Why not Universal Healthcare?

[bobsticks]

You're saying that, unabated, the system would continue on with taxation taking care of the bulk of Medicade cases. I'm saying that without reform the burden upon the taxpayer....a citizen that is already burdened with picking up the costs for the uninsured, the illegals, and now the multitudunous of the under-insured....that will bankrupt the citizen...

There needs to be a reasonable compromise...one that recognises that everyone has some juice, a bit of blood, in this one...

[kexodusc]

You're saying that, unabated, the system would continue on with taxation taking care of the bulk of Medicade cases. I'm saying that without reform the burden upon the taxpayer....a citizen that is already burdened with picking up the costs for the uninsured, the illegals, and now the multitudunous of the under-insured

My friend, no, that's not quite what I was saying (or at least not what I was trying to say)...in response to your comment on the aging population now looking for a hand-out, I mentioned that above age 65 people can qualify for Medicare anyway...so for a significant portion (if not the majority) of the elderly and soon to be elderly, there's not much incentive one way or the other now. My point was made just to merley point out that I don't believe the aging population is quite the driver for public health care that you suggested it was.

...that will bankrupt the citizen..

It has not been the experience of several other countries mentioned in this thread. I don't believe it would be for the USA either, there's no excuse for it and you shouldn't demand any less. I hope people don't evaluate based on that perception.

There needs to be a reasonable compromise...one that recognises that everyone has some juice, a bit of blood, in this one...

I've seen very little in the form of funding analyses on the proposal - I'm almost afraid to ask where I could get the short, sweet version...

[markw]

Wow. The more I read here, the more it sounds like all Americans are scumbags. Past present and future. Not for nothing, but I live here. We're not as bad as we're being painted in this thread.

Only if you listen to the Canadians and Aussies. There's that classic delusion of moral superiority they suffer from.

Now, this does not apply to all. Most canadians and aussies who post here are cool, but that descriptiion certainly applies to a few posters, and those to whom I'm addressing.

Of course, when you consider that both Canada and Australia have a population roughly that of Texas, and a GDP to match, they don't really have to deal in the sheer numbers that the US has to deal with. Both countries comprise what is only one American state! So, to begin with, this country has to deal with numbers of such magnitude that your government's simply could not comprehend.

Likewise, they aren't the ones the world comes crying to when problems arise. Think Marshall plan to begin with. Serbia-Herzegovina, anyone? Who was Johnny-on-the-spot when the tsunamis hit, even though the locals fired upon us? I can go on.

Hey, you could take on Africa if you're really feeling froggy. As it stands it's mostly Pakistanis and Indians doing it now as UN peacekeepers. Don't you think you could do a better job?

Not to mention that neither has a real stand-alone military. They are great as helpers, but as a stand-alone unit, they don't make it. Canada has been dependent on us for so many years that they forget that. How many big icebreakers do they have? How many subs? Remember, the northern ice is melting and the Russians are sniffing around up there contemplaing the "new" internatonal waters that just happen to contain oil that Canada now, or at least used to, claim
.
Dunno about Australia, but I can't think of them taking the forefront in anything, aside from dropping another shrimp on the barbie.

And, yes, we do appreciate them being there in times of conflict but, in reality, while we might be the policemen of the world, I guess that makes them the meter maids of the world.

As for industries, I do believe neither has any "real" large industries of their own. How many drugs have they developed, tested and manufactured in a Canadian or Aussie initiated concerns? I do believe that GM, Ford and Chrysler are American companies, no? Is Toyota a Canadian car?

Face it, you've both got bucolic lives but you tend to forget that it's the big countries that allowed that by investing their money and plants in there and providing the protection that you seem take for granted.

So, kiddies, run along and play nicely Mommy and daddy have adult matters to deal with about which you have no concept.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

CE, I love the fact that you are posting...often and voraciously. I've read the description of your country's health plan, I've read Feanor's experience, and I respect both. The problem is we, in America. are facing demographics that are astoundingly different from the candygram and get-well card that y'all have embraced.

I'm glad that you all had the prescience to define the problem and find workable solutions within your existing systems. Unfortunately, I'm not convinced that under the current set of circumstances we can accomplish the same feats...

