Why not Universal Healthcare?

[Feanor]

They are not requiring it as they allow you to opt out for a price. Not quite socialism as it has no such trigger.

Perhaps you are speaking of the US proposal, but in Canada there is no opting out. Also, Canadian insurance companies here are not allowed to cover any procedure that is covered by the provincial health plan.

Of course, a Canadian can go to the US, a private clinic, or where ever, and pay 100% of the cost him/herself. There are few private clinics in Canada because there is little demand excepting for certain expensive, diagnositc treatments such as MIR where waiting lists can be long.

State-side, it seems popular to use "socialist" as scare word. By implication anything so-labeled must be rejected out of hand as "not the American way", i.e. inferior to anything typically American, if not downright evil.

Heads up, folks. Raul Castro is socialist, perhaps Hugo Chavez is socialist, but absolutely nothing proposed by the Obama administration or the Democratic caucus can legitimately be called "socialist".

[ForeverAutumn]

...back to the igloo I go!

Probably a good idea. Some people have made it known that comments from the citizens of a second-rate country are not welcome in this thread...even if the comment is more relevant than 99% of the rest of the thread.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

State-side, it seems popular to use "socialist" as scare word. By implication anything so-labeled must be rejected out of hand as "not the American way", i.e. inferior to anything typically American, if not downright evil.

Heads up, folks. Raul Castro is socialist, perhaps Hugo Chavez is socialist, but absolutely nothing proposed by the Obama administration or the Democratic caucus can legitimately be called "socialist".

The word socialist is being used as a weapon to kill health reform. Unfortunately the folks that use the word the most, have no idea what it really is. How someone can get socialism out of a public plan that competes with a private plan I don't know. The CBC has already concluded that a public plan competing with a private plan will not lead to a wholly run government health plan, but folks just keep hammering away at that point crying out socialism.

I am hoping that logic will over-ride fear as we push forward. We are already seeing a change in tide with some polls suggesting that Americans are backing away from the fear and paranoia, and starting to listen to the facts.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Probably a good idea. Some people have made it known that comments from the citizens of a second-rate country are not welcome in this thread...even if the comment is more relevant than 99% of the rest of the thread.

FA, It's A person, not some. This American welcomes your opinions and facts regarding the Canadian health care system, and your perspective on our system as well. Yours and other Canadians contribution to this thread has been very enlightening for me. Please do not pay any attention to the lack of finesse of a certain American, he does not represent us all.

[markw]

Probably a good idea. Some people have made it known that comments from the citizens of a second-rate country are not welcome in this thread...even if the comment is more relevant than 99% of the rest of the thread.

My, aren't we feeling a but snippy today. OK, you asked for it.

Simply put, you don't understand the greed in politics here. I don't see where either side is shoring up the problems such as insurance regulation being limited to each state (read blackravens posts). Likewise, I don't see them shoring up the bleeding costs that exist, just forcing another overpriced plan on people.

Believe it or not, 85% of the people have working, albeit expensive, health insurance. A lot of that 85% is not rich. Many are barely hanging on to middle class by a thread. If they tax their insurance, it will surely impact their standard of living and drop many into a poverty level. Likewise, with the administrations plan, they can drop people from their corporate insurance and, for smaller companies, drop entire plans, thereby forcing a market for their new plan which, I'm sure, won't measure up to what they have now.

Nor can you even fathom your country being the "go to guy" whenever a world crisis has developed for the past 65 years or so. You have no idea what that costs. How many working subs do you have? How about world-class icebreakers? If your country had to pay for all it's own protection, you would be bankrupt. Your armed forces are already drastically underfunded and, IIRC, isn't Russia sniffing at your northern oil reserves? Don't worry, the big bad US of A probably won't let it fall into their hands.

Granted, you're always there peeking out from behind us, but it's not you who they come to to resolve the problem, nor do you bare the financial burden of being the world's protector. Now, we don't really mind you guys quietly living off our good will and your fortuitous location, huddled at our northern border, but most at least have the good sense to realize their good fortune and not think you're really more than you are, which is a country living in the shadow of a richer, larger, country with more global responsibilities than you can imagine.

Feel better now that you got that off your chest??

[3LB]

State-side, it seems popular to use "socialist" as scare word. By implication anything so-labeled must be rejected out of hand as "not the American way", i.e. inferior to anything typically American, if not downright evil.

