Obama: You do the math

[Enyo]

Obama's acceptance speech was beautiful. He's right about a lot of things that are wrong with the Bush doctrine.

But there was one part that had me screaming at my TV in disbelief:

I will eliminate capital gains taxes for the small businesses and the start-ups that will create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow.

I will cut taxes - cut taxes - for 95% of all working families. Because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle-class.

How, may I ask, does he propose to cut taxes while introducing universal health care? I live in Canada now, but will be contacting the Embassy for my absentee voter ballot. Universal health care is the main reason that Canadians pay more taxes than Americans.

Even if we stopped funneling billions of dollars into Iraq right this instant, we still cannot afford to pay for Universal Health Care without raising taxes.

And this says nothing about the fact that our national debt is horrifying. We either need to take the steps to resolve it, or just hand our country over to China. No steps can be taken to reduce it if we reduce taxes and build universal health care. On the contrary, it can only go up.

So, tell me, is he running for President of the United States, or Mayor of Crazytown? I can't see anything more from him right now than flawed logic and false promises.:soapbox:

[Lateralus]

I like his idea of eliminating capital gains taxes for small businesses. I find it amusing and frustrating that he doesn't take the same approach for all businesses. It's as though once a company reaches a certain size, it instantly becomes evil and must be taxed into oblivion (ie. windfall profits tax on oil companies). He doesn't seem to realize that oil companies ALSO provide high paying jobs for Americans, and that raising taxes on them will cause oil companies to trim their workforce. That's inconsistency for you.

As for lowering taxes for 95% of Americans, great! I'd like to see taxes reduced for 100% of Americans. Rich people don't bury money in mattresses. They reinvest, which creates jobs. They consume, which creates jobs. When politicians engage in class warfare, it really annoys me because it shows how little they understand economics. It's nothing but pandering.

As for how we'll pay for universal health care, you're right. We can't pay for it without increasing tax revenue. Whether raising or lowering tax rates will accomplish that goal is debatable. We'll probably just print more money.

[Enyo]

We'll probably just print more money.

*weeps* Sadly enough, you're probably right.

[Little Linguist]

With an aging population it is entirely impossible to lower taxes like he said and introduce universal health care. I know because I live in Germany, and we have a system slightly more capitalistic than he wants to implement and we have about 40-60% income taxes, depending on your income and tax group. Trust me folks, what he wants to have is impossible.

Sort of like the bit about getting rid of nuclear weapons.

Oh yeah, and saying that he wants to pull out of Iraq but then saying to us Germans in Berlin that he might need to call on us to help with the war against terror which might mean needing more troops. Hahahaha.

But, okay, let's not be cynical. Let's assume that this guy is not just letting a big fart go. Let's assume this guy isn't just spewing rhetoric. Let's assume this guy is not a pie-in-the-sky dreamer. Assuming all that, which may or may not be the case:

How in the name of god's green earth do you expect a Republican controlled congress to approve of drastic measures like that????

Okay, tax breaks, maybe! But pulling out of Iraq completely???? Lowering the numbers of nuclear weapons???? Introducing universal health care????

Unless this guy becomes the next dictator of America, there is no way in HELL this guy is going to be able to put these drastic measures through Congress. No way in hell. So assuming he isn't bought off by interest groups, shot by some crazy fart, or manipulated by organizations and foreign interests - this STILL AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN FOLKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And IF the Congress gets a Democratic majority, which won't happen this year or next, there will be so much porkbarreling and filibustering that he might as well give it up before he starts.

Such are the wonderful, beautiful characteristics of democracy. Okay, perhaps the most humane system, one could argue (or not - heh where a country doesn't even guarantee basic human rights like health care and tax breaks to have a decent salary - but blows the shit out of other countries because they don't) it SURELY is NOT the most EFFICIENT form of government. :rolli:

[ajblaise]

With an aging population it is entirely impossible to lower taxes like he said and introduce universal health care. I know because I live in Germany, and we have a system slightly more capitalistic than he wants to implement and we have about 40-60% income taxes, depending on your income and tax group. Trust me folks, what he wants to have is impossible

It's very possible if taxes are raised on the top 5%. They own 95% of the wealth anyways.

And with the money people save on not having to pay for health care, they spend.

[Little Linguist]

It's very possible if taxes are raised on the top 5%. They own 95% of the wealth anyways.

And with the money people save on not having to pay for health care, they spend.

Yeah, that's clear. I'm not saying his ideas are BAD - they are GOOD. But we live in a real world with real-life actors, influences and systems and I'm telling you - you can be a fantastical dreamer in every other area of life - hell, I AM a dreamer in every other area of life - BUT NOT IN POLITICS!!!!! You have to be realistic, ice-cold, and rational. You cannot AFFORD to be anything else - and I don't just mean money. If you cannot take ideology and feelings out of it and make rational, intelligent decisions that are realistic, then you have no business in the White House or any other position of power.

Sorry, folks, but that's the truth. *shrugs* And this guy sounds to me like he should be a professor/teacher or director of a NGO non-profit org. NOT the president of one of the most influential countries of the world. *cringes*

On the other hand, the other fart ain't much better. *sigh* What a choice. A crazy ass, antagonistic fart who is stuck back in the cold war era and refuses to move on as he imposes his strange world view on the rest of the us, or an idealistic, pie-in-the-sky, irrational jackass who thinks he can just change everything by waving a magic wand and saying, TA-DA!