This is what I was thinking, and I could not have said this better. While CE makes some good points, I think their perspective is a little pie in the sky for my taste. Just throwing away a few nukes, and transferring the money to health care just ain't going to cut it. We have a far larger population than both Canada and Australia put together times six. We are not concentrated in a few areas of our country, but spread out all over it. Our health care started as an employee based one, theirs on a universal based one. Our health care system basically worked well until most of our larger companies went multi-national, and the insurance companies went public and became more beholden to their stockholders than to the premium payers. Our health system has gotten sick, but when it was created, it fit the situation well. It just needs a major overhaul because what worked back in the Nixon days does not work now.

This issue is far more complex than that simple transfer of capital. Universal health care, while being the ultimate goal, cannot just be carved out of the present system. Many changes in perspective of the consumer side, structural changes on the employer/employee side, and many system wide structural and resource changes have to occur before universal health care can be put in place. This is a long term goal, but what I am interested in more is the short term goals implemented until we get there.

[bobsticks]

My friend, no, that's not quite what I was saying (or at least not what I was trying to say)...in response to your comment on the aging population now looking for a hand-out, I mentioned that above age 65 people can qualify for Medicare anyway...so for a significant portion (if not the majority) of the elderly and soon to be elderly, there's not much incentive one way or the other now. My point was made just to merley point out that I don't believe the aging population is quite the driver for public health care that you suggested it was.



It has not been the experience of several other countries mentioned in this thread. I don't believe it would be for the USA either, there's no excuse for it and you shouldn't demand any less. I hope people don't evaluate based on that perception.



I've seen very little in the form of funding analyses on the proposal - I'm almost afraid to ask where I could get the short, sweet version...

Let me first and foremost say that you and I, no matter the level vitriol that may encapsulate the arguments that are had on this forum, we will not be enemies. We may harbour differing viewpoints....I believe they are from differing perspectives.....it's a complex argument....

Ultimately, what you're talking about is a taxpayer bailout of the "average" person that proposses the need for governmental auspices...

I suspect what you're not taking into account is that this is not a certis paribus argument. Wholesale change has to made, everybody has to compromise, and everyone will have to make concessions for this to work...

...lotta feeelings gonna get hurt, lotta levels of "entitlements" gonna be foregone...but that's how it is......

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Let me first and foremost say that you and I, no matter the level vitriol that may encapsulate the arguments that are had on this forum, we will not be enemies. We may harbour differing viewpoints....I believe they are from differing perspectives.....it's a complex argument....

Ultimately, what you're talking about is a taxpayer bailout of the "average" person that proposses the need for governmental auspices...

I suspect what you're not taking into account is that this is not a certis paribus argument. Wholesale change has to made, everybody has to compromise, and everyone will have to make concessions for this to work...

...lotta feeelings gonna get hurt, lotta levels of "entitlements" gonna be foregone...but that's how it is......

I totally agree with this. If we begin with your last sentence, then figuring this out should not be that hard. It has been hard and ugly largely because the last sentence is exactly where we are now. The entitled are howling they don't want change, and the untitled are howling change.

[bobsticks]

I totally agree with this. If we begin with your last sentence, then figuring this out should not be that hard. It has been hard and ugly largely because the last sentence is exactly where we are now. The entitled are howling they don't want change, and the untitled are howling change.

Well, you and I, my brother, could negotiate it... but then again, we're not staunch in our political stances.

Bottom line, the Dems are gonna be pissed 'cause the retirement age is gonna have to go up....sorry, but no one envisioned peeps living this long...and this generation can't be left on the hook for science and technology's current capability of keeping people alive far too long...

Bottom line, the Repubs are gonna be pissed because we clearly have to re-evaluate the concepts that we chosen to enterprate as "holy"... the concepts that this society has embraced as controlling...

...15 milliion citizens made into felons because of Cannibus laws....not a slippery-slope, not arguing for Coca or that Heron...but Pot...a substance that I personally don't smoke but recognize as less toxic than the alcohol and tobacco that regularly enjoy...

...HHHmmmm.....tax...Make money instead of spending money.....

The era of the Body-Nazi's has to to be over...."Hope" is not up for debate, and the moderates of this country can no longer be pushed out....no need for a "revolution"...just common sense and accomodation...

