed to going into medicine just for the bucks - then I don't get how they can stomach those decisions.

There is basic right and wrong - and if they can't see that as just wrong - so wrong - then wow. Is there no pity left in the hearts of man? Does everything start and stop solely with the dollar bill?

What I think might work better in the U.S. is a multi tier healthcare system. Rich people tend to want to show off their wealth in the U.S. and rub it in everyone else's faces. It's a way to cover for not having an actual personality.

So you have your free plan that covers strictly the life/death serious injury typed stuff but doesn't cover the luxury items that other western countries cover. Nor is there any nice separate room. You get the no frills dull plan.

Level two through ten is the buy in insurance plans each level adds more optional extras, maybe eye exams, dental plans, better beds, private rooms, free tattoo - whatever.

Then the a la carte option for the rich to pay for the best available Ferrari option with all the trimmings - your own hospital wing, with 7 full time round the clock nurses - personal doctors, someone to help you pee and shakes it for you. Yup the primo-limo treatment. No regular John Q Shmuck can get this service.

[E-Stat]

The idea of Canada's health care is to create a safety net. Everyone pays X percent income tax and the safety net is that no one goes bankrupt should they get sick.

Therein lies the significant difference to here in the States. Half of US citizens pay ZERO income tax. Many get *paid* via EIC.

In the 80s when I worked for the family business, I helped some of the hourly workers with their tax forms. For them the *safety net* became a hammock and many got creative with the number of dependents they claimed.

[Feanor]

So, those who are to fund this via additional taxes are only asked to pay "on occasion" when services are "requested from our community" ?

Reread my original assertion ...

Since I first used the term "economic rights", let me be clear that I'm talking about our mutual obligation to give material support to, and our right on occassion, to request support from our community ...

Giving material support isn't occasional, getting it is occasional.

[E-Stat]

"Giving material support".

What a great "politically correct" term for taxation. The Circular E should be renamed the "Employer's Material Support Guide".

I can see Obama making his tax plan more palatable by calling it the "Millionaire's Increased Material Support Bill".

[Feanor]

Therein lies the significant difference to here in the States. Half of US citizens pay ZERO income tax. Many get *paid* via EIC.

In the 80s when I worked for the family business, I helped some of the hourly workers with their tax forms. For them the *safety net* became a hammock and many got creative with the number of dependents they claimed.

'Stat, this is what bothers me about you: that you are far more concerned that a few people might get something they don't deserve than you are that they get something they need for decent life. IMO, this reflects a lack of compassion which falls into the category of "ethical deficit" I mention earlier.

It's undesirable that people get what they don't deserver, (or even what they are not entitled to under existing laws). It is wrong and socially irresponsible of people to cheat; it is culpable. However incidental abuse of charity doesn't trump our ethical responsibility to provided when people need it.

[E-Stat]

'Stat, this is what bothers me about you: that you are far more concerned that a few people might get something they don't deserve than you are that they get something they need for decent life.

What I really don't understand is the why liberals feel that benevolence is good only when it is forced.

IMO, this reflects a lack of compassion which falls into the category of "ethical deficit" I mention earlier.

Do you give away more than eleven percent of your gross earnings?

[Feanor]

What I really don't understand is the why liberals feel that benevolence is good only when it is forced. ...

What's that about "only"? You're saying that, not me. The problem relying on private charity alone is that it is insufficient, inefficient, and often ineffective in that it tends to go to people whom the donors consider "deserving".

...
Do you give away more than eleven percent of your gross earnings?

In truth I have not; then again I don't begrudge paying our higher Canadian taxes.

[Feanor]

What a great "politically correct" term for taxation [material support]. The Circular E should be renamed the "Employer's Material Support Guide".

I can see Obama making his tax plan more palatable by calling it the "Millionaire's Increased Material Support Bill".

Do you think? Maybe he could try that.

[E-Stat]

The problem relying on private charity alone is that it is insufficient, inefficient, and often ineffective in that it tends to go to people whom the donors consider "deserving".

Insufficient? By what criteria?

Inefficient? As opposed to government run plans? LOL! That's the funniest thing I've heard all day.

Ineffective? By whose criteria?

I'm delighted you are content with your forced benevolence. I prefer the right to choose mine.

[RGA]

Therein lies the significant difference to here in the States. Half of US citizens pay ZERO income tax. Many get *paid* via EIC.

In the 80s when I worked for the family business, I helped some of the hourly workers with their tax forms. For them the *safety net* became a hammock and many got creative with the number of dependents they claimed.

Well that is a problem. I am not a fan of people "mooching" off of the system - nor am I fan of paying cancer treatments to 20 year old smokers. If you're 65 and you have lung cancer from smoking maybe we could agree that when the person started they were lied to. We may even come to an agreement that they can be covered. But if you're 20 with all the information we have - then if you get cancer you S.O.L. because you should know better.

I think people can also agree that some people are out of work for good reason and others who are out of work because they have a grow op in their basement. Or they're bone lazy.

I have a tough time paying tax to support those people. If it's a small percentage then you just stomach it and call it the leaky bucket and you say most of the money helps mostly good people. 50% lazy moocher 20 year old smoking drug dealers - then I'd probably take issue.

The guy who is 55 and got downsized and his company went belly up and took the pension - well that's different. It's much more difficult to land a job at 55 than 25.

Employment Insurance schemes are supposed to be temporary to cover you while you get another job. It should not be permanent support for lazy butts to mooch off people with a work ethic. Those kinds of people can shrivel up and die for all I care. The problem is that we throw the baby out with the bathwater - and we let the otherwise good people suffer in order to punish the moochers.