Don't know about "evil"... socialism isn't inherently evil. A Farmers Co-op is a form of socialism, so is a credit union. Depends on who is running the show. The former USSR's brand of socialism/communisn imploded under its own weight and corruption. I don't think large scale socialism is the answer for the US, though our brand of capitalism isn't looking too healthy about now.

I don't think anyone here has exhibited a "let them eat cake" attitude with regards to a federally mandated healthcare system. Myself, I think system reform is in order before we could ever expect a healthcare plan to work. Hell, people entering the workforce today are paying for their grandparents' retirement - we're foolish to believe our gov't won't screw this plan up as well. When the citizens of this country actually wield control over our elected officials, and not the special interest lobbies, then I think a national healthcare could work. I agree that party lines should not play a part in this issue, but they do, they play a bigger role in our lives than they deserve to, and we need to fix that sooner than later.

[3LB]

Nor can you even fathom your country being the "go to guy" whenever a world crisis has developed for the past 65 years or so

I'm all for getting out of the "policing action" business.

[E-Stat]

Really? So not 1 red cent collected via a consumption tax at any level of government has ever been allocated to either budget?

Certainly not for federal defense. The allocation of sales tax to the other authorities would be determined on a state by state basis if at all. County property taxes typically cover schools.

rw

[E-Stat]

No I'm quite correct...

You are answering the wrong question and have gotten yourself all in a lather because you didn't read my link and my comment. I will repeat for clarification:

Safeway does use BMI and Peterson's 28.6 value falls below the 30 threshold.

We're not talking about what the AMA says. We're not talking about a theoretical concept. We are talking about WHAT SAFEWAY DOES TODAY. Your athlete example is very likely why THEY chose to extend the BMI limit to 30 and NOT use the 25 figure.

rw

[E-Stat]

Sorry, this is a socialist ideal? I was speaking about the concept fundamentally. It appears to be a left and right issue for you guys. E-Stat, I'm sure much of what is being proposed stinks of all types of political agenda.

For our existing situation, it would be a new government mandated tax for all people, whether they want or need it or not. That's the issue and does not reflect the freedom we currently have. Others may fairly disagree. There is no right to health care in any of our founding father's documents.

rw

[E-Stat]

This is where I think we hit a philosophical difference. Canadians don't see this as the Government dictating required health insurance.

Fair enough. It is one part covered by your higher tax burden.

rw

[poppachubby]

My, aren't we feeling a but snippy today. OK, you asked for it.

Simply put, you don't understand the greed in politics here. I don't see where either side is shoring up the problems such as insurance regulation being limited to each state (read blackravens posts). Likewise, I don't see them shoring up the bleeding costs that exist, just forcing another overpriced plan on people.

Believe it or not, 85% of the people have working, albeit expensive, health insurance. A lot of that 85% is not rich. Many are barely hanging on to middle class by a thread. If they tax their insurance, it will surely impact their standard of living and drop many into a poverty level. Likewise, with the administrations plan, they can drop people from their corporate insurance and, for smaller companies, drop entire plans, thereby forcing a market for their new plan which, I'm sure, won't measure up to what they have now.

Nor can you even fathom your country being the "go to guy" whenever a world crisis has developed for the past 65 years or so. You have no idea what that costs. How many working subs do you have? How about world-class icebreakers? If your country had to pay for all it's own protection, you would be bankrupt. Your armed forces are already drastically underfunded and, IIRC, isn't Russia sniffing at your northern oil reserves? Don't worry, the big bad US of A probably won't let it fall into their hands.

Granted, you're always there peeking out from behind us, but it's not you who they come to to resolve the problem, nor do you bare the financial burden of being the world's protector. Now, we don't really mind you guys quietly living off our good will and your fortuitous location, huddled at our northern border, but most at least have the good sense to realize their good fortune and not think you're really more than you are, which is a country living in the shadow of a richer, larger, country with more global responsibilities than you can imagine.

Feel better now that you got that off your chest??

Hahaha, you are a funny little man...

[markw]

Hahaha, you are a funny little man...

Yes, but truthful, which is what irks her, and a few others. I do see you're still selling them your well-used subs.

[poppachubby]

I do see you're still selling them your well-used subs.

I don't even know what that means. No man, I don't think it irks her. Clearly you're the one who gets irked around here. I think for most, it's just an internet forum. Your anger and bitterness comes off the page like no one else on this site. It's funny, on maybe my second day here, I tried to "befriend" you with a little playful joking and you reacted completely hostile. Since then I have seen your various threads and replies and for the most part, you're pretty much a dik. I take it that you're one of those guys who knows he's a dik, and takes some sort of great ironic pride in it. Anyways, there's not too much you can say to me that will get under my skin bro, but you on the other hand have a big, huge, giant button on your forehead marked "PUSH". Don't get too whipped up, I won't check this until tommorrow at this point, well actually, maybe in a bit, so yes, go on Mark, let me "have it"!! Hahahaha.......