[bobsticks]

This is what I was thinking, and I could not have said this better. While CE makes some good points, I think their perspective is a little pie in the sky for my taste. Just throwing away a few nukes, and transferring the money to health care just ain't going to cut it. We have a far larger population than both Canada and Australia put together times six. We are not concentrated in a few areas of our country, but spread out all over it. Our health care started as an employee based one, theirs on a universal based one. Our health care system basically worked well until most of our larger companies went multi-national, and the insurance companies went public and became more beholden to their stockholders than to the premium payers. Our health system has gotten sick, but when it was created, it fit the situation well. It just needs a major overhaul because what worked back in the Nixon days does not work now.

This issue is far more complex than that simple transfer of capital. Universal health care, while being the ultimate goal, cannot just be carved out of the present system. Many changes in perspective of the consumer side, structural changes on the employer/employee side, and many system wide structural and resource changes have to occur before universal health care can be put in place. This is a long term goal, but what I am interested in more is the short term goals implemented until we get there.

Big Daddy, this is what I've always respected about you...we can come from a completely different perspective, a different viewpoint but a respectable dialogue can be had...I know that your opinions, thoughts and instincts differ from mine greatly but, ultimately, the solution will be found through moderate and thoughtful discussion....and not polemics...

...as always, thank you...

[kexodusc]

Let me first and foremost say that you and I, no matter the level vitriol that may encapsulate the arguments that are had on this forum, we will not be enemies. We may harbour differing viewpoints....I believe they are from differing perspectives.....it's a complex argument....

Ultimately, what you're talking about is a taxpayer bailout of the "average" person that proposses the need for governmental auspices...

I suspect what you're not taking into account is that this is not a certis paribus argument. Wholesale change has to made, everybody has to compromise, and everyone will have to make concessions for this to work...

...lotta feeelings gonna get hurt, lotta levels of "entitlements" gonna be foregone...but that's how it is......

No worries 'Sticks, this issue isn't one I feel strongly about one way or the other. Web forums are clumsy for communicating sometimes. If we were speaking in person you'd pick up the level of indifference in my voice, though I do enjoy challenging some positions on both sides of the debate. I'm not a fence-sitter - straight up I prefer the system here in Canada, but I can't say I was horribly upset with my old plan in the US. But Canada's plan is vastly different than the system proposed by Obama, and it has its own slew of problems.

I've now lived as an adult under both systems and each has certain advantages. I don't know enough about either Canadian or US Health care funding to be much of an educated contributor here, I've only been involved at the user-level.

My only contribution to this debate, in this forum, is that so much of what Obama's opponents are passing off as arguments against his plan are just illogical and untrue and I fear too many red herrings and straw man arguments have been used at the expense of an opportunity for dialogue. My current perspective is biased by the Canadian media coverage which does a good job of pointing out the number of false statements made in reference to the Canadian system.

And to be fair, I'm equally critical of the rhetoric building the perception the rest of the world has that 46 million people are uninsured and horribly sick and dying because they're too poor or have pre-existing conditions, when many are eligible for medicaid or simply chose to have no coverage cause they're cheap. I could be wrong but that number might include the illegal aliens as well? So from this perspective, I can conclude with confidence that without some kind of magic fact-check system implemented, I don't see how anyone could make an informed decision on the issues here by listening to political interests.

That's not say there aren't good arguments against this proposal.

I don't fully comprehend a lot of the implications, but my limited understanding is that Obama is proposing the USPS of health insurance. That's completely different from what Canada has and certainly seems to be rife with potential for an inefficient system that pressures, maybe even punishes the few good insurance plans. I'm not convinced this won't lead to two very distinguished tiers of coverage in the future - the predominant governement plan, and a very expensive luxury plan that only the wealthiest could even consider. Which I think is the exact opposite of the goal is here? I'm also not convinced it will save any money, my guess is it just cuts coverage for people whose employers used to have plans...If that's the case, then soon you can add the public plan among jokes about public schools and public housing...

But it seems we're destined for a compromised solution regardless, and if the current system is as bad as everyone seems to agree maybe it's time to try something new? I guess I'm afraid if nothing is done now, it won't ever get done and too many people will get left behind.

Oh yeah...Good luck with all that guys...

[ForeverAutumn]

Only if you listen to the Canadians and Aussies. There's that classic delusion of moral superiority they suffer from.

Now, this does not apply to all. Most canadians and aussies who post here are cool, but that descriptiion certainly applies to a few posters, and those to whom I'm addressing.

Well considering there are only three Canadians and one Aussie posting here, would you care to get more specific? Obviously my previous comments to you had no effect and so I'm not going to waste my time responding to the rest of your post. But let's just say that you, personally, aren't doing anything to help disprove GM's concerns.