Sorry, I'll calm down now....<takes a deep breath>

[Jack Flak]

I don't like unpredictability in politicians either. Aside from increasing tax revenue and social spending, and trying to increase gun control, I have no idea what Obama will do in office, and that scares me.

[ajblaise]

Yeah, that's clear. I'm not saying his ideas are BAD - they are GOOD. But we live in a real world with real-life actors, influences and systems and I'm telling you - you can be a fantastical dreamer in every other area of life - hell, I AM a dreamer in every other area of life - BUT NOT IN POLITICS!!!!! You have to be realistic, ice-cold, and rational. You cannot AFFORD to be anything else - and I don't just mean money. If you cannot take ideology and feelings out of it and make rational, intelligent decisions that are realistic, then you have no business in the White House or any other position of power.

Sorry, folks, but that's the truth. *shrugs* And this guy sounds to me like he should be a professor/teacher or director of a NGO non-profit org. NOT the president of one of the most influential countries of the world. *cringes*

On the other hand, the other fart ain't much better. *sigh* What a choice. A crazy ass, antagonistic fart who is stuck back in the cold war era and refuses to move on as he imposes his strange world view on the rest of the us, or an idealistic, pie-in-the-sky, irrational jackass who thinks he can just change everything by waving a magic wand and saying, TA-DA!

Sorry, I'll calm down now....<takes a deep breath>

It basically comes down to what policies you support. Grandpa Alzheimer's votes with Bush 90% of the time, so if you think the Bush presidency is/was great, support McCain.

[ajblaise]

I don't like unpredictability in politicians either. Aside from increasing tax revenue and social spending, and trying to increase gun control, I have no idea what Obama will do in office, and that scares me.

Well, you can look at his voting record. He'll simply work to enact liberal Democrat policies.

[Lateralus]

It's very possible if taxes are raised on the top 5%. They own 95% of the wealth anyways.

And with the money people save on not having to pay for health care, they spend.
And with that, investment would decrease, further slowing the economy, which would raise unemployment. More people would become dependent on the government. But that's what Obama wants.

[Little Linguist]

I don't like unpredictability in politicians either. Aside from increasing tax revenue and social spending, and trying to increase gun control, I have no idea what Obama will do in office, and that scares me.

BINGO! All we know is he has some crazy, wild ideas. Americans and their Congress will support change but not wild revolutionary visions - no matter how good they are. And I have yet to see a clear-cut statement from him of what his agenda is. Scary shit if you ask me. Couple that with the fact that what he DOES say is absolutely not even debatable with the current political situation - we will have a SITTING DUCK at best and a TOTAL FART at worse.

*sigh* Again, I reiterate - I'm not AT ALL a McCain fan, but shit fire!!!! *shrugs*

America's going down folks, America is going down. It pains me to say it, but this is a slow process of degeneration. In 50 years' time at the LATEST America will be a world power similar to that of Britain or Germany - cool, interesting, but totally uninfluential.

What you SHOULD be looking out for are the countries that are increasing strength in the shadow of falling powers. Now that's some interesting stuff.

But if America does not implement radical change, and it cannot by virtue of its political system, it will be relegated to a lower-class 1st world country, like I had said before.

[Jack Flak]

McCain's voting record generally pleases me, fwiw.
Well, you can look at his voting record. He'll simply work to enact liberal Democrat policies.
He's been angling on the presidency for a long time, so I don't think he would have done anything too outrageous as a senator. He could get outrageous.

[ajblaise]

And with that, investment would decrease, further slowing the economy, which would raise unemployment.

Don't you understand that with more money in peoples pockets, businesses would get more revenue? The wealthy would pay more taxes, but would get more business at the same time.

[Lateralus]

Four years of gridlock might actually do us some good. The less the feds do, the better off we are.

[Little Linguist]

Well, you can look at his voting record. He'll simply work to enact liberal Democrat policies.

WORK TO ENACT are the key words here. Not pass. Implement. He can only implement policies that are passed in Congress. Which means if Congress plays stubborn chicken - he's a sitting duck. (Pun intended).

That's the problem.

I can't stand the creep McCain. He's as crazy a fart as I ever did see. But this Obama - he's also a crazy nut - but in a different more radical way.

My solution? I ain't voting. There isn't even a protest vote worth casting. Ferk. I'm sitting on my ass and watching the others decide the fate of their beloved country.

In three years' time I can say Auf Wiedersehen to the whole thing. And boy am I happy about that.

Sorry folks, but it's up to you. *shrugs*

[ajblaise]

He's been angling on the presidency for a long time, so I don't think he would have done anything too outrageous as a senator. He could get outrageous.

I can't think of any reasons why he would do much outside of the basic Democratic platform.

[Little Linguist]

Four years of gridlock might actually do us some good. The less the feds do, the better off we are.

Okay, good point. In that case, I'd vote for the guy if I were you just to ensure that. But god help y'all if a democratic congress gets in....

Maybe some good things will get done. I hope so. I mean it can't get much worse.

[Lateralus]

Don't you understand that with more money in peoples pockets, businesses would get more revenue? The wealthy would pay more taxes, but would get more business at the same time.
But I thought the rich had all the money. You said they had 95% of it. So what good would a small fraction of 5% do? :rolleyes:

Your circular logic is based on a flawed assumption, that government can be as efficient as the market. It cannot.

