The Glade 4.0

I'm certainly not opposed to universal health care. I'm a fairly big proponent of it, in general, actually. But I really feel the USA is on a colision course for disaster with this.

There's a few problems I'll bring up right off the bat:

(1) You can't afford it. You currently pay more per capita in tax money for the pathetic "Medicare" system than we do in Canada for fully functional universal health insurance. You need a solid foundation before you can even begin to construct such a thing, and you don't have it. You're trying to build a complex system with a rotten foundation, and there's no way it can do anything other than collapse. You need to bulldoze what's there and start from a clean slate before you go into this. It's currently doomed to failure before you even get started. This means get your spending under control, start turning surpluses rather than deficits, get it together.

(2) The USA is too big to do this on the federal level. Why? Canada is too big to do it on the federal level, too. Health insurance needs are very different from region to region and community to community. Canada implemented it on a provincial level, not federal. Some states might be too big even in and of themselves (California, New York, Texas, for example), but the entire country managed centrally? That's suicide...

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

This cannot ever happen.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Talya:

We've had pretty extreme disagreements in the past over universal care, as well as comparing the Canadian system and the American system.

However, both of those points are absolutely correct.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Talya - we cannot afford *not* to do it. Currently, health care in this country constitutes nearly 20% of our GDP, and it continues to grow. We *need* a public option in this country.

Really, we need a fully public health system. They cost less and provide better care than our current system.

Could we do it on a state level? I don't know. Perhaps. However, Canada has large provinces and we have many smaller states. I just don't know if it would work as well.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

It's shocking people want to give the government 20% control over our lives like that. Scary.



No, not at all.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

And your current solution will cause the amount spent on health care to rise, and the GDP to shrink. This ain't high school...you don't get an A if the total reaches 90%.


We're not discussing irrelevant geographical area. Large vs. Small here talks about population.

Compare:

Canada - 33.5 million people
=====================
Ontario - 13 million
Quebec - 7.8 million
British Columbia - 4.4 million
Alberta - 3.6 million
Manitoba - 1.2 million
Saskatchewan - 1 million
Nova Scotia - 0.9 million
New Brunswick - 0.7 million
Newfoundland - 0.5 million
Prince Edward Island - 0.1 million
Combined Canadian Territories -0.1 million

Now, compare:

United States of America - 304 million
============================
California - 36.8 million (Bigger than all of Canada)
Texas - 24.3 million (nearly twice the population of Ontario)
New York - 19.5 Million (50% more than Ontario)
Florida - 18.3 million (50% more than Ontario)
Illinois - 12.9 million (about even with Ontario)
Pennsylvania - 12.4 million (about even with Ontario)
Ohio - 11.4 million (almost even with Ontario)

There's not much point to continuing...the top 7 states nearly equal to vastly surpass the population of Canada's most populous province. If Provinces were states, Ontario would be 5th, Quebec would be 13th, British Columbia would be 27th, Alberta would be 31st, Manitoba would be 46th, Saskatchewan would be 48th, Nova Scotia would be 50th, Newfoundland would be 59 and P.E.I would be 60. There's no comparison to the size of the states vs. the canadian provinces.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

On average, this is probably true. However, the standard of care will be substantially worse for most of those who currently purchase private insurance.

Based upon what?

No data exists to demonstrate that the quality of care is superior under socialized systems, nor necessarily superior here. At least, not data which has properly adjusted for appropriate variances in national culture and environment.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

That argument still fails. We spend more than you per capita. Much more. And we get worse results. If we went to a public plan, we would very quickly drive our costs down, per capita, and overall.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

We do the same with schooling. So in light of these facts, is the answer actually *more* of the same? While it seems we always go down that same road, perhaps instead of passing something for egos sake, we need to find another path.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

Ego? What's that got to do with it? Canada spends less per capita. They spend less in terms of percentage of overall GDP. Our current costs are unsustainable. We should be falling all over ourselves to adopt a plan similar to theirs.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

I had forgotten about this thread. For the record, this is exactly what I meant.

Demonstrate that per capita expenditures is not paying for additional services per capita.

Demonstrate "worse results" than Canada.

Demonstrate that a public option would decrease costs.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

...that...is not logical at all.

Yes, you spend more than us per capita, for a half-assed system compared to one a country with among the best health care in the world despite it having universal health care. You're absolutely right.