GM, I don't think that American's are scumbags. And I don't think that this thread makes it seem that way either. I think that this is a huge issue for any country, especially one with the population of the U.S. and I've found reading the different viewpoints here, quite fascinating and educating.

I do believe that GM, Ford and Chrysler are American companies, no?

Are you sure that's something that you want to be bragging about right now? Yeah, they're US companies...and you can keep 'em. Wanna buy my share of the bailout? I'll gladly sell it to you.

[markw]

There are other canadians on this forum. They just chose to not take sides in this fiasco, and those i salute.

It's a common thing on forums for canadians and aussies to try, for whatever reasons, to dig on America, the big guy that is pretty much responsible for their standard of living. And, every so often, a little restatement of the way things are is needed.

Again, there's no need to take it personally unless you threw in with those that are guilty of what I claimed.

Was what I said as far as facts inaccurate?

[GMichael]

GM, I don't think that American's are scumbags. And I don't think that this thread makes it seem that way either. I think that this is a huge issue for any country, especially one with the population of the U.S. and I've found reading the different viewpoints here, quite fascinating and educating.
.

Good, I'm glad that you don't think of us as scumbags. (I like you too) This thread however, has traveled down the anti-American road more than a few times. Huge issues like this need to be explored without that sentiment to be useful. Much of what has been said has been "quite fascinating and educating" (if you don't mind me quoting you), but some of it has just been kicking dirt.
To be fair, I have seen a few anti-non-American comments as well (not from me) and I apologize for those.
I usually stay away from these debates. The fact that I joined in this time should say something.

[ForeverAutumn]

There are other canadians on this forum. They just chose to not take sides in this fiasco, and those i salute.

It's a common thing on forums for canadians and aussies to try, for whatever reasons, to dig on America, the big guy that is pretty much responsible for their standard of living. And, every so often, a little restatement of the way things are is needed.

Again, there's no need to take it personally unless you threw in with those that are guilty of what I claimed.

Was what I said as far as facts inaccurate?

[sarcasm detector on] Yes, all bow down to the great United States of America. Leaders of the free world. Do gooders of all and wrongful doers of none. [positive hit. sarcasm detector off]

Do you have any idea at all (or care) how ignorant you sound?

[ForeverAutumn]

Good, I'm glad that you don't think of us as scumbags. (I like you too) This thread however, has traveled down the anti-American road more than a few times. Huge issues like this need to be explored without that sentiment to be useful. Much of what has been said has been "quite fascinating and educating" (if you don't mind me quoting you), but some of it has just been kicking dirt.
To be fair, I have seen a few anti-non-American comments as well (not from me) and I apologize for those.
I usually stay away from these debates. The fact that I joined in this time should say something.

I always look at the source of the comments and judge them accordingly. In fact, some people's posts I just skip because I know by now that they often aren't worth reading (markw is treading that line right now). But it really gets my goat when the person or people who seem the most offended respond with similar ignorance.

That's the last I'll say on this issue. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming...

[blackraven]

I knew I would catch some flac if I posted, and I'm sorry if I offended the Canadian and Austrailian members here.

In response to Cloth- One of my -ex-partners did some training in Australia in residency and eventually married an Austrailian medical student. They came back to the states to practice. They eventually went back to AUS for a couple of years to practice, moved back here again for 3 years when his father died and eventually moved back to AUS when his wife's parents became to old and frail. My partner stated that people SOMETIMES wait for 1-2 days in the ER to be seen. At night, some of the ER's are covered by residents, not attending physicians, the ER's are way under staffed and patients sometimes have to wait several hours to days to see specialists. Non life savings tests can take days to months to obtain. Part of this problem is that ER Dr's get paid about $40,000 USD by the gov't. I can tell you this. Dr's aren't going to work their asses off like they do here for $40K. My expartner states that the only benefit of working in AUS is that he doesn't have to work as hard and that he works no nights.