[markw]

I don't even know what that means. No man, I don't think it irks her. Clearly you're the one who gets irked around here. I think for most, it's just an internet forum. Your anger and bitterness comes off the page like no one else on this site. It's funny, on maybe my second day here, I tried to "befriend" you with a little playful joking and you reacted completely hostile. Since then I have seen your various threads and replies and for the most part, you're pretty much a dik. I take it that you're one of those guys who knows he's a dik, and takes some sort of great ironic pride in it. Anyways, there's not too much you can say to me that will get under my skin bro, but you on the other hand have a big, huge, giant button on your forehead marked "PUSH". Don't get too whipped up, I won't check this until tommorrow at this point, well actually, maybe in a bit, so yes, go on Mark, let me "have it"!! Hahahaha.......

I just comment appropriately when it's called for. I just let the blowhards who talk down to us out of ignorance have it when they ask for it, no matter where they are from.

As for your "befriending" me in your early days, perhaps your remark would have gone over better had we been face to face but, barring any other means of interpertation, it came off as a rude slap in the face. Ergo, my response.

[Feanor]

Fair enough. It is one part covered by your higher tax burden.

rw

Thus there is a least one area where we feel we're getting our money's worth for our tax dollars.

[02audionoob]

I don't know if this is the right time to interject in this, one of the all-time great polarizing AR threads, but here goes.

You Canadians read what markw says and probably think "typical American" and criticize wiith great zeal. Some of you Americans are unwilling to be lumped in markw and take the opportunity to distance yourselves, saying he doesn't speak for us...he doesn't speak for Americans. Well, pardner...like it or not...he's right in the eyes of many Americans.

The US government is bigger than our founding fathers ever imagined and it's only getting bigger. For those Canadians who think we're all about the conservative/right, please remember
(a) both presidential candidates ran on a platform of change in Washington, (b) we elected the leftward choice between the two, and guess what...(c) the candidate from the right actually lost the popular vote the time before that. But on the other hand, for all you Americans who say markw doesn't speak for us, remember we elected George W. Bush twice. The NRA is alive and well. We buy a great many pick-up trucks in this country and more than a few have gun racks in the back. The great many churches Feanor rails about are full on Sunday.

I like to think as a native Texan I have a little extra insight on the idea Americans are all brash, loud and arrogant. Many Americans think all those things about Texans. How arrogant do we have to be to get that reputation in America...the country with that same reputation? But hey...it's who we are. We here today didn't create the US, but we're it. We live it and breathe it.

I'm learning as I go, but there was a time when I thought Texas was the greatest state in the union. Oh well...maybe I still think that. I was raised here. I can't help it, at least not without some sort or therapy or hypnosis. I didn't invent it. It's just who I am...just like being thrifty, perpetually late, or any of my other foibles. I get better as time goes on...I think. I suppose I must be abusive and ignorant, since that's what Cloth Ears said in that disapproval rep point he gave me...which makes me wonder...am I those things because I don't just turn the other cheek? And now wait a second...isn't calling someone "abusive and ignorant" the perfect example of the pot calling the...oh, but anyway...I'm wandering.

I'd also like to think that since I lean leftward by comparison to my fellow Texans on average, I'm actually learning something from the outside world. I still live in a place where the most popular vehicle isn't the Camry, Accord or Civic...





...and what seems almost like instinct will probably always remind me that while this country needs to move forward about half its voters are still trying to keep a lid on the size of government and how much it controls our lives, including our healthcare and insurance. It's a noble cause, when you consider our history...and a matter of perspective.

So now I suppose I'm repeating myself, but as much you Americans might say markw doesn't speak for you, I'll just remind you...like it or not, he's got more people on his side than this guy...

[kexodusc]

You are answering the wrong question and have gotten yourself all in a lather because you didn't read my link and my comment. I will repeat for clarification:

Safeway does use BMI and Peterson's 28.6 value falls below the 30 threshold.

We're not talking about what the AMA says. We're not talking about a theoretical concept. We are talking about WHAT SAFEWAY DOES TODAY. Your athlete example is very likely why THEY chose to extend the BMI limit to 30 and NOT use the 25 figure.

rw

You're right I misread your post completely, my apologies. But regardless, that's irrelevant to my point -BMI is clumsy at best and insurance policies can be too arbitrary in its application - the BMI is a function of weight and height, not a function of a person's level of fitness at a given weight, doesn't differentiate between healthy muscle mass and problematic body fat, and has tremendous potential for penalizing healthy individuals and not penalizing unhealthy ones. It's great for its simplicity, particularly in studies that include only or mostly obese people..but heavier, fit people have never been properly accounted for by the figure. A terrible metric for insurance coverage determination.

That's too off topic to the discussion however - I'm actually in agreement with the context you brought it up in...healthy people are not rewarded enough IMO, and there should be greater incentive to look after one's self. This is a big beef I have with the Canadian system...though it has been proven by a few studies that smokers' burden on health care is less than non-smokers, obese individuals (particularly diabetics) are not. Slippery slope to climb though - denying people affordable health care for being ill or unhealthy...Too many difficult decisions to be made there.

[poppachubby]

Noob, I think as Canadians, we know Americans well enough to put stereotypes aside. It's the rest of the world I'm not so sure about.

Personally, I think people's politics are their own business. That said, I don't care if someone is left or right, hick or gay. I don't view Healthcare as a matter of politics. To me, it should be a basic human right.

Of course, we expect the government to provide it via our tax dollars, so it gets filtered through the political system as a platform issue, etc. At the end of the day, in spite of my politics or personal beliefs, if my arm falls off, I want help to put it back on.

Anyhow, I'm done on this thread and I will certainly never comment on anything political or religious here again. So easy to get caught up. It's just not what I come here for...

[E-Stat]

the BMI is a function of weight and height, not a function of a person's level of fitness at a given weight, doesn't differentiate between healthy muscle mass and problematic body fat, and has tremendous potential for penalizing healthy individuals and not penalizing unhealthy ones

Regardless of your comments, BMI has been proven to be a good overall indicator of health. If you think that healthy folks are penalized by BMI, then by all means provide your proof. Safeway's application is in direct conflict with your assertion. As I have already demonstrated, your elite athlete example would NOT be penalized by their criteria. TtT claims he would be penalized, but has not given any proof. I seriously doubt than anyone who claims to be "lean" would have a BMI greater than 30. Like you, he will have to provide his proof in order to support his claim. I am 5' 6" and weigh 152 lbs. In order to exceed an index of 30, I would have to weigh more than 185 lbs! Are you kidding? BTW, I am a regular runner.

rw

[E-Stat]

Of course, we expect the government to provide it via our tax dollars, so it gets filtered through the political system as a platform issue, etc. At the end of the day, in spite of my politics or personal beliefs, if my arm falls off, I want help to put it back on.

"Provide it via our tax dollars". More than likely, you believe that the tax burden here in the states is distributed similarly as it is in Canada. Right? Nothing could be further from the truth. According to 2007 data, 32% of Canadians contributed nothing to income taxes. How about in the US? The answer is 50%! So what is the contribution to the tax burden provided by the top 25% of Canadians? 80% Care to wager a guess on the figure for us in the states? 86% For those of us in the half (not the two thirds) who shoulder all the burden, the health care initiative means here's a way to add $900 Billlion dollars to our existing higher contribution to yours. Do you begin to understand the feeling of those who are already shouldering more of the load than you Canadians? It is very easy for the 50% of Americans who contribute NOTHING - Zilch - Nada - Zero income tax to say, now I want free healthcare to be provided by those who already support us. Do you understand?

rw

[E-Stat]

Thus there is a least one area where we feel we're getting our money's worth for our tax dollars.

Do read my response to Chubby. Are you aware that a far more significant number of Americans pay ZERO income tax than in Canada (50% vs 32%)? Are you aware that a far greater amount of the tax revenue is contributed by the top 25% of filers (86% vs 80%)? And, now Obama wants to add another $900 Billion dollars worth of additional annual expense to those of us who support the entire system. Does that mean anything to you? Would you like to increase your tax contribution by another 20%?

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

My, aren't we feeling a but snippy today. OK, you asked for it.

Simply put, you don't understand the greed in politics here. I don't see where either side is shoring up the problems such as insurance regulation being limited to each state (read blackravens posts). Likewise, I don't see them shoring up the bleeding costs that exist, just forcing another overpriced plan on people.

