On September 20 2012 05:34 SayGen wrote: I love the thought behind it UHC but it doens't work in the real world.
You're right. Canadians aren't real. We're figments of your imagination; a manifestation of your conscience that surfaces when ever you talk about healthcare.
It's like Inception. Spin your totem. Spin it now.
that article doesn't mean shit. And I believe another poster addressed the motives of this guy going to the US for surgery. You think you know what its like up here? do you live here? Every Canadian poster here has said they loved the health care provided here. You know, COMMON FOLK. You think we give a shit about some millionaire getting surgery from one of the best heart surgeons?
And over 50%+ (some polls high as 66%) said they would perfer the current system here in US. Why are you pushing so hard that US has the same plan as you? Agenda?
That is an outright lie. Around 50% of Canadians would support a MIXED system, maintaining the public healthcare system, while allowing for SOME private clinics. You watch fox news, and you spread lies like they do also.
On September 20 2012 06:11 ZasZ. wrote: No the sad part is that even at that point they still don't realize they were wrong.
Actually, the sad part is differing opinions and belief systems does not require one to be right and the other wrong, but people tend to not understand that.
Any thoughts on Peggy Noonan's post? She really, really wants the Romney Campaign to hit the reset button.
What should Mitt Romney do now? He should peer deep into the abyss. He should look straight into the heart of darkness where lies a Republican defeat in a year the Republican presidential candidate almost couldn’t lose. He should imagine what it will mean for the country, for a great political philosophy, conservatism, for his party and, last, for himself. He must look down unblinkingly.
And then he needs to snap out of it, and move.
He has got seven weeks. He’s just had two big flubs. On the Mideast he seemed like a political opportunist, not big and wise but small and tinny. It mattered because the crisis was one of those moments when people look at you and imagine you as president.
Then his comments released last night and made months ago at the private fundraiser in Boca Raton, Fla. Mr. Romney has relearned what four years ago Sen. Barack Obama learned: There’s no such thing as private when you’re a candidate with a mic. There’s someone who doesn’t like you in that audience. There’s someone with a cellphone. Mr. Obama’s clinger comments became famous in 2008 because when people heard what he’d said, they thought, “That’s the real him, that’s him when he’s talking to his friends.”
* * * And so a quick denunciation of what Mr. Romney said, followed by some ideas.
The central problem revealed by the tape is Romney’s theory of the 2012 election. It is that a high percentage of the electorate receives government checks and therefore won’t vote for him, another high percentage is supplying the tax revenues and will vote for him, and almost half the people don’t pay taxes and presumably won’t vote for him.
My goodness, that’s a lot of people who won’t vote for you. You wonder how he gets up in the morning.
This is not how big leaders talk, it’s how shallow campaign operatives talk: They slice and dice the electorate like that, they see everything as determined by this interest or that. They’re usually young enough and dumb enough that nobody holds it against them, but they don’t know anything. They don’t know much about America.
We are a big, complicated nation. And we are human beings. We are people. We have souls. We are complex. We are not data points. Many things go into our decisions and our political affiliations.
You have to be sophisticated to know that. And if you’re operating at the top of national politics, you’re supposed to be sophisticated.
I wrote recently of an imagined rural Ohio woman sitting on her porch, watching the campaign go by. She’s 60, she identifies as conservative, she likes guns, she thinks the culture has gone crazy. She doesn’t like Obama. Romney looks OK. She’s worried about the national debt and what it will mean to her children. But she’s having a hard time, things are tight for her right now, she’s on partial disability, and her husband is a vet and he gets help, and her mother receives Social Security.
She’s worked hard and paid into the system for years. Her husband fought for his country.
And she’s watching this whole election and thinking.You can win her vote if you give her faith in your fairness and wisdom. But not if you label her and dismiss her.
As for those workers who don’t pay any income taxes, they pay payroll taxes—Social Security and Medicare. They want to rise in the world and make more money. They’d like to file a 1040 because that will mean they got a raise or a better job.
They too are potential Romney voters, because they’re suffering under the no-growth economy.
So: Romney’s theory of the case is all wrong. His understanding of the political topography is wrong.
And his tone is fatalistic. I can’t win these guys who will only vote their economic interests, but I can win these guys who will vote their economic interests, plus some guys in the middle, whoever they are.
That’s too small and pinched and narrow. That’s not how Republicans emerge victorious—”I can’t win these guys.” You have to have more respect than that, and more affection, you don’t write anyone off, you invite everyone in. Reagan in 1984 used to put out his hand: “Come too, come walk with me.” Come join, come help, whatever is happening in your life.
You know what Romney sounded like? Like a kid new to politics who thinks he got the inside lowdown on how it works from some operative. But those old operatives, they never know how it works. They knew how it worked for one cycle back in the day.
They’re jockeys who rode Seabiscuit and thought they won a race.
* * * The big issue—how we view government, what we want from it, what we need, what it rightly asks of us, what it wrongly demands of us—is a good and big and right and serious subject. It has to be dealt with seriously, at some length. And it is in part a cultural conversation. There’s a lot of grievance out there, and a sense of entitlement in many spheres. A lot of people don’t feel confident enough or capable enough to be taking part in the big national drama of Work in America. Why? What’s going on? That’s a conversation worth having.
