Why not Universal Healthcare?

[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...

[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...