[Jack Flak]

I can't think of any reasons why he would do much outside of the basic Democratic platform.
I have it on good authority that he's a BLEEDIN COMMUNIST /rantriffic

[ajblaise]

WORK TO ENACT are the key words here. Not pass. Implement. He can only implement policies that are passed in Congress. Which means if Congress plays stubborn chicken - he's a sitting duck. (Pun intended).

That's the problem.

I can't stand the creep McCain. He's as crazy a fart as I ever did see. But this Obama - he's also a crazy nut - but in a different more radical way.

My solution? I ain't voting. There isn't even a protest vote worth casting. Ferk. I'm sitting on my ass and watching the others decide the fate of their beloved country.

In three years' time I can say Auf Wiedersehen to the whole thing. And boy am I happy about that.

Sorry folks, but it's up to you. *shrugs*

Well, the congress and senate will remain dominated by Democrats, some people say even more so.

And I'm not really hearing anything from Obama that's too crazy or nutty.

[Little Linguist]

I have it on good authority that he's a BLEEDIN COMMUNIST /rantriffic

It's a Chinese conspiracy!!!!!!! :D



Nah, I'm just kidding and bein' weird to lighten the mood a bit.

[Jack Flak]

Nah, I'm just kidding and bein' weird to lighten the mood a bit.
Are you trying to edge in on my speciality? :cry:

[ajblaise]

But I thought the rich had all the money. You said they had 95% of it. So what good would a small fraction of 5% do? :rolleyes:

Your circular logic is based on a flawed assumption, that government can be as efficient as the market. It cannot.

It would become more than 5% if the rich were taxed more. Countries with high progressive taxes do fine economically (northern europe).

And the market cannot efficiently deliver medical care to everyone, because it costs money. So naturally the government will be more efficient at deliver health care to everyone, which is the goal we are talking about.

[Little Linguist]

Are you trying to edge in on my speciality? :cry:

Awwww hon :hug: There now - feel betta???

;)

[Jack Flak]

It would become more than 5% if the rich were taxed more. Countries with high progressive taxes do fine economically (northern europe).
But the rich in countries with more socialized economies move to the USA every chance they get.

[ajblaise]

But the rich in countries with more socialized economies move to the USA every chance they get.

Well naturally, we have a huge economy and they want to expand. And those countries are doing just fine with some of their rich moving away.

[Little Linguist]

It would become more than 5% if the rich were taxed more. Countries with high progressive taxes do fine economically (northern europe).

And the market cannot efficiently deliver medical care to everyone, because it costs money. So naturally the government will be more efficient at deliver health care to everyone, which is the goal we are talking about.

I'm not questioning the fact that it would or wouldn't work. I'm questioning whether it will be accepted by Congress. I can't imagine executive powers would cover this area even after the increase in executive authority.

Not only that - but Germany is having a REALLY hard time managing its social benefits even with extremely high taxes due to our demographical dilemma. Trust me - that's a whole bowl of wax you may want to analyze a bit more before you have a definitive opinion.

Even so - okay, America probably has a hell of a lot more really wealthy people than Germany, for example. However, that does not mean that the government will necessarily operate more efficiently. Take Germany, for example. Our system is RIDDEN - positively RIDDEN - with bureaucracy and red tape - and MOST of it is due to all these benefits, people trying to take advantage of those benefits, and government trying to remedy the mistakes caused by these benefits. *sigh* So with great governmental influence comes a great price.

Are Americans really willing to pay this big of a price???

With their past history and culture, I cannot imagine that they would. It won't pass. Trust me. Too bad, but I'd bet my bottom dollar that these issues won't get through.

[Little Linguist]

But the rich in countries with more socialized economies move to the USA every chance they get.

Heh, also the people who WANT to get rich or WANT to get rid of the really shitty bureaucratic burdens. Have to agree with you on that.

Germany is experiencing a HUGE 'brain drain' as a result of this problem. HUGE. German students are taking advantage of the cheap education here and then going off to Canada or USA to start their own businesses or expand their education to get better chances of getting jobs without being taxed to the hilt.

Think about this folks, really - think about it rationally and seriously. Not just the short-term benefits, but also the long-term consequences.

[ajblaise]

I'm not questioning the fact that it would or wouldn't work. I'm questioning whether it will be accepted by Congress. I can't imagine executive powers would cover this area even after the increase in executive authority.

Not only that - but Germany is having a REALLY hard time managing its social benefits even with extremely high taxes due to our demographical dilemma. Trust me - that's a whole bowl of wax you may want to analyze a bit more before you have a definitive opinion.

Even so - okay, America probably has a hell of a lot more really wealthy people than Germany, for example. However, that does not mean that the government will necessarily operate more efficiently. Take Germany, for example. Our system is RIDDEN - positively RIDDEN - with bureaucracy and red tape - and MOST of it is due to all these benefits, people trying to take advantage of those benefits, and government trying to remedy the mistakes caused by these benefits. *sigh* So with great governmental influence comes a great price.

Are Americans really willing to pay this big of a price???

With their past history and culture, I cannot imagine that they would. It won't pass. Trust me. Too bad, but I'd bet my bottom dollar that these issues won't get through.

If Democrats pick up seats this term, which they most likely will, it could definitely pass in congress. Dems want to keep getting re-elected and their constituents want universal health care.