Feanor- I know you think I'm biased and don't like the Canadian system. You are off base here. I think the Canadian system is a good template for our system. But you are kidding yourself if you think it doesn't have its problems. (And what reason would my Canadian partner have to lie about the Canadian system and what happend to his father. He was an ER physician in Winnepeg for years and knows the system well from th inside as do many of the other Canadian Dr's that i have met over 25 years that I have practiced medicine.) That example I gave about the heart cath not being done and the patient dying is one example of its problems that would not be tolerated here in the states, And no, a heart cath is not more dangerous in an 82 y/o. It is the best way to treat a heart attack in progress. Studies have proven it. All it is, is a needle stick into the femoral artery ( which I do a few times a month to obtain arterial blood gases on patients) and inserting a catheter up the aorta into the heart and squirting dye into the coronary arteries to locate the blocked arterty, so a balloon catheter can be inserted to clear the blockage. Sometimes a stent is inserted as well to keep the artery open. Its a quick procedure most of the time. The major complication can be bleeding at the punture site which is easily dealt with. Here in the US, many hospitals have Heart cath teams on call 24hrs per day or they are in house 24hrs per day if they are a major heart center. Most people make it to the heart cath lab in 15-30 min as time is heart tissue. My partners father was very healthy and active for an 82 y/o and could have been saved if he had the heart cath vs dying from intracranial bleeding fromthe clot busting drug TPA which in this country has a relative contraindication for people in his age group do to the increased risk of having an intracrainial hemmorhage.

The bottom line is that there is no perfect medical system in the world. The US system is frought with problems but so is every one elses. When our medical system changes, it won't be perfect. Some people will like it and other's won't. We will all need to make major life style changes to pay for it. This will bring us closer to socialism which is inevitable. Government here will grow larger and intrude in our lives to the point that the founding father's of this country would be turning over in their graves. The US has grown too large and the gap between the haves and have nots is growing to wide.

[ForeverAutumn]

blackraven. Thanks for clarifying the heart procedure. I now have a better understanding of that situation.

I just looked a the bottom of this forum page and there are currently 12 members logged in right now. I can't remember the last time I've seen this much action here. Or such a heated and, for the most part, amicable discussion.

[blackraven]

One last comment. The US has about 300 million people to insure with health coverage and a large aging population, thanks to the baby boomers. The population of Canada is 33 million and that of AUS is 22 million. There's a big difference from the US's population and with our larger pop. comes larger hurdles to over come in providing universal health care to all.

[blackraven]

You're saying that, unabated, the system would continue on with taxation taking care of the bulk of Medicade cases. I'm saying that without reform the burden upon the taxpayer....a citizen that is already burdened with picking up the costs for the uninsured, the illegals, and now the multitudunous of the under-insured....that will bankrupt the citizen...

There needs to be a reasonable compromise...one that recognises that everyone has some juice, a bit of blood, in this one...

Well said Bobsticks! People will be turninig over 1/2 of their income to the gov't. It will affect every facet of life. People will have less money to pay for services. Just simple services like a lawn service or painting your house for example. People may elect to do these things themselves. Businesses providing goods and services will suffer. Businesses themselves may be taxed and will have to raise prices or lay off employee's.

[markw]

[sarcasm detector on] Yes, all bow down to the great United States of America. Leaders of the free world. Do gooders of all and wrongful doers of none. [positive hit. sarcasm detector off]

Do you have any idea at all (or care) how ignorant you sound?

Nowhere have I ever said we're perfect, but sometimes the little countries don't realize just how much of the world depends on this big old lumbering country and how much of a responsibility it is.

I think we would be glad to see someone else step up to the plate but so far, no takers. Hello... EU, are you listening?

The more one does, the greater the odds that someone won't like it or mistakes will be mad. Then again, when one does nothing, they can do no wrong, and casting stones is fun and easy.

[Feanor]

....

Feanor- I know you think I'm biased and don't like the Canadian system. Yor off base here. I think the Canadian system is a good template for our system. But you are kidding yourself if you think it doesn't have its problems. That example I gave about the heart cath not being done and the patient dying is one example of its problems that would not be tolerated here in the states, And no, a heart cath is not more dangerous in an 82 y/o.
...

I must, of course, defer to you in the example, BR. And no, the Canadian system isn't perfect, merely damned good. I can't complain; I got a $100k operation whereas I might have been told that drug therapy was good enough.

The case you illustrated might have been a bad example for my point, however the fact is that any healthcare that is managed to deliver the best overall outcomes for the population as a whole is going to have to balance the cost of procedures against the probability of efficacious results. If much more costly procedures are permitted where the likelihood of a better outcome is only marginally better, then the overall cost of the system will go up -- QED. Of course, in publicly controlled system, this is possible if the people are will to pay higher taxes (or premiums as the case may be).