Mark, I am sorry, but I don't believe in a all or nothing approach. It is not like you cannot tweak policy after it is instituted. Also, the public option would force insurance companies to compete and thereby saving costs. You don't have to mandate cost containment, the competition would do it for you. The public option would cut across state lines, as it is not a regional concept, but a country wide concept.

Believe it or not, 85% of the people have working, albeit expensive, health insurance. A lot of that 85% is not rich. Many are barely hanging on to middle class by a thread. If they tax their insurance, it will surely impact their standard of living and drop many into a poverty level. Likewise, with the administrations plan, they can drop people from their corporate insurance and, for smaller companies, drop entire plans, thereby forcing a market for their new plan which, I'm sure, won't measure up to what they have now.

Wrong again. The proposal that are are there (there is no administration proposal), the Baucus bill (however imperfect and it really is) would save a family of four 6 thousand dollars a year. Secondly, haven't you been listening? Large corporation CANNOT drop the plan, as they are mandated by their size to cover their employees. If they do drop their insurance, they will be taxed the same amount that they pay in insurance premiums. That would prevent large corporations from dropping their plans, they would save no money in doing so. With the public option in play, cost will go down, and large corporation and small businesses would actually save a lot of money. The cost containment is built in with the public option in play. The problem with the public option is not the plan itself, it is the politic that surround it. In a free market environment, competition is what drives the market. In this market the entity that can provide the most value, wins. The bottom line is the current system provides no value to the consumer. Since the insurance system in this country is private, and they are not really competitive amongst themselves (too much region dominance), the public option benefits the smaller insurance companies by leveling the playing field with the larger insurance companies. The smaller companies cannot afford to pay their CEO's millions of dollars, and the large insurance companies will have to choose between marketing a value oriented product, or paying the boss millions.

Nor can you even fathom your country being the "go to guy" whenever a world crisis has developed for the past 65 years or so. You have no idea what that costs. How many working subs do you have? How about world-class icebreakers? If your country had to pay for all it's own protection, you would be bankrupt. Your armed forces are already drastically underfunded and, IIRC, isn't Russia sniffing at your northern oil reserves? Don't worry, the big bad US of A probably won't let it fall into their hands.

This tripe is how we Americans get such a bad rep.

Granted, you're always there peeking out from behind us, but it's not you who they come to to resolve the problem, nor do you bare the financial burden of being the world's protector. Now, we don't really mind you guys quietly living off our good will and your fortuitous location, huddled at our northern border, but most at least have the good sense to realize their good fortune and not think you're really more than you are, which is a country living in the shadow of a richer, larger, country with more global responsibilities than you can imagine.

Feel better now that you got that off your chest??

This mentality is what has the world hating our guts. Besides, it is outdated. The world has changed Mark. Their are other big boys now, and I am not speaking of Russia either. We are so in debt to the Chinese, we can no longer afford the chest pounding exercises. If they called in that debt tomorrow, the good ole USA would be no better than Iceland financially. Our wars (especially the recent ones) have supported our military industrial complex to the point where we can no longer afford to do anything else. Our military is tired, worn out, and many soldiers have medical and mental issues that will dog them well into the future.

We need world partners, and can no longer afford to go on our own. Canada, Britain, and Australia have always been there for us, and we need to treat them with a little more respect than your chest pounding allows.

[3LB]

I understand that many non-Americans think we spend so much on our military, as well as propping up dictatorships around the globe, that we shouldn't quivel over a noble thing like healthcare. If only it were that easy. You pointed out what most Americans already know or at least think, but you at least bring numbers with you - thanks. I heard a great number of US residents didn't contribute to income taxes, but I didn't know it was 50%. (do you have a link to that - I ask now cuz someone else will anyay)

Nothing will ever change until more people educate themselves and then vote. So many of the voters in this country vote name recognition only, or they vote how they feel. I admit I need to do more reading on most everything discussed here. I didn't realize so many Americans who enjoyed the freedoms we enjoy here didn't pay their share of taxes. I wonder if these same people vote. Of course, now I understand why so many wouldn't vote...they have no real investment in the country anyway.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Do read my response to Chubby. Are you aware that a far more significant number of Americans pay ZERO income tax than in Canada (50% vs 32%)? Are you aware that a far greater amount of the tax revenue is contributed by the top 25% of filers (86% vs 80%)? And, now Obama wants to add another $900 Billion dollars worth of additional annual expense to those of us who support the entire system. Does that mean anything to you? Would you like to increase your tax contribution by another 20%?

rw

Well, according to this fella tax hikes are not all that bad for the economy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-..._b_156423.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-..._b_144281.html

He raises some very good points.