[Lateralus]

It would become more than 5% if the rich were taxed more. Countries with high progressive taxes do fine economically (northern europe).
Did you know that residents of the state of New York already have a cumulative tax rate higher than any European nation? Probably not. But you advocate raising those taxes even higher.

Newsflash. The US is not Europe. We're much larger and far more diverse than any single European nation. Programs in tiny European nations like Denmark won't necessarily produce the same results in the US.

And the market cannot efficiently deliver medical care to everyone, because it costs money. So naturally the government will be more efficient at deliver health care to everyone, which is the goal we are talking about.
Right, food distribution also costs money. The government will be more efficient at that as well, right? :rolleyes:

[Little Linguist]

If Democrats pick up seats this term, which they most likely will, it could definitely pass in congress. Dems want to keep getting re-elected and their constituents want universal health care.

Hmmm, perhaps - I always wondered how the switch would be implemented? What would happen to all the people who work for HMOs? Heh. Or how would the financial switch occur? HOW does he want to implement it - that's the interesting thing. America has to basically BUILD a new system.

And what makes you all so sure that the government is efficient at such things??? Hell, it can't even balance a budget, win a war, or maintain social security for heaven's sake!!!

[Jack Flak]

Heh, also the people who WANT to get rich or WANT to get rid of the really shitty bureaucratic burdens. Have to agree with you on that.

Germany is experiencing a HUGE 'brain drain' as a result of this problem. HUGE. German students are taking advantage of the cheap education here and then going off to Canada or USA to start their own businesses or expand their education to get better chances of getting jobs without being taxed to the hilt.

Think about this folks, really - think about it rationally and seriously. Not just the short-term benefits, but also the long-term consequences.
That's why socialism and communism only work if the whole world is tied to the same system. Marx said that, but people only remember what they want to about his writing, methinks.

[IlyaK1986]

WAAAH WE RICH GET TAXED TOO MUCH WAAAH.

Oh cry me a river. Those taxes won't cause them to lose that multi-million dollar penthouse, or be no longer able to afford that private jet or the five-star restaurants, the bazillion-karat jewelry, or whatever else the rich do with those mountains of cash they get (I can't even imagine it).

Yes, you shouldn't be punished for doing well, HOWEVER: the notion that trickle-down economics works is a FANTASY. A bunch of

"bureaucrats, with their steak lunches, their corporate jets, their hunting and fishing trips, and their golden parachutes" (--Gordon Gekko)

are NOT the most efficient target of tax breaks!

If you make a ton more money, then you should also pay more taxes. The end.

Obama '08!

[ajblaise]

Did you know that residents of the state of New York already have a cumulative tax rate higher than any European nation? Probably not. But you advocate raising those taxes even higher.

Newsflash. The US is not Europe. We're much larger and far more diverse than any single European nation. Programs in tiny European nations like Denmark won't necessarily produce the same results in the US.

I'm advocated raising it on the wealthy and lowering it for the low and middle class. There certainly isn't any shortage or rich people in NY despite the high taxes.

Right, food distribution also costs money. The government will be more efficient at that as well, right? :rolleyes:

They can't distribute food to everyone on their own (because they won't do it for free) which is why people turn to food stamps. On health care, the market will never deliver to everyone, only universal health care can.

[Lateralus]

WAAAH WE RICH GET TAXED TOO MUCH WAAAH.

Oh cry me a river. Those taxes won't cause them to lose that multi-million dollar penthouse, or be no longer able to afford that private jet or the five-star restaurants, the bazillion-karat jewelry, or whatever else the rich do with those mountains of cash they get (I can't even imagine it).

Yes, you shouldn't be punished for doing well, HOWEVER: the notion that trickle-down economics works is a FANTASY. A bunch of

"bureaucrats, with their steak lunches, their corporate jets, their hunting and fishing trips, and their golden parachutes" (--Gordon Gekko)

are NOT the most efficient target of tax breaks!

If you make a ton more money, then you should also pay more taxes. The end.

Obama '08!
They do pay more taxes.

[Little Linguist]

That's why socialism and communism only work if the whole world is tied to the same system. Marx said that, but people only remember what they want to about his writing, methinks.

Agreed.

WAAAH WE RICH GET TAXED TOO MUCH WAAAH.

Oh cry me a river. Those taxes won't cause them to lose that multi-million dollar penthouse, or be no longer able to afford that private jet or the five-star restaurants, the bazillion-karat jewelry, or whatever else the rich do with those mountains of cash they get (I can't even imagine it).

Yes, you shouldn't be punished for doing well, HOWEVER: the notion that trickle-down economics works is a FANTASY. A bunch of

"bureaucrats, with their steak lunches, their corporate jets, their hunting and fishing trips, and their golden parachutes" (--Gordon Gekko)

are NOT the most efficient target of tax breaks!

If you make a ton more money, then you should also pay more taxes. The end.

Obama '08!

Oh hush, now, be calm. :hug:

We never said we agreed with trickle-down economics; we never said we liked McCain; we never said we did not agree with a progressive tax system where the rich are taxed more than the middle-class. We said that the things that Obama wants to implement are not feasible because they are just difficult to implement, both in terms of structure and finance. We don't need pie-in-the-sky ideas; we NEED solutions. And you cannot say that you promise change but construct that change in such a way that it could never work and then bitch to your constituency that you tried but Congress did not work with you and blahblahblah when it is all just a big farce. THAT is what we said.