I think there is a broad and growing feeling now, among Republicans, that this thing is slipping out of Romney’s hands. Today at a speech in New York with what seemed like many conservatives and Republicans in the audience, I said more or less the above. I wondered if anyone would say, in the Q&A, “I think you’ve got it wrong, you’re too pessimistic.” No one did. A woman asked me to talk about why in a year the Republicans couldn’t lose, the Republican candidate seems to be losing.
I said pre-mortems won’t help, if you want to help the more conservative candidate, it’s a better use of your time to pitch in with ideas. There’s seven weeks to go. This isn’t over, it’s possible to make things better.
Republicans are going to have to right this thing. They have to stabilize it.
It’s time to admit the Romney campaign is an incompetent one. It’s not big, it’s not brave, it’s not thoughtfully tackling great issues. It’s always been too small for the moment. All the activists, party supporters and big donors should be pushing for change. People want to focus on who at the top is least constructive and most responsible. Fine, but Mitt Romney is no puppet: He chooses who to listen to. An intervention is in order. “Mitt, this isn’t working.”
Romney is known to be loyal. He sticks with you when you’re going through a hard time, he rides it down with you. That’s a real personal quality, a virtue. My old boss Reagan was a little colder. The night before he won the crucial 1980 New Hampshire primary—the night before he wonit—he fired his campaign manager, John Sears. Reagan thought he wasn’t cutting it, so he was gone. The economist Martin Anderson once called Reagan genially ruthless, and he was. But then it wasn’t about John Sears’s feelings or Ronald Reagan’s feelings, it was about America. You can be pretty tough when it’s about America.
Romney doesn’t seem to be out there campaigning enough. He seems—in this he is exactly like the president—to always be disappearing into fund-raisers, and not having enough big public events.
But the logic of Romney’s fundraising has seemed, for some time, slightly crazy. He’s raising money so he can pile it in at the end, with ads. But at the end will they make much difference? Obama is said to have used a lot of his money early on, to paint a portrait of Romney as Thurston Howell III, as David Brooks put it. That was a gamble on Obama’s part: spend it now, pull ahead in the battlegrounds, once we pull ahead more money will come in because money follows winners, not losers.
If I’m seeing things right, that strategy is paying off.
Romney’s staff used to brag they had a lower burn rate, they were saving it up. For what? For the moment when Americans would rather poke out their eyeballs and stomp on the goo than listen to another ad?
Also, Mr. Romney’s ads are mostly boring. It’s kind of an achievement to be boring at a moment in history like this, so credit where it’s due: That musta taken effort!
* * * When big, serious, thoughtful things must be said then big, serious, thoughtful speeches must be given. Mr. Romney is not good at press conferences. Maybe because he doesn’t give enough, and so hasn’t grown used to them, and confident.
He should stick to speeches, and they have to be big—where America is now, what we must do, how we can do it. He needs to address the Mideast too, because it isn’t going to go away as an issue and is adding a new layer of unease to the entire election. Luckily, Romney has access to some of the best writers and thinkers in the business. I say it that way because to write is to think, and Romney needs fresh writing andfresh thinking.
Romney needs to get serious here.Or, he can keep typing out his stray thoughts with Stuart Stevens, who’s sold himself as a kind of mad genius. I get the mad part.
Wake this election up. Wade into the crowd, wade into the fray, hold a hell of a rally in an American city—don’t they count anymore? A big, dense city with skyscrapers like canyons, crowds and placards, and yelling. All of our campaigning now is in bland suburbs and tired hustings. How about: New York, New York, the city so nice they named it twice? You say the state’s not in play? It’s New York. Our media lives here, they’ll make it big. How about downtown Brooklyn, full of new Americans? Guys—make it look like there’s an election going on. Because there is.
Be serious and fight.
If you’re gonna lose, lose honorably. If you’re gonna win do it with meaning.
* * * Romney always seems alone out there, a guy with a mic pacing an empty stage. All by himself, removed from the other humans. It’s sad-looking. It’s not working.
Time for the party to step up. Romney should go out there every day surrounded with the most persuasive, interesting and articulate members of his party, the old ones, and I say this with pain as they’re my age, like Mitch Daniels and Jeb Bush, and the young ones, like Susana Martinez and Chris Christie and Marco Rubio—and even Paul Ryan. I don’t mean one of them should travel with him next Thursday, I mean he should be surrounded by a posse of them every day. Their presence will say, “This isn’t about one man, this is about a whole world of meaning, this is about a conservative political philosophy that can turn things around and make our country better.”
Some of them won’t want to do it because they’re starting to think Romney’s a loser and they don’t want to get loser on them. Too bad. They should be embarrassed if they don’t go, and try, and work, and show support for the conservative candidate at a crucial moment. Do they stand for something or not? Is it bigger than them or not?
Party elders, to the extent you exist this is why you exist:
Right this ship.
* * * So, these are some ideas. Others will have more, and they’ll be better.
On September 20 2012 06:10 farvacola wrote: In other news, a nice little victory for the Obama administration has taken shape as Eric Holder has been vindicated in the "Fast and Furious" investigation, at least according to an internal DOJ report.
An internal report by the Justice Department found no evidence that Attorney General Eric Holder knew about a botched gun-trafficking operation to Mexico, but does recommend that 14 federal law enforcement officials, including the head of the criminal division, be disciplined.
In the wake of the report, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Jason Weinstein, a longtime career prosecutor who most recently served in the criminal division, has resigned and the former acting director at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has retired, effective immediately.
Yes, we're so lucky that the Obama administration has Enron'd the highest levels of government. So if you're an idiot and don't know your staff is cooking up a problem, then you don't have to take any responsibility for it.
But it is interesting they offered up a scalp anyways.
Anything short of Obama resigning likely would have been met with the same comment, so I don't know how to take it seriously.
Well I'm done discussing anything here since I get warned for no apparent reason other than TALKING like THIS. I'm more inclined to think it's because the mods disagree with me, but whatever.
Yes there is, now instead of private business the government is in charge. One has to compete to offer the best product. One just raises taxes if it falls short of the bottom line one month.
which one is more likly to be optomized?
No, health insurance is still mediated by private business, the government has simply remedied what was a market failure by controlling (some of) the market conditions.
I'm intrested in hearing about this *no sarcasm* Can you eleborate. What is the government controlling. What have they stopped/added.
The free market will charge whatever it can get away with to provide (possibly excellent) healthcare to those who can afford it. The free market will deny health insurance to those in need if it projects a loss. In fact, the free market would happily deny medical services to those it believes can't pay (in fact that's illegal, which is an important preexisting marketplace regulation per healthcare).
Mandated health insurance as it stands isn't likely the fully realized vision of American health care, but it's an excellent start. Healthcare (that is society's ability/willingness to care for it's sick/dying/injured), will no longer be guided by shareholders and their pursuit of the almighty dollar. Moral imperative should never be dicated by someone's vision of ecnomic necessity. The market can no longer deny health insurance to those in need. People in need will no longer mortgage their future to get the treatment they require. You must have medical coverage (frankly, this is especially beneficial for those short-sighted enough to believe they will never need it). This system allows the nation to cheaply provide medical services to everyone. Aren't you legally required to buy car insurance? How do you think that works?
In other words, what was before a failure on the part of the free market to speak to the medical needs of Americans has now been remedied by market regulation. The free market can't deny services if it projects a loss.
The free market also happily accepts govt. subsidies and tax writeoffs. Yes, taxes have always helped finance medicine generally. People already pay taxes to finance hospitals etc. But I guess those facilities are only there to help the rich?
Finally, senate democrats accepted 161 Republican amendments to the healthcare reform bill. How do you know you aren't really just complaining about one of those?
Great post, I do some a few quams. Allow me to explain. You said HC will deny someone with a preexisting condition. I have heard of this many times, and it makes sense. Why insure someone who won't be able to put in what they take out. I see nothing wrong with this. A society who accepts people who drain more than they add, never prosper in the long run. I realize the idea of "More taxes" is a great solution when you see it as someone elses money- but really the fact is, it will run out. (see nationdebtclock.org) Should we cut funding to research centers, and libs? Should we cut more from education to pay for HC? If you add drains to society we all suffer. We all pay. We pay with a less educated population. We pay in more taxes (in my case 675$ more). I only want people to carry their weight best they can. Those that fall and struggle should tap into a rainy day fund like I did when I broke my arm. Also there is charity, people give MILLIONS away (look at Bill Gates who has GIVEN BILLIONS). I'm not saying I want people to roll over and die, of course that's cruel. But we should be expected to give of ourselves before asking others for help. I thought until recently that was a universial belief. Forcing a tax hike htat massive on the American people during a recession is a BAD idea. (I can source numerious economist if you'd like)
Also you brought up car insurance. I'm glad you did. In fact you just made my point for me, thanks for bringing that up. Can you choose to drive? Yes. Can you choose to by UHC? No. Thanks for that one.
As for your final point, I wish I could know but again 10,000 pages of legal-speak isn't something the vast majority of Americans can read. (myself included)
OK, so Romney has raised this point as well. It sounds reasonable, except the problem with it (as I see it) is that it exists within the frame of a broken marketplace. Pay the insurance premiums of a deregulated marketplace, and it doesn't seem to bother Republicans that a growing number of Americans simply cannot. They then defend the notion that the sick shouldn't qualify for health insurance on the basis that they didn't have them before they got sick, but this basis really just ignores the fundamental problem that the system is broken.
If Republicans believe you should pay the premiums all your life to ensure coverage once you get sick, then why are you at odds with Obama? He's not disagreeing, he's just regulating the marketplace to ensure premiums are reasonable so that everyone can be covered. I'm also a bit surprised by the fact you claim you have to pay $675 per month, I thought Obama's plan took income into account. Are you wealthy? Is it really just that you are angry about having to pay? I mean if so it seems like in your frustration you're missing the big picture. Your nation will not be able to fully realize the vast potential it has in its citizens if those citizens are being broken trying to pay medical bills for themselves and family members. As for the wealthy (the people Obama targets to shoulder more of the burden), does it prevent them from being wealthy or accumulating more wealth? No, but it enables the middle class to become wealthy, and it helps the poor maintain an acceptable standard of living.
Finally, I'm not so sure you can choose not to drive, but you certainly can't choose not to get around, and you're going to be making some form of payments above and beyond your income tax for transportation (either public or private).
So what's your healthcare plan? For everyone to become millionaires and buy immortality?
You're confusing healthcare tourism for healthcare coverage and effectiveness. I can point to the endless amount of anecdotes from Americans that were flat-out denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions, or delayed or avoided healthcare they desperately needed because they couldn't afford it.
Canada's healthcare system is better than America's. Canada's healthcare system is better than America's. Canada's healthcare system is better than America's.
You should take that $300 you've been saving every month and consider moving to Canada. It would save that life of yours that Obama has destroyed.
Truth be told. I have to say ur right about ur little rant. Canada does NOW have a better HC system than America.
But HC pre Obama in America > X100000 Canada HC
I love the thought behind it UHC but it doens't work in the real world. Hard working people like me just got the shaft. I will no longer be able to fund my own HC. If I get an Illness that isn't covered under OBAMACARE, I'm dead. Least I can say I tried. I stood in oposition proudly.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of Obamacare, your previous healthcare 'system,' how much healthcare cost out of pocket, and Canadian healthcare.
Give me an example of an illness that wouldn't be covered under Obamacare, that you would be able to access if Obamacare didn't exist.
$7000 for a broken arm. That's 6 months of mortgage payment. A nest egg to put towards the downpayment of your first house. Tuition fee to improve your skills, credentials. A very, very nice vacation.
No wonder the US middle class is struggling. Good luck.
Thanks for adding to the conversation in a meaningful way- I'll be happy to address your concerns. I wish I could give you the example you asked for but 10,000 pages of Obamacare written in a legal-speak language the vast majoirty of Americans can not understand prevents me from doing this.
This also greatly concerned me:
So much for government transparency.
I do know, based off of GOP primary presidential debates that took place that there are procedures that arn't covered, including procedures that are determined 'optional' like a bullet stuck in your chest that can remain lodged there for the rest of your life. Last I checked, even if you could take a tetnis shot to prevent the soon-to-be rusted bullet from killing you, shouldn't I have some say if I want a bullet in my chest for the rest of my life? Why not let me tap into the 1100 dollars I got, plus a signature loan and have the procedure done.
I'm aware of how much 7000$ is. I gladly paid it. Remember 675$/month is more expensive than the 7000$ I spent on my broken arm. I ran the math in a previous post.
The middleclass is struggling, cause of MASSIVE debt (Thanks Obama) and increased taxiation (675+/month) extra. Thanks for the well wishes, but I'm pretty sure i'm just screwed. My God do I hate Romney (totally different reasons) but in this case he is the lesser of 2 evils. Least he won't raise my taxes 675+, and give me a little more control back of my life.
If Fox News is your source for information, I'm starting to see the problem here. There are few unbiased options (for either party), but that has to be one of the worst ones.
Maybe I'm missing something, but how will Obamacare tax you an additional $675 a month? Is it because you refuse to get health insurance or because that is what it will cost you to get health insurance? I realize I am fortunate with my benefits package at work, and pay nothing out of pocket for my health insurance, but I have never heard of anybody paying that kind of rate for health insurance.
But if it's because you don't want health insurance, even when it could save you money in the long-term (like for that broken arm), I don't really know what to tell you. Any amount of money you can put aside for a "rainy-day" healthcare pool will not be enough to cover the rainiest of days, and then you really will be dead. Just ask any cancer survivor without health insurance how much it cost them out-of-pocket (hint: there probably aren't any).
Fox news was just the first vidoe that pop'd up when I typed into google. Plus why does the video source mean anything. Did you watch the video that's what matters. Did you hear what she said- that's what really matters. Could care less if that same clip was offered from ANTI-AMERICAN NEWS CORP (just made that up).
As Obamacare takes effect HC costs are on the rise as business get readyt to have to accept all the RED from accepting the vastly overweight, the smokers, alcholics, etc. So will it cost over 675 to get insurance for someone young, and healthy as myself I don't know. Sadly I'll have to break down and get UHC. Do I want it no. But If I can't put my 300+ dollars a month aside, than I have to do something- even if it doesn't cover items that are potientially fatal to me. The government beat me. I am now a slave to my own government. So much for 'Of the people, for the people, by the people'.
I can at least say I did my best. And if I end up dieing here in a few years cause the HC i was 'forced' into buying doesn't cover something- I hope they will at least (future generations) learn from my death. Freedom is more than just defending borders/lines on a map. It's about the indivisual.
Also in the long term, we've already beat that argument. I was right. In the long term take out the middleMEN(not man, MEN) and you always get the lower cost. HC introduces Middlemen.
Straight to the hospital > HC insurance(takes his cut)than go to the hospital.
On September 20 2012 06:18 coverpunch wrote: When you compare the US to Canada in terms of health care, you have to make a couple important distinctions.
For one, immigration. Canada only borders the US so it can essentially pick and choose who it allows to immigrate, granting about 250,000 permanent residencies per year. By contrast, the US grants about a million green cards per year and estimates a million people immigrate illegally.
Secondly, Canada's system is good for mundane, everyday problems. I would make the analogy to saying the government should give everyone cell phones. Well, everyone in the US wants the Galaxy S3 and the iPhone 5. Canada doles out free flip phones. It's fine for doing all the things a cell phone is supposed to do. This is part of the problem in the US though. Perversely, technological benefits don't pass costs savings to consumers because Americans demand health care on the cutting edge, which is extremely expensive. But that's only for serious medical issues.
The final difference is the strange state of insurance companies in the US. Note that Obamacare treats people who don't buy insurance as free-loaders, not victims. They're part of the problem because if I go to the hospital for a broken arm and use my insurance to cover the cost, the hospital charges me much more because I also have to cover the risk that SayGen doesn't pay. Universal health care works if it's like a giant gym membership where everyone pays but most people never use it, which is exactly what Obamacare is trying to do by forcing young, healthy people to buy insurance but not go to the doctor (or go when they have a small problem, not wait until it turns into a disaster they can't afford).
Not quite.
Canada's healthcare system is more like a Samsung Galaxy or Google Nexus tablet. One thing that is seems consistent among Republicans is this gross misconception that the quality of Canadian healthcare is significantly inferior to US healthcare, which simply isn't true at all. The quality of care is actually very, very good. Of course it can be better, but that's true with everything.
Trust me, if our healthcare was equivalent to a flip-phone in 2012, Canadians would be demanding reform as vigorously as people in the US.
probably pay the extra fee to have it removed, as you so desire.
What extra money? I can't save the 300 anymore cause Obama taxed it all After he said he wouldn't--again he lied
Obama taxed it all away when he raised taxes by 675? Unless that's 675 a month I'm pretty sure you just can't count.
On September 20 2012 04:25 SayGen wrote: Obama put the HC bill into effect dispite it lacking popular vote; and now my taxes are now getting rasied 675$+ annually. He said he wouldn't rasie taxes on the middle class (Under 250K a year household income)
He can't count. Well, he did say 675$+. But still.
The mildly humorous part for me right now is that people with insurance are supposed to get a rebate from their providers for the cost difference due to ACA forcing providers to minimize overhead. Certainly, people who have insurance through their company may not see this rebate (the rebate will go to the company) - but technically that's a tax relief for the middle class who have insurance.
On September 20 2012 05:34 SayGen wrote: I love the thought behind it UHC but it doens't work in the real world.
You're right. Canadians aren't real. We're figments of your imagination; a manifestation of your conscience that surfaces when ever you talk about healthcare.
It's like Inception. Spin your totem. Spin it now.
that article doesn't mean shit. And I believe another poster addressed the motives of this guy going to the US for surgery. You think you know what its like up here? do you live here? Every Canadian poster here has said they loved the health care provided here. You know, COMMON FOLK. You think we give a shit about some millionaire getting surgery from one of the best heart surgeons?
And over 50%+ (some polls high as 66%) said they would perfer the current system here in US. Why are you pushing so hard that US has the same plan as you? Agenda?
That is an outright lie. Around 50% of Canadians would support a MIXED system, maintaining the public healthcare system, while allowing for SOME private clinics. You watch fox news, and you spread lies like they do also.
1) Stop 2) I was REFERENCING AN AMERICAN POLL not a CANADIAN ONE 3) Do not tell me what News I watch (I don't watch any). I link one random video that happens to be of a Right Wing bias, and you go all nuts- GET OFF UR OWN BIAS). 4) I have not lied. Libel is a crime. I just looked--it's a crime in Canada too.
On September 20 2012 05:34 SayGen wrote: I love the thought behind it UHC but it doens't work in the real world.
You're right. Canadians aren't real. We're figments of your imagination; a manifestation of your conscience that surfaces when ever you talk about healthcare.
It's like Inception. Spin your totem. Spin it now.
that article doesn't mean shit. And I believe another poster addressed the motives of this guy going to the US for surgery. You think you know what its like up here? do you live here? Every Canadian poster here has said they loved the health care provided here. You know, COMMON FOLK. You think we give a shit about some millionaire getting surgery from one of the best heart surgeons?
And over 50%+ (some polls high as 66%) said they would perfer the current system here in US. Why are you pushing so hard that US has the same plan as you? Agenda?
That is an outright lie. Around 50% of Canadians would support a MIXED system, maintaining the public healthcare system, while allowing for SOME private clinics. You watch fox news, and you spread lies like they do also.
1) Stop 2) I was REFERENCING AN AMERICAN POLL not a CANADIAN ONE 3) Do not tell me what News I watch (I don't watch any). I link one random video that happens to be of a Right Wing bias, and you go all nuts- GET OFF UR OWN BIAS). 4) I have not lied. Libel is a crime. I just looked--it's a crime in Canada too.
In his defense, he was speaking about Canada and Canadians, and then you proceed to mention a poll "that would prefer the current system here in the US."
I think it's sorta reasonable for him to have assumed you were talking about a poll for Canadians.
On September 20 2012 05:34 SayGen wrote: I love the thought behind it UHC but it doens't work in the real world.
You're right. Canadians aren't real. We're figments of your imagination; a manifestation of your conscience that surfaces when ever you talk about healthcare.
It's like Inception. Spin your totem. Spin it now.
that article doesn't mean shit. And I believe another poster addressed the motives of this guy going to the US for surgery. You think you know what its like up here? do you live here? Every Canadian poster here has said they loved the health care provided here. You know, COMMON FOLK. You think we give a shit about some millionaire getting surgery from one of the best heart surgeons?
And over 50%+ (some polls high as 66%) said they would perfer the current system here in US. Why are you pushing so hard that US has the same plan as you? Agenda?
That is an outright lie. Around 50% of Canadians would support a MIXED system, maintaining the public healthcare system, while allowing for SOME private clinics. You watch fox news, and you spread lies like they do also.
1) Stop 2) I was REFERENCING AN AMERICAN POLL not a CANADIAN ONE 3) Do not tell me what News I watch (I don't watch any). I link one random video that happens to be of a Right Wing bias, and you go all nuts- GET OFF UR OWN BIAS). 4) I have not lied. Libel is a crime. I just looked--it's a crime in Canada too.
you qouted a US poll on whether or not Canadians should switch to their system? What in the hell good does that dumbass poll do. 99% of Americans have no clue what our healthcare system is like. Why would you even post such useless statistics.
Edit* Oh you just didnt separate your thoughts at all. If you are talking abgout what US citizens prefer in the US, thats a different story. I couldnt care less what you guys think is better for yourselves, just write your points more coherently so it doesnt seem like Canadians actually think your system is good, because we dont.
Yes there is, now instead of private business the government is in charge. One has to compete to offer the best product. One just raises taxes if it falls short of the bottom line one month.
which one is more likly to be optomized?
No, health insurance is still mediated by private business, the government has simply remedied what was a market failure by controlling (some of) the market conditions.
I'm intrested in hearing about this *no sarcasm* Can you eleborate. What is the government controlling. What have they stopped/added.
The free market will charge whatever it can get away with to provide (possibly excellent) healthcare to those who can afford it. The free market will deny health insurance to those in need if it projects a loss. In fact, the free market would happily deny medical services to those it believes can't pay (in fact that's illegal, which is an important preexisting marketplace regulation per healthcare).
Mandated health insurance as it stands isn't likely the fully realized vision of American health care, but it's an excellent start. Healthcare (that is society's ability/willingness to care for it's sick/dying/injured), will no longer be guided by shareholders and their pursuit of the almighty dollar. Moral imperative should never be dicated by someone's vision of ecnomic necessity. The market can no longer deny health insurance to those in need. People in need will no longer mortgage their future to get the treatment they require. You must have medical coverage (frankly, this is especially beneficial for those short-sighted enough to believe they will never need it). This system allows the nation to cheaply provide medical services to everyone. Aren't you legally required to buy car insurance? How do you think that works?
In other words, what was before a failure on the part of the free market to speak to the medical needs of Americans has now been remedied by market regulation. The free market can't deny services if it projects a loss.
The free market also happily accepts govt. subsidies and tax writeoffs. Yes, taxes have always helped finance medicine generally. People already pay taxes to finance hospitals etc. But I guess those facilities are only there to help the rich?
Finally, senate democrats accepted 161 Republican amendments to the healthcare reform bill. How do you know you aren't really just complaining about one of those?
Great post, I do some a few quams. Allow me to explain. You said HC will deny someone with a preexisting condition. I have heard of this many times, and it makes sense. Why insure someone who won't be able to put in what they take out. I see nothing wrong with this. A society who accepts people who drain more than they add, never prosper in the long run. I realize the idea of "More taxes" is a great solution when you see it as someone elses money- but really the fact is, it will run out. (see nationdebtclock.org) Should we cut funding to research centers, and libs? Should we cut more from education to pay for HC? If you add drains to society we all suffer. We all pay. We pay with a less educated population. We pay in more taxes (in my case 675$ more). I only want people to carry their weight best they can. Those that fall and struggle should tap into a rainy day fund like I did when I broke my arm. Also there is charity, people give MILLIONS away (look at Bill Gates who has GIVEN BILLIONS). I'm not saying I want people to roll over and die, of course that's cruel. But we should be expected to give of ourselves before asking others for help. I thought until recently that was a universial belief. Forcing a tax hike htat massive on the American people during a recession is a BAD idea. (I can source numerious economist if you'd like)
Also you brought up car insurance. I'm glad you did. In fact you just made my point for me, thanks for bringing that up. Can you choose to drive? Yes. Can you choose to by UHC? No. Thanks for that one.
As for your final point, I wish I could know but again 10,000 pages of legal-speak isn't something the vast majority of Americans can read. (myself included)
What state do you live in that lets you drive without insurance, you cant drive the car off the lot if you buy it from the dealer. You wont be able to get you tags without insurance. And if you get pulled over without it you get finned and jailed and will most likely get you car towed tell you get insurance. So of you are trying to use driving with insurance to help you i dont think that is the best example since you kinda do need it to drive.
Yes there is, now instead of private business the government is in charge. One has to compete to offer the best product. One just raises taxes if it falls short of the bottom line one month.
which one is more likly to be optomized?
No, health insurance is still mediated by private business, the government has simply remedied what was a market failure by controlling (some of) the market conditions.
I'm intrested in hearing about this *no sarcasm* Can you eleborate. What is the government controlling. What have they stopped/added.
The free market will charge whatever it can get away with to provide (possibly excellent) healthcare to those who can afford it. The free market will deny health insurance to those in need if it projects a loss. In fact, the free market would happily deny medical services to those it believes can't pay (in fact that's illegal, which is an important preexisting marketplace regulation per healthcare).
Mandated health insurance as it stands isn't likely the fully realized vision of American health care, but it's an excellent start. Healthcare (that is society's ability/willingness to care for it's sick/dying/injured), will no longer be guided by shareholders and their pursuit of the almighty dollar. Moral imperative should never be dicated by someone's vision of ecnomic necessity. The market can no longer deny health insurance to those in need. People in need will no longer mortgage their future to get the treatment they require. You must have medical coverage (frankly, this is especially beneficial for those short-sighted enough to believe they will never need it). This system allows the nation to cheaply provide medical services to everyone. Aren't you legally required to buy car insurance? How do you think that works?
In other words, what was before a failure on the part of the free market to speak to the medical needs of Americans has now been remedied by market regulation. The free market can't deny services if it projects a loss.
The free market also happily accepts govt. subsidies and tax writeoffs. Yes, taxes have always helped finance medicine generally. People already pay taxes to finance hospitals etc. But I guess those facilities are only there to help the rich?
Finally, senate democrats accepted 161 Republican amendments to the healthcare reform bill. How do you know you aren't really just complaining about one of those?
Great post, I do some a few quams. Allow me to explain. You said HC will deny someone with a preexisting condition. I have heard of this many times, and it makes sense. Why insure someone who won't be able to put in what they take out. I see nothing wrong with this. A society who accepts people who drain more than they add, never prosper in the long run. I realize the idea of "More taxes" is a great solution when you see it as someone elses money- but really the fact is, it will run out. (see nationdebtclock.org) Should we cut funding to research centers, and libs? Should we cut more from education to pay for HC? If you add drains to society we all suffer. We all pay. We pay with a less educated population. We pay in more taxes (in my case 675$ more). I only want people to carry their weight best they can. Those that fall and struggle should tap into a rainy day fund like I did when I broke my arm. Also there is charity, people give MILLIONS away (look at Bill Gates who has GIVEN BILLIONS). I'm not saying I want people to roll over and die, of course that's cruel. But we should be expected to give of ourselves before asking others for help. I thought until recently that was a universial belief. Forcing a tax hike htat massive on the American people during a recession is a BAD idea. (I can source numerious economist if you'd like)
Also you brought up car insurance. I'm glad you did. In fact you just made my point for me, thanks for bringing that up. Can you choose to drive? Yes. Can you choose to by UHC? No. Thanks for that one.
As for your final point, I wish I could know but again 10,000 pages of legal-speak isn't something the vast majority of Americans can read. (myself included)
What state do you live in that lets you drive with insurance, you cant drive the car off the lot if you buy it from the dealer. You wont be able to get you tags without insurance. And if you get pulled over without it you get finned and jailed and will most likely get you car towed tell you get insurance. So of you are trying to use driving with insurance to help you i dont think that is the best example since you kinda do need it to drive.
I think he is saying:
If I don't have a car, I don't need to pay health insurance. I get to choose if I get a car or not. With health insurance, I don't get a choice. I'm forced to have it, regardless (well, you COULD choose to live or die, but that plays into his statement before of how Obama is killing him).
probably pay the extra fee to have it removed, as you so desire.
What extra money? I can't save the 300 anymore cause Obama taxed it all After he said he wouldn't--again he lied
Obama taxed it all away when he raised taxes by 675? Unless that's 675 a month I'm pretty sure you just can't count.
Err I apologise for the exeration, no it's annual.
Though my fustration remains.
675$ is over 2 months of my current set aside savings. It's hard enough to put 300/month away in this economy. 300 is the bare minimum, now I have to find somewhere in my budget to pull another 675$ out of.
On September 20 2012 04:25 SayGen wrote: Obama put the HC bill into effect dispite it lacking popular vote; and now my taxes are now getting rasied 675$+ annually. He said he wouldn't rasie taxes on the middle class (Under 250K a year household income)
He can't count. Well, he did say 675$+. But still.
The mildly humorous part for me right now is that people with insurance are supposed to get a rebate from their providers for the cost difference due to ACA forcing providers to minimize overhead. Certainly, people who have insurance through their company may not see this rebate (the rebate will go to the company) - but technically that's a tax relief for the middle class who have insurance.
Yeah, that provision never made too much sense to me. I know what they were trying to do but I think they went about it in the wrong way. As is I think it will stifle competition and limit coverage choices.
Yes there is, now instead of private business the government is in charge. One has to compete to offer the best product. One just raises taxes if it falls short of the bottom line one month.
which one is more likly to be optomized?
No, health insurance is still mediated by private business, the government has simply remedied what was a market failure by controlling (some of) the market conditions.
I'm intrested in hearing about this *no sarcasm* Can you eleborate. What is the government controlling. What have they stopped/added.
The free market will charge whatever it can get away with to provide (possibly excellent) healthcare to those who can afford it. The free market will deny health insurance to those in need if it projects a loss. In fact, the free market would happily deny medical services to those it believes can't pay (in fact that's illegal, which is an important preexisting marketplace regulation per healthcare).
Mandated health insurance as it stands isn't likely the fully realized vision of American health care, but it's an excellent start. Healthcare (that is society's ability/willingness to care for it's sick/dying/injured), will no longer be guided by shareholders and their pursuit of the almighty dollar. Moral imperative should never be dicated by someone's vision of ecnomic necessity. The market can no longer deny health insurance to those in need. People in need will no longer mortgage their future to get the treatment they require. You must have medical coverage (frankly, this is especially beneficial for those short-sighted enough to believe they will never need it). This system allows the nation to cheaply provide medical services to everyone. Aren't you legally required to buy car insurance? How do you think that works?
In other words, what was before a failure on the part of the free market to speak to the medical needs of Americans has now been remedied by market regulation. The free market can't deny services if it projects a loss.
The free market also happily accepts govt. subsidies and tax writeoffs. Yes, taxes have always helped finance medicine generally. People already pay taxes to finance hospitals etc. But I guess those facilities are only there to help the rich?
Finally, senate democrats accepted 161 Republican amendments to the healthcare reform bill. How do you know you aren't really just complaining about one of those?
Great post, I do some a few quams. Allow me to explain. You said HC will deny someone with a preexisting condition. I have heard of this many times, and it makes sense. Why insure someone who won't be able to put in what they take out. I see nothing wrong with this. A society who accepts people who drain more than they add, never prosper in the long run. I realize the idea of "More taxes" is a great solution when you see it as someone elses money- but really the fact is, it will run out. (see nationdebtclock.org) Should we cut funding to research centers, and libs? Should we cut more from education to pay for HC? If you add drains to society we all suffer. We all pay. We pay with a less educated population. We pay in more taxes (in my case 675$ more). I only want people to carry their weight best they can. Those that fall and struggle should tap into a rainy day fund like I did when I broke my arm. Also there is charity, people give MILLIONS away (look at Bill Gates who has GIVEN BILLIONS). I'm not saying I want people to roll over and die, of course that's cruel. But we should be expected to give of ourselves before asking others for help. I thought until recently that was a universial belief. Forcing a tax hike htat massive on the American people during a recession is a BAD idea. (I can source numerious economist if you'd like)
Also you brought up car insurance. I'm glad you did. In fact you just made my point for me, thanks for bringing that up. Can you choose to drive? Yes. Can you choose to by UHC? No. Thanks for that one.
As for your final point, I wish I could know but again 10,000 pages of legal-speak isn't something the vast majority of Americans can read. (myself included)
What state do you live in that lets you drive with insurance, you cant drive the car off the lot if you buy it from the dealer. You wont be able to get you tags without insurance. And if you get pulled over without it you get finned and jailed and will most likely get you car towed tell you get insurance. So of you are trying to use driving with insurance to help you i dont think that is the best example since you kinda do need it to drive.
I think he is saying:
If I don't have a car, I don't need to pay health insurance. I get to choose if I get a car or not. With health insurance, I don't get a choice. I'm forced to have it, regardless (well, you COULD choose to live or die, but that plays into his statement before of how Obama is killing him).
basicly yes. You choose to drive. You do not choose to get HC (it's forced upon you through taxation) KEEPING IN MIND THIS IS AFTER HE SAID HE WOULD NOT RAISE TAXES ON MIDDLE CLASS
probably pay the extra fee to have it removed, as you so desire.
What extra money? I can't save the 300 anymore cause Obama taxed it all After he said he wouldn't--again he lied
Obama taxed it all away when he raised taxes by 675? Unless that's 675 a month I'm pretty sure you just can't count.
Err I apologise for the exeration, no it's annual.
Though my fustration remains.
675$ is over 2 months of my current set aside savings. It's hard enough to put 300/month away in this economy. 300 is the bare minimum, now I have to find somewhere in my budget to pull another 675$ out of.
So, if I understand the situation correctly, you've got basic coverage now from the Obama reforms and still have $248 a month to put in your rainy day health care fund and because of this Obama is trying to kill you.
probably pay the extra fee to have it removed, as you so desire.
What extra money? I can't save the 300 anymore cause Obama taxed it all After he said he wouldn't--again he lied
Obama taxed it all away when he raised taxes by 675? Unless that's 675 a month I'm pretty sure you just can't count.
Err I apologise for the exeration, no it's annual.
Though my fustration remains.
675$ is over 2 months of my current set aside savings. It's hard enough to put 300/month away in this economy. 300 is the bare minimum, now I have to find somewhere in my budget to pull another 675$ out of.
....if you were saving 300/month to cover your health.... and now you are forced to pay 675/year to cover your health..... then you would be saving (300x12)-675 or approximately $2925 a year............................
probably pay the extra fee to have it removed, as you so desire.
What extra money? I can't save the 300 anymore cause Obama taxed it all After he said he wouldn't--again he lied
Obama taxed it all away when he raised taxes by 675? Unless that's 675 a month I'm pretty sure you just can't count.
On September 20 2012 04:25 SayGen wrote: Obama put the HC bill into effect dispite it lacking popular vote; and now my taxes are now getting rasied 675$+ annually. He said he wouldn't rasie taxes on the middle class (Under 250K a year household income)
He can't count. Well, he did say 675$+. But still.
The mildly humorous part for me right now is that people with insurance are supposed to get a rebate from their providers for the cost difference due to ACA forcing providers to minimize overhead. Certainly, people who have insurance through their company may not see this rebate (the rebate will go to the company) - but technically that's a tax relief for the middle class who have insurance.
Yeah, that provision never made too much sense to me. I know what they were trying to do but I think they went about it in the wrong way. As is I think it will stifle competition and limit coverage choices.
I'm not a fan of it - government stepping in too far.
But then again, I'm not a fan of insurance companies gouging me (car insurance, mostly >.>) - so I sorta take it as "meh, I'm getting some money back this year, possibly"
EPT