What I don't believe is that you can for very long is deliver good care to the poor while you permit better care to the rich. Human nature being what it is, the rich will do everything they can to fund their own care rather than that of the poor. A two-tier system will fail to ensure that everyone gets even good, much less excellent, healthcare.

[blackraven]

Feanor, I admire the fact that the CND system limits end of life care. The majority of our health care dollars are spent (most often, pointlessly) on end of life care, trying to sustain life on patients that have no quality of life and little hope of survival past 6 months. Believe me, most physicians here feel this way. All too often we will see an eldrly patient with Dementia from a nursing home who has had a stroke and the family wants every thing done to keep them alive. This is just one example of many that I could give.

Regarding your comment about marginally better out come. The clot busting drug is less effective than a heart cath, is of great risk to the patient in that age group and does not visualize the anatomy or look at any of the other blood vessels that could have blockages waiting to close off at a later date. (where there is one blocked artery, there are most often others that are partially blocked.) In addition, after TPA is given, the patient usually undergoes a heart cath a few days later to look at the anatomy and to treat the stenotic vessel. But all the clot busting drug does is disslove the clot that formed in the tightly stenotic blood vessel. It does not treat the stenosis and prevent the heart attack from occuring again.

[Feanor]

One last comment. The US has about 300 million people to insure with health coverage and a large aging population, thanks to the baby boomers. The population of Canada is 33 million and that of AUS is 22 million. There's a big difference from the US's population and with our larger pop. comes larger hurdles to over come in providing universal health care to all.

Sorry, this is a non sequitur.

The problem in the US is not the inability but the unwillingness to provide universal healthcare to its citizens.

[nightflier]

Regarding foreign aid - my point is that with 300 million people as opposed to our 20 million your capacity to generate funds through taxation and charity should not be measured by the total amount, but rather on a per capita basis.

Well I didn't say it was fair, I was just saying that this is how it added up. No argument from me. I personally agree that our (US) tax dollars aren't spent as wisely as they could be.

Here are some figures on your countries relative spend on the military.

Rank Country Spending ($ b.) World Share (%)
— World Total 1464.0 100
1 United States 607.0 41.5
2 China 84.9[54] 5.8
3 France 65.7 4.5
4 United Kingdom 65.3 4.5
5 Russian Federation 58.6[54] 4.0

Hey, wait a minute, there, I don't see Australia or Canada on this list. How convenient. And while you're at it, how about adding the per capita figures instead of % of world share. It's my recollection that Aussies are quite fond of their military too. Just because you're nuke free (that's OK, we'll protect you with our subs in the mean-time), doesn't get you off the hook, matey.

So why would it be so bad to fund a universal health care system by taking from your military budget and applying it to your health care budget?

Ah, yes that old yarn. Well a few decades back, we had a fellow named Nixon in the oval office who was faced with the same question. So when it came time to present the numbers to the people, he threw Social Security in the mix (he had a series of Perot-like charts to illustrate the point) and guess what? The military budget no longer looked so big and the people were sold (well for the most part).

Now with a universal healthcare plan, the number we spend on our military will look less daunting to be sure. Now throw in what we've spent on the bail-outs of businesses and banks, and pretty soon, you've got some pretty big numbers all around. And I'm not even going to broach the subject of graft, corruption, and mysterious accounting anomalies that occurs in those lofty circles. By the way, your figures are a bit old, I believe. The last time I saw a total of our military escapades, the number topped one trillion (American trillion).

Well I suppose it depends on were you get your information from. (Do you have a reference I could view supporting your statement?). I was referring to tax as a percentage of GDP. I use GDP because it represents the 'wealth or earnings' created that is then distributed amongst a population via the country's particular financial system. (The fairness of this distribution system is another topic altogether)! Here is a link to the figures stated in the "Economist" magazine which supports my position.
http://www.economist.com/markets/ind...ry_id=12480352

'Figures an Aussie would quote The Economist - are you sure you're not still Brits? But I'll grant that I do not have a source for my figure. I read it in the papers a number of times (I get my news from the LA Times, US News & World Report, and the Christian Science Monitor primarily - I know, not the most representative, but it's what I got). Perhaps the taxes we pay isn't quite what the Swedes pay - but even if it isn't, we're certainly paying a fair portion of our gross income to Ol' Sammy.