[ajblaise]

And what makes you all so sure that the government is efficient at such things??? Hell, it can't even balance a budget, win a war, or maintain social security for heaven's sake!!!

Government is the only option when universal health care is concerned. If they can get someone to the moon, they can provide health care. Canada and Europe does it, why can't we?

[Lateralus]

I'm advocated raising it on the wealthy and lowering it for the low and middle class. There certainly isn't any shortage or rich people in NY despite the high taxes.
You obviously didn't understand my response.

They can't distribute food to everyone on their own (because they won't do it for free) which is why people turn to food stamps. On health care, the market will never deliver to everyone, only universal health care can.
Your previous argument was that government is more efficient. Your argument has changed, unless you're completely redefining the term efficiency.

[ajblaise]

We said that the things that Obama wants to implement are not feasible because they are just difficult to implement, both in terms of structure and finance. We don't need pie-in-the-sky ideas; we NEED solutions.

Obama made 29 specific policy promises in his last speech. As we get closer to the election, he is getting more and more specific about actual policy, McCain better follow soon.

[ajblaise]

You obviously didn't understand my response.


Your previous argument was that government is more efficient. Your argument has changed, unless you're completely redefining the term efficiency.

You're really reachin now. Government would be more efficient at universal health care than the market, because the market won't do it. They are the only option.

[Jack Flak]

Government is the only option when universal health care is concerned. If they can get someone to the moon, they can provide health care. Canada and Europe does it, why can't we?
Yeah, let's slow down medical innovation and reduce the quality of care. There is a downside to everything, man.

[Lateralus]

You're really reachin now. Government would be more efficient at universal health care than the market, because the market won't do it. They are the only option.
Before I even bother responding to this, I want to know your definition of efficiency, because I don't think we're on the same page here at all.

[Little Linguist]

Government is the only option when universal health care is concerned. If they can get someone to the moon, they can provide health care. Canada and Europe does it, why can't we?

Now, I'm trying to maintain my patience and composure here. If you agree with the systems in Europe, then maybe you should take a closer look at the serious direct and indirect CRISES going on as a result. If you don't take my word for it, ask any knowledgeable Europeans on this forum. You think I'm a biased, selfish ass? Ask them. They will tell you. Seriously. And I can tell you when you look at your paycheck and it is HALF of what you got before, you will sing a different song when it comes to universal health care, especially when you have to wait 3 hours to see a doctor and you still have to pay a copay on things. And you see people with PRIVATE health care (i.e.: rich asses) who get in first, and some doctors ONLY take private health care patients because the government IS so inefficient. YEAH. SO, it is not the cure-all. It's a good first step, sure. But America won't take it. I'm sure of it.

[ajblaise]

Yeah, let's slow down medical innovation and reduce the quality of care. There is a downside to everything, man.

The healthiest countries in the world have universal health care. There are downsides, but they don't outweigh the upsides, e.g. a healthy populous.

[Enyo]

Well, the congress and senate will remain dominated by Democrats, some people say even more so.

And I'm not really hearing anything from Obama that's too crazy or nutty.

Everything that he says *sounds* beautiful. The man is a brilliant orator. When he speaks, it sounds as if anything really and truly is possible.

Until you stop and look at what it is that he'd like to pull off. When you begin to look at the numbers that it would take to make his visions a reality, you realize that it is not possible to do these things at a government level without excessive taxation and increasing our national debt.

The solution is less government, not more. The free market can correct most of the issues that we have. The mortgage crisis and the housing slump? Unfortunately, that *is* the correction due to the rapid overinflation that the real estate market has experienced in the years past.

I'd like to say that the solution is to buy American, but there's not even enough American manufacturing left to make that possible. Maybe the solution is to focus on a local level, rather than on a national level. Support the small mom-and-pop retailers instead of the big box and discount chains. Take the education system out of the hands of the federal government and restore it to the state and local levels. If you have an option, buy locally grown produce at the farmer's market instead of going to the national grocery store.

Become community activists. Work for the changes that we want to see to happen at a community level, whether that's getting involved with politics or local charities or both. Return to a charitable support system and get away from the welfare state. If we can't completely get away from the welfare system that we've built, then go back to it being what it was meant to be: a hand-up, not a hand-out.

What he wants to see in the country in terms of opportunities is beautiful. But making it a government mandate for it to happen is a thing of terror.

I think I'm voting Libertarian this year, even though Bob Barr isn't my first choice, either.

Damn McCain for picking Palin for a running mate. I was all but praying for Romney. At least he understands the economy.

[Little Linguist]

*sigh* I agree that HMOs are not the right solution. I agree that it is crap that some people fall through the cracks and are not insured. I agree that some reforms need to be made. BUT there must be a more efficient, more effective way of doing it than just calling on the dear ol' American government to step in and take charge when it has proven time and again that it is inefficient when it comes to basic, VITAL needs.

[Jack Flak]

But people come to America to get the best possible treatment. (There are a few other countries like Israel iirc which do a great job as well)

And I'm pretty sure American R&D had quite a hand in the techniques used all over the world.

[ajblaise]

Before I even bother responding to this, I want to know your definition of efficiency, because I don't think we're on the same page here at all.

There is no more efficient way to provide universal health care because there are no other viable ways of providing it. Define efficiency however you want. This is simple logic.

[Little Linguist]

Everything that he says *sounds* beautiful. The man is a brilliant orator. When he speaks, it sounds as if anything really and truly is possible.