But think about it: the reason you spend more is not because you have a half-assed system, nor is it because of the lack of universal health coverage. The reason you spend more is because your federal government is utterly incompetent, fat, bloated, and without any semblance of any type of spending control. Hell, Canada, with a generally efficient federal government, was too large a population to be managed federally. That's why the provinces were given the task. If your government implements this at the federal level, it will end up costing many times more than your current medicare system, and my guess is your per capita cost will end up being triple what Canada pays.

Albert Einstein once said that "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." What is it about the track record of the federal government of the USA that makes you think that they can make this one social program work when they've never managed to with any single program ever in history previously?

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Talya,

It is because we have the messiah in office now and will not suffer the conservative or the truth to be heard anywhere...

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

I'm not Monty, nor do I play him on TV. But if I had to guess it's because the D-team is in office and good intentions are better than doing it right.

_________________
The Dude abides.

If the current debacle that is H1N1 is the baseline by which we can expect future government run health care to exist, woe to us.

Like many of the actions of this administration, and even shown by O's own words, a lot of this is about imposing political will, not delivering on promises or acting on behalf of the country.

This Administration seems to forget that they now represent the WHOLE country, not just who voted for them. So plowing on ahead while utterly dismissing any viewpoint other than the echo chambers is a dereliction of duty. It's like they didn't learn from all those things they frothed and foamed over Bush about, instead they just wanted their chance to pillage the system.

There are many things that could be done immediatly to cut actual costs, not increase government spending, burearacy and debt. However I feel since the party in power is in bed with trial lawyers, tort reform is out of the question. I've linked a story in another thread about how lawyers who helped craft laws are now using those laws to cash in. The system is being worked over by special interests.

We know where the actual money sinks are in the process. However noone will take the actual postion of leadership on the issue and attempt actual reform. It's a politically unpopular postion which will surely lead to a loss of campagin funding. Noone currently in power wants that to happen, so we have this crappy half measure that will raise costs (democrats own words), lower availability (more patients divided by current amount of doctors- simple math) and put our country even deeper into debt that will be passed down generations. I also feel it will consolodate power into monolithic entities, leaving the average citizen with no recorse in their actual care. I feel it will lead to a loss of choice in treatment options, since to maximise cost per patient an assembly line system will come about. Everyone will do the same thing to every patient, so they won't go outside the funding lines set forth by this administration. We will all get the same crappy care, and to top it off, I feel we won't be able to even spend our own money to do better.

Unless you are rich.
Or a politician.

So instead of bringing the standard of care up, they are lowering the standard so everyone can be on the bottom. Like they do with everything they touch. Education is a prime example. Instead of raising standards to produce better graduates, we adopt a pass everyone no matter what so we get our funding policy.

Inexcuseable *crap*

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

Oh and in addition, the madate to *must* buy insurance. Lets discuss the moral, ethical, and legal issues with this canard.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

Hell if you don't have absolute freedom why draw any lines? Government tells you how fast you can drive, so why complain if they tell you what you can drive, where and when? I mean no need for a line in the sand if it is not absolute right? I mean if government tells you to have insurance that is ok because it was not absolute, so when they restrict your diet, your medical care and treatments really should not object?

What happy wonderful slave thought.

_________________
"Life isn't divided into genres. It's a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky."
— Alan Moore

Well...

This is going to be a **** of untold proportions.

I really don't know what more can be said than that.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

Your rhetoric is predicated on two incorrect assumptions, namely 1) that I feel that public health care is both unneeded and unconstitutional, neither of which I believe to be true; and 2) that the discussion was more measured than "Universal health care passed!" -> "It's the end of American freedom!" -> "That's an incredibly hyperbolic statement, unless you feel that this is the first time something enacted by the government has been unconstitutional (which I doubt, with the given stance and direct quotes on issues o' the day), but if that is what you're stating, then that statement in and of itself is hyperbole."


You stay classy, San Diego.

Your rhetoric is based on the assumption that others are obligated to pay for the shortcomings in anothers life. I won't play Glade Verbal Gymnastics with you, I just know you are wrong.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

So you view the government demanding money, time and threatened imprisonment, over something no where in the rules of government it can demand is a good thing? And sorry if I am not up to your standards of wonderful posting here.

_________________
"Life isn't divided into genres. It's a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky."
— Alan Moore

Not really at all, if you believe that American freedom is predicated on the rights of the individual. This bill proposes the first universal mandate on the entirety of the American population from cradle to grave.

Therefore, if American freedom is based upon the rights of the individual and this bill becomes law, that freedom will for the first time be universally undermined. Hence: not hyperbole.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine