What are the differences? Which is better in your opinion (if they are different)?
Obamacare = insurance industry regulation. Not 100% coverage. Loopholes. Does not control costs. Way better than before, way short of what's needed.
Canadian Healthcare = Single payor for everyone from birth to death.
do you think the US will ever adopt the same system as canada?
do you think the US will ever adopt the same system as canada?
maybe if texas sceded, drawing away most of the conservative republicans.
actually, that could solve a LOT of problems...hmm
but in all seriousness, not as long as conservative republicans keep stonewalling everything and anything that's progressive.
Wait until...the Ayn Rand worshipers find this thread.
I don't know why on earth we're always trying to compare ourselves to Canada or the UK. Why not Australia, Japan, or Singapore? In Australia, Medicare is funded by a 1.5% tax for those under $70,000 and 2.5% for those above who do not have private insurance. Half the country does have private insurance to cover gaps.
This is the first ever entirely pro-reform thread on SDN. Wait until the flames start tomorrow morning or the Ayn Rand worshipers find this thread.
...
We have almost ten times the number of people. Quit comparing the US to Canada. What works for them, will not work for us.
If reform is to happen, it needs to be thought out for a LONG time. Not some willy-nilly midnight push to further someone's agenda. There needs to be doctors who currently practice involved in the said reform.
That said, this bill, which is just a giant tax, needs to be stopped.
...
This system will bankrupt us. So will the system proposed under "Obamacare".
Canada's population is around 33,000,000.
The United State's population is around 308,000,000.
We have almost ten times the number of people.
So, we can't have a system similar to Canada because we can't have ten times the system? You have to show that we are so how either qualitatively different than Canada or that the system can't be scalable. Comparisons between countries allows us to learn about the effect of various system. The comparison between the US and Canada is especially helpful since our countries are very similar in many socio-historic ways. Similar arguments can be made for Australia, I think, at least.
Reform has been a long time out. Single payer systems have been debated in the US since the 1960's. The reforms with the current bill have been debated in academic journals in the US over the last 20 to 30 years, and have been implemented to some degree in other countries (but in different manners). Many physicians and professional organizations were involved in shaping this law.
What's so wrong with a tax if it increases economic efficiency by increasing the competitiveness of the health insurance "marketplace"? The entire bill was a compromise. There is no real public option.
Canada's system, though often described as single payer, is administered through each of the provinces. The most populous province is Ontario, which has over 13 million people. If we were truly positing an analogous adaptation of the Canadian system in the US, it would be administered through each state rather than by a centralized federal bureaucracy. Interestingly, only 4 states have populations greater than 13 million (CA, TX, FL, NY).
Just a thought.
This is the first ever entirely pro-reform thread on SDN. Wait until the flames start tomorrow morning or the Ayn Rand worshipers find this thread.
The simple thing I was trying to get across was the US can not afford it.
Let's take a look at Canada's national debt around $570billion and slowly falling.
Let's look at the US's debt, $13 trillion and rising.
The US already pays out almost twice as much with the current system as Canada per capita.
Look at the post office. Do you really want health care run like that?
Don't have time to get into a huge argument right now.
The simple thing I was trying to get across was the US can not afford it.
Let's take a look at Canada's national debt around $570billion and slowly falling.
Let's look at the US's debt, $13 trillion and rising. .
And it's the 100bn a year in healthcare cost from the new bill instead of a trillion dollar a year defense budget that's the cause.
Yup, makes sense in Limbaughland.
Don't associate me with that crazy f*ck. If anything, I fall into the Libertarian category. I'm all for the STATES handling the health care issue, not the Federal government.
I don't see how anyone can be going into the medical field and support any government run anything. Do you really wants bureaucrats telling you how to treat patients? I mean, more so than it already is?
I bring up the post office because it is hemorrhaging money. That is my argument. I don't see what's so hard to understand about not being able to afford it.
If you feel that this state-focused approach would ever be considered or implemented by the current decision-makers in either party, you're whistling Dixie.
catalase said:But an unconstitutional overhaul isn't the answer.
catalase said:Unless you feel that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Dept. of Education are resounding, financially-solvent successes.
And it's the 100bn a year in healthcare cost from the new bill instead of a trillion dollar a year defense budget that's the cause.
Yup, makes sense in Limbaughland.
Gee, I wonder how those trillions got there. Wonder how we could cut the national debt?
I honestly cannot understand why people are bringing the post office into this. What the fruit loop? I have never had a problem with the post office. I have never not gotten a piece of mail someone has sent me, and I've never had to resend mail to anyone else, either. What problems are people having with the post office? I'm curious.
I have no problem with the public education I've received, and I've been to public schools up to and including the college I'm at now. I certainly have no problem with my Pell Grant, SEOG, and Stafford loans.
I definitely had no problem with 911 when the crappy SUV I was driving hit a patch of ice and flipped over in a ditch.
And before you open your mouth and spew more disingenuous cliches, I've never had a problem with the Secretary of State or the DMV either. And I recently had to replace my social security card, which took me all of 20 minutes of waiting and no hassle. I make sure to check online for the documents I need before I go so there will be no surprises. And if I'm not sure, I call. It's funny how things other people find insanely frustrating and complicated can be really easy when you're an adult about it (no, really, it's funny...you find the POST OFFICE complicated?)
I've ignored politically-tinged posts in the Pre-Allo forums for too long! This is a barrel of monkeys, listening to (primarily) a group of 19 year-olds go off on EVIL REPUBLICANS for destroying the country they so loved when they were 12. I'm subscribing to this thread. I hate to be the harbinger of bad news, but both Canada and the UK are actively privatizing their health care systems, a little piece at a time. There was an article today in the WSJ about Canada. There was one in the NYT last week about the UK, if the WSJ is too "limbaughland" for you. Socialized medicine is spending itself into oblivion, regardless of how "good" one wishes or dreams it to be. But by all means, continue on with the conservative bashing. Whatever it is, it's all their fault. Si se puede!
I don't see how anyone can be going into the medical field and support any government run anything. Do you really wants bureaucrats telling you how to treat patients? I mean, more so than it already is?
I bring up the post office because it is hemorrhaging money. That is my argument. I don't see what's so hard to understand about not being able to afford it.
I've ignored politically-tinged posts in the Pre-Allo forums for too long! This is a barrel of monkeys, listening to (primarily) a group of 19 year-olds go off on EVIL REPUBLICANS for destroying the country they so loved when they were 12.
I'm subscribing to this thread. I hate to be the harbinger of bad news, but both Canada and the UK are actively privatizing their health care systems, a little piece at a time. There was an article today in the WSJ about Canada. There was one in the NYT last week about the UK, if the WSJ is too "limbaughland" for you. Socialized medicine is spending itself into oblivion, regardless of how "good" one wishes or dreams it to be.
You have 5 posts. You joined in July. WTF @ "ignoring posts for too long"?
But by all means, continue on with the conservative bashing. Whatever it is, it's all their fault.
Ah yes, "socialized" medicine is spending itself into oblivion. Maybe things will get so bad that they'll end up spending half as much as we do with our Glorious Capitalist Insurance Companies. Do you even listen to yourself?
Also, if you have any sources, not including Limbaugh, Hannity or Beck, where either UK or Canada is moving to a system with less than 100% coverage, please list it.
Pons Asinorum said:But by all means, continue on with the conservative bashing. Whatever it is, it's all their fault.
It's merely a though experiment.
What is unconstitutional?
Social security has successfully provided a safety net for the elderly for 73 years. The fixes needed to extend its solvency are quite minor.
Medicare has successfully provided medical care for the elderly for 45 years. The challenges it faces are more serious, but hardly unique to either this country or the health insurance industry. Perhaps you should just close your eyes and imagine a world without Medicare, where you are paying for your parents' medical bills, doctors can only see the young or wealthy, and virtually all hospitals are bankrupt.
As an aside, this would actually fix both Medicare and Social Security, as everyone over 65 would have to move to Mexico.
Medicaid is a program administered by the states.
The post office hasn't been administered by the federal government since 1971.
So your critique of the federal government is thus far batting only 0.500 on even mentioning entities administered by the feds. Strong work. I suppose your grand solution would be to turn everything over to AIG.
Anyways, you are right about one thing: Medicare Part D is a disaster. That's what happens when you let Republicans write health care legislation.
Not everyone works for what they get. Too much is given away. I'm 23 years old, i've been to college, graduated with my bachelor's in nursing, have no student loans, bought 2 cars, and a house (which I can afford) and guess what? I'm paying taxes out my rear to cover 30-70 year olds who have just "never felt like working" or never saw a reason to work since everything was given to them.
Now, we want to expand that to healthcare? You've got to be nuts!
Honestly, I don't want to give 1/2 my hard earned money to the government so that we can give "free" health insurance to everyone regardless of whether they've worked a day in their life OR regardless of whether they're even a legal US citizen (and paying taxes just like me).
Loktar - Do you really think there is 100% coverage in the UK or Canada? Sure, every resident has health care coverage through various mechanisms, but do they provide 100% coverage?
No, they don't. They ration. Famously and widely.
You have 5 posts. You joined in July. WTF @ "ignoring posts for too long"?
I'm 23, and when I was 12, I was a Republican. I actively supported the GWB campaign in 2000. So, like...yeah?
Honestly, I don't want to give 1/2 my hard earned money to the government so that we can give "free" health insurance to everyone regardless of whether they've worked a day in their life OR regardless of whether they're even a legal US citizen (and paying taxes just like me).
This grotesque Reaganesque fetish that right wingers have about 'welfare queens' getting fat off the taxpayer dime while the studious millionaire burns the midnight oil to earn what he has is a fantasy designed for people who've never actually rolled down their windows in a poor neighborhood.
You pay for police protection, and primary school education of people who can't afford it. Healthcare is just as much a necessity, if not more.
They are. And if people were starving of death in the US like they are dying for lack of healthcare, I would also be fighting for some changes.Why not food and water? They are even bigger necessities. It'd be even cheaper to provide that to everyone before we give them healthcare. You have to draw the line somewhere.
Also where are we getting the $100 billion number from? And the $1 trillion?
Now, we want to expand that to healthcare? You've got to be nuts!
I personally know an MD that works in Canada (we go on mission trips together) - HE HATES CANADA'S SYSTEM! He pays almost 45% tax because he has to pay for the low-life, drug-seeking, *****s that flood the ER day after day wanting morphine. He can't turn them away - they have insurance and by law he is forced to treat every single patient.
Honestly, I don't want to give 1/2 my hard earned money to the government so that we can give "free" health insurance to everyone regardless of whether they've worked a day in their life OR regardless of whether they're even a legal US citizen (and paying taxes just like me).
If people would quit being lazy and realize that if you work, you can afford things and live. If not, you don't get free cable tv, free utilities, free food, free healthcare! They system of work for nothing and get everything is the system that will bankrupt and destroy the country.
P.s. Insurance companies are the crooks - they don't pay for squat now! I spend 1/2 my day doing prior authorizations for Rx that the patient has been taking for YEARS and all of the sudden they don't see a reason they need it anymore - then I have to give PMH, labs, excuses, and sometimes just demand they pay for it.
Guess what - they do it other places than healthcare too! My father-in-law is a defense attorney who does medical malpractice. He spends all his time defending doctors who get sued for stupid crap. Now insurance companies are telling him they aren't going to pay him for 3 hours of work because they think it only took him 1 1/2 - what kinda crap is that?
Are you implying there is a flaw in the GOP plan to barter chickens for your hip replacement? I thought we lived in Beckistan where our sacrifices to the Cult of the Free Market (tm) always yielded positive results?