Also Australians get dragged into foreign entanglements with America even though we are not subjects of the U.S. empire - or are we?

Yes you are & thank you for noticing. That's for letting us always fight in the first wave, while ya'll are finishing up yer morning tea. OK, that wasn't exactly fair. Yes, we're very thankful you're still part of the coalition of the coerced.

We don't have a right in Australia to 'bear arms' as you do. Individual possession was banned here in 1997. Mind you we only have the cuddly Koala bear. No Grizzleys in this part of the world.

I hear you got some mighty mean spiders down under though, but I suppose a gun isn't going to be very helpful there. But don't you know, that's why we do need our guns here - grizzlies have long been sent packing. We'll use any excuse to own Uzis, conceal them, and shoot them off as often as possible, even spiders. After all, they could be socialist spiders spying for the feds, and we can''t have that, now. But that's a whole other discussion.

In summary - America has all the funds it needs to provide every American with a comprehensive and world class universal health care system. You have the infrastructure, expertise, technology and population base to support this fundamental social objective.

But we don't have the political will, and that counts more than all the infrastructure, expertise, technology, and people power in the country.

It appears as an outsider that all you need to do is reassess your national priorities and spending without increasing the tax burden on anyone. The easiest way seems to be by moving funds from your death (and destruction) budget to your life (and health) budget.

That is certainly the perspective of the vast majority of those who make up the lower and middle class in our country. Unfortunately, not many of them will ever make it to Washington. Even when a regular Mr. Smith does (Obama comes to mind), then they inevitably get hobbled at every turn by the stiffing infrastructure that is the stomping ground of our established revolving-door-taking political elite. Most of them are there because their plane tickets were bought by corporations like Amylin, Haliburton, Northrop-Grumman, Pfizer, ADM, and Dishwater, I mean, Blackwankers, I mean, Backwater, as one online poster so colorfully put it.

Now, all joking aside, I don't disagree with the basic sentiment that we could spend less on the military. Actually if we just did a better job of regulating the contracts that get rubber-stamped without scrutiny, we would have enough to fund K-12 public education at twice the current level according to FAIR. But again, the forces that would like to make this a reality, can't match the political contributions of the big corporations. It is actually a travesty that a moderate (some would say conservative) Democrat like Obama has to pander so much to the right, with so little thanks from them I might add, that he cannot enact meaningful change. It now is becoming quite clear that his whole presidency and the revitalized position of the whole Democratic party, rests so much on this wattered-down-to-morbidity healthcare bill. This is quite telling of our political structure.

One wonders if it would not have been better to elect a strong-willed, but reasonably righteous conservative who would make genuine and reasonable concessions to the left, instead of a progressive too busy trying to appease Republicans who then turn around and call him a socialist under their racist breaths. Unfortunately, there was no such choice this last election. Sorry, but senile, flip-flopping, ass-grabbing McCain and loony-tunes beauty-queen Palin was not a viable option - and most voters furtunately agreed. If only this country could find a fiscally conservative leader who doesn't fondle interns and keeps the church out of our bedrooms, our schools, and our government. But that is the dilemma of the Republican party - they are split 50/50 - the moderates there can't shed the conservative right-wing if they want to win any elections. It's a miracle that the Democrats won the last one with the lefties in tow - the previous administration must have really screwed up bad....

I think I share the pessimism of others here when I say that if a healthcare bill does get passed, it will be so white-washed as to be ineffectual in remedying the exiting healthcare problems we already have. There is some hope that it could be amended and given some teeth in the future, but that's a long shot. In the end, it's just business as usual in Washington.

[GMichael]

Sorry, this is a non sequitur.

The problem in the US is not the inability but the unwillingness to provide universal healthcare to its citizens.

But everyone here is getting healthcare. Even those who don't pay for it. Including illigals (or undocuments). The rest of us pick up the extra charges.
IMO our system could use an overhaul. What it should be is very complicated though. Not everyone wants the same thing.

[Rich-n-Texas]

blackraven. Thanks for clarifying the heart procedure. I now have a better understanding of that situation.

I just looked a the bottom of this forum page and there are currently 12 members logged in right now. I can't remember the last time I've seen this much action here. Or such a heated and, for the most part, amicable discussion.

What this thread needs is a good dose of pixel(Dumbass).

Lemme see if I can find him...



Oh Dumbass..... Where are you Dumbass.........................