Until you stop and look at what it is that he'd like to pull off. When you begin to look at the numbers that it would take to make his visions a reality, you realize that it is not possible to do these things at a government level without excessive taxation and increasing our national debt.

The solution is less government, not more. The free market can correct most of the issues that we have. The mortgage crisis and the housing slump? Unfortunately, that *is* the correction due to the rapid overinflation that the real estate market has experienced in the years past.

I'd like to say that the solution is to buy American, but there's not even enough American manufacturing left to make that possible. Maybe the solution is to focus on a local level, rather than on a national level. Support the small mom-and-pop retailers instead of the big box and discount chains. Take the education system out of the hands of the federal government and restore it to the state and local levels. If you have an option, buy locally grown produce at the farmer's market instead of going to the national grocery store.

Become community activists. Work for the changes that we want to see to happen at a community level, whether that's getting involved with politics or local charities or both. Return to a charitable support system and get away from the welfare state. If we can't completely get away from the welfare system that we've built, then go back to it being what it was meant to be: a hand-up, not a hand-out.

What he wants to see in the country in terms of opportunities is beautiful. But making it a government mandate for it to happen is a thing of terror.

I think I'm voting Libertarian this year, even though Bob Barr isn't my first choice, either.

Damn McCain for picking Palin for a running mate. I was all but praying for Romney. At least he understands the economy.

AMEN!!!!! Listen to him ^^ This is what I am saying. The man has great ideas - don't get me wrong. But they are IDEAS and IDEALS - NOT practical solutions. Perhaps in 50 years' time, when America is ready and humbled not to go trapsing all over the world in search of glory as world policeman, you guys can settle down and re-evaluate your priorities.

But as it currently stands, it would never work. Think about this through!!!! The American government can't even manage the SS sytem at the moment!!! They are talking about demographic crises here - people losing their SS money - and now they want to start universal health care??? Am I dreaming????

[Enyo]

The healthiest countries in the world have universal health care. There are downsides, but they don't outweigh the upsides, e.g. a healthy populous.

I've lived in a countries that have both.

I had a better doctor in the States than I have in Canada. I could get in to actually *see* my doctor in the States.

But because I currently live in Canada, I was actually able to afford to get biopsies done on skin lesions (aka "moles"). And the one on my face was done by a plastic surgeon.

People have to wait so long for specialists here in Canada that they sometimes die while waiting to get in for that chemotherapy. It doesn't matter how much money you have; you'll still die waiting. It's to the point that Canadians who can afford it will go to other countries for medical treatment so that they can get it *then*.

Yeah, great system.

[Little Linguist]

But people come to America to get the best possible treatment. (There are a few other countries like Israel iirc which do a great job as well)

And I'm pretty sure American R&D had quite a hand in the techniques used all over the world.

Kudos. Another good argument. This is because America does not have as much bureaucracy. Germany is as capable and intelligent as USA - probably more so if we did not have the so called 'brain drain' phenomenon (sorry guys) - BUT we don't have the results? Why? Because our bureaucracy STIFLES us.

[ajblaise]

AMEN!!!!! Listen to him ^^ This is what I am saying. The man has great ideas - don't get me wrong. But they are IDEAS and IDEALS - NOT practical solutions.

He listed 29 practical specific policy promises in his last speech, what more do you want? He's being substantive.

[Carebear]

Yeah, let's slow down medical innovation and reduce the quality of care. There is a downside to everything, man.

Hm... I don't see how medical innovation would be slowed down. Nobody's advocating letting government take over the medical research. And yes, quality of care might go down a bit for a some, but up a lot for those that didn't have any. And there are always better options for people with money.

That said:
I agree with LL to a large extent. I can't see how Obama can possibly manage to get it all done. Still, he's a step in the right direction in my opinion, and better a period or two with a toothless democrat following harmless democrat policies than another John Wayne. Well, better for the rest of the world at least. I don't really see how the American Empire can be saved long term no matter what it does.

[Lateralus]

There is no more efficient way to provide universal health care because there are no other viable ways of providing it. Define efficiency however you want. This is simple logic.
You're dodging the question. It seems to me that you're defining efficiency to mean "access for all", but that's not what efficiency is. Efficiency is a ratio of input vs output.

[Jack Flak]

Hm... I don't see how medical innovation would be slowed down. Nobody's advocating letting government take over the medical research. And yes, quality of care might go down a bit for a some, but up a lot for those that didn't have any. And there are always better options for people with money.
That's simple. If the research isn't driven by profit, you won't have efficient companies which demand results pumping money into it. Money=Personnel+Materials+Time

[Little Linguist]

I've lived in a countries that have both.

I had a better doctor in the States than I have in Canada. I could get in to actually *see* my doctor in the States.

But because I currently live in Canada, I was actually able to afford to get biopsies done on skin lesions (aka "moles"). And the one on my face was done by a plastic surgeon.

People have to wait so long for specialists here in Canada that they sometimes die while waiting to get in for that chemotherapy. It doesn't matter how much money you have; you'll still die waiting. It's to the point that Canadians who can afford it will go to other countries for medical treatment so that they can get it *then*.

Yeah, great system.

Exactly, exactly!!! Enyo, you are RIGHT on the money, here. And I can vouch 100%.

Now the hospitals in Germany have another serious crisis: They cannot afford to pay too many doctors. And doctors in Germany make WAYYYYYY less than doctors in the USA (which would result in a further problem). So what happens? Doctors end up having to be on call for crazy amounts of hours, including surgeons. Tell me - if a surgeon has been on call and working for 24 hours straight - do you want this man performing surgery on YOU?!

If you have a cold, you have to wait in the waiting room for 1 1/2 to 3 or more hours, even if you arrive first. God help you if you don't have an appointment and it is not a serious emergency - you might wait longer.

When I was in the hospital with a completely numb leg, I had to wait three freaking hours or MORE - until they discovered - oh shit - this woman actually has pieces of vertebrae in her spinal column. Then, things progressed relatively quickly, thank goodness, and I was damned lucky because a doctor who should have been going home for the weekend volunteered to operate on me anyway, even though he could have left it til Monday. He was a good man. I was lucky. Not everyone would have done that, especially when doctors in Germany work 16-20 hour days and get like, HALF of doctors in the USA.

This is what I'm talking about.

[ajblaise]

It seems to me that you're defining efficiency to mean "access for all", but that's not what efficiency is.

Not at all. The market is more efficient at providing care for some, but the government would be the most efficient at providing it for all, since they are the only viable means to do so. It's a simple concept.

[Lateralus]

People have to wait so long for specialists here in Canada that they sometimes die while waiting to get in for that chemotherapy. It doesn't matter how much money you have; you'll still die waiting. It's to the point that Canadians who can afford it will go to other countries for medical treatment so that they can get it *then*.
But that's "fair". :rolleyes:

[Little Linguist]

He listed 29 practical specific policy promises in his last speech, what more do you want? He's being substantive.

What good does specific policy *promises* mean if they are not doable???

By the way, as a little aside, do you know what? In English grammar, promises are made in will future tense. You know why? Because the will future is used for things that are not 100% certain.

So that should give you an idea regarding the English-speaking world's view on 'promises.' heh.

In German, they are also made in our WILL future because our will future is used only for things that are 100% sure. Yeah. Cultural difference I guess.

[Jack Flak]

Not at all. The market is more efficient at providing care for some, but the government would be the most efficient at providing it for all, since they are the only viable means to do so. It's a simple concept.
Everyone but you seems to realize there are pros and cons of every possible solution. If you assess all the data properly, and still decide to be pro-socialism, that's fine. But don't ignore downsides.

[Enyo]

He listed 29 practical specific policy promises in his last speech, what more do you want? He's being substantive.

But not realistic. Accomplishing these specifics is at odds with the capital that we can put forth on making these specific fantasies a reality.

[ajblaise]

What good does specific policy *promises* mean if they are not doable???

By the way, as a little aside, do you know what? In English grammar, promises are made in will future tense. You know why? Because the will future is used for things that are not 100% certain.

So that should give you an idea regarding the English-speaking world's view on 'promises.' heh.

In German, they are also made in our WILL future because our will future is used only for things that are 100% sure. Yeah. Cultural difference I guess.

Most of the policies he wants have already been done in other more left-leaning countries, at least to a degree. I'm not really hearing anything too radical coming his discussions on policy.

[Enyo]

But that's "fair". :rolleyes:

*grins* While this may seem like a very un-NTJ thing to say, fairness is overrated. Not when fair doesn't work any better than unfair.

[Lateralus]

Not at all. The market is more efficient at providing care for some, but the government would be the most efficient at providing it for all, since they are the only viable means to do so. It's a simple concept.
A simple concept, pfft. You're just shifting your argument.

I don't know why I waste my time with you. You have such a poor understanding of economics, I feel like I'm discussing hygiene with a hobo.

[IlyaK1986]

Isn't it the case that the top 10% of this nation's population own 90% of the nation's wealth? So if you reduce taxes for the bottom 10% of the wealth and increase it for the top 90% of the wealth by equal or greater amounts, don't you come out ahead?

I realize that Obama is a brilliant orator and makes a lot of things sound possible. But I'd rather we have a president that shot the moon and hit the stars than a president that promises more of the same and keeps that promise.

Is it idealistic? You bet. That's why I like the guy. I also can relate to him. I myself am an immigrant that came to this country when I was four. Between me and my two parents, we had $15 and 2 suitcases, coming from Russia. And now, I think I'm going to have a good shot at Wall Street coming out of college.

I can relate with a mother working to make ends meet, and a father that didn't really help with too much. I can relate to being idealistic, and making everything out of a chance at education, and pulling yourself up by your bootstraps.

And I would much rather have an idealist in office that makes at least something work than this geezer that can't even remember how many homes his family owns. Come on now.

I'm not sure Obama can do everything he says. But I'd love to see him try. It's better than the third term of Bush.

[Little Linguist]

Most of the policies he wants have already been done in other more left-leaning countries, at least to a degree. I'm not really hearing anything too radical coming his discussions on policy.

Look, no offense, buddy, but haven't you been listening to me??? The system is inefficient. It's not totally USELESS - but it is INEFFICIENT. I mean, I thank goodness every day that I had my OP completely paid for and that I have four weeks of rehab that only required me to pay a copay of 50 euros. If I had not had that option, I would probably be unable to walk, have children, or go to the bathroom anymore. TRUST ME - I am THANKFUL.

But this system as it works now will not last forever. You have to admit that. I mean, Jeez Louise, we are experiencing a demographic shift where there is the 'reverse pyramid' phenomenon. Are you aware of what I mean? The base of society (by the way, also the tax-paying part) should be young people. The middle should be middle-aged people. The smallest tip should be older people. But now it's reverse.

In Germany, we are now worried about the possibility that we may not have a dignified health care system and death in the future. Why? Because we are heading towards the American system. WE HAVE TO. We cannot pay for it anymore!!!!!!

Ten to twenty years ago, people were getting rehab and 'cures' whenever they didn't want to work or when they wanted to get free holiday. I'm NOT shitting you now. And the system was great - til the reunification and all our money went to East Germany and then the economic crisis and the dot com bubble burst, and shit fire! We did not have the money anymore - imagine that! Ferk - what to do????

Yeah, so now we are reforming our system towards the American version because it just does not work in the long run. *shrugs* People never fail to abuse systems and cause them to fall.

In a perfect system full of machines, your premise might work. But in the real world :hi: <----We're down here - on the ground, by the way - it does not work.

[Little Linguist]

But not realistic. Accomplishing these specifics is at odds with the capital that we can put forth on making these specific fantasies a reality.

RIGHT!!!!

[Little Linguist]

*grins* While this may seem like a very un-NTJ thing to say, fairness is overrated. Not when fair doesn't work any better than unfair.

Heh. Right!!! :doh:

[Lateralus]

In a perfect system full of machines, your premise might work. But in the real world :hi: <----We're down here - on the ground, by the way - it does not work.
You hit on the primary point of why socialism (and all of its various forms) fails. It's based on a flawed understanding of human nature.

[IlyaK1986]

Fairness indeed is overrated, but thinking about it from a social architectural standpoint, the rich can't stay rich when everyone else is poor. Not in a first-world nation anyway. Look, I want to get filthy stinking rich so that everyone on Wall Street knows my name. I want to live at the top of a skyscraper, pay for my kids' educations to go to elite private schools and top-notch universities, have all the perks of a good life, etc. and so forth. In fact, it'd be the ultimate example of the American dream considering that my first two years in this country were living in a cockroach infested apartment.

HOWEVER: most of the people in this country are not as ambitious as I am, and they're the ones that provide the most man-hours into this economy. Without them, we go to hell in a hand-basket. I believe that if I work hard enough, I'll get my just rewards. In the meantime, I am a citizen of the U.S.A., and as such a citizen, especially one that's been in the lower class living off of food stamps, one that's in the middle class now, and one that wants to be in the upper echelons, I have to ensure that that same chance is offered to every single other person living in the U.S.A. who wants this country and others like it (read: Israel) to prosper.

Greed is good.

However, the key is to make sure that this ambition for lots of goodies reaches down to the little people so that they can make our country better.

[Lateralus]

Fairness indeed is overrated, but thinking about it from a social architectural standpoint, the rich can't stay rich when everyone else is poor. Not in a first-world nation anyway. Look, I want to get filthy stinking rich so that everyone on Wall Street knows my name. I want to live at the top of a skyscraper, pay for my kids' educations to go to elite private schools and top-notch universities, have all the perks of a good life, etc. and so forth. In fact, it'd be the ultimate example of the American dream considering that my first two years in this country were living in a cockroach infested apartment.

HOWEVER: most of the people in this country are not as ambitious as I am, and they're the ones that provide the most man-hours into this economy. Without them, we go to hell in a hand-basket. I believe that if I work hard enough, I'll get my just rewards. In the meantime, I am a citizen of the U.S.A., and as such a citizen, especially one that's been in the lower class living off of food stamps, one that's in the middle class now, and one that wants to be in the upper echelons, I have to ensure that that same chance is offered to every single other person living in the U.S.A. who wants this country and others like it (read: Israel) to prosper.

Greed is good.

However, the key is to make sure that this ambition for lots of goodies reaches down to the little people so that they can make our country better.
It already does. What we're doing now is creating a system that ensures equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. That leads to stagnation.

[Little Linguist]

You hit on the primary point of why socialism (and all of its various forms) fails. It's based on a flawed understanding of human nature.

Precisely, Lateralus, precisely. I would love to think that human beings are usually good and usually do the right thing. I would love to think that everyone should care for one another and that no one should have to get sick and die when they can get helped. I would love to have a society in which all members did their equal share and put forward their ideas, their work, and their abilities as they saw fit.

BUT - it does not WORK. Take a look at East Germany. Take a look at the East European block countries. Take a look at Russia.

All the countries who sort of came out winners were folks that were not tightly controlled, like Romania, for example, which had a comparatively lenient system. Everyone else has huge barriers and problems now that are only covered over through EU funds and German resources (in the case of East Germany). Shit fire, folks. Sure, there are good aspects. In a perfect society with perfect people who were not total shitheads, socialism WOULD work.

But we're talking about human beings here. And they use the system and take advantage whenever they can - because if they don't, they will get shit on by other people. It's like nature. You cannot run away from nature because it is uncomfortable.

It's survival of the fittest folks. And take it or leave it - one day, we all have to face it. It's shitty. Sometimes it's unfair. But it's the law of nature. The law of physics. The law of biology. *Shrugs* And it is the law of human beings, too. Because as much as we humans estrange ourselves from nature, we are part of it and follow the same laws. No system - democratic or otherwise - can change it.

So socialism WILL FAIL - as all systems will. Democracy will fail, too. And that will hopefully lead to an evolutionary development rather than a devolutionary setback.

[Enyo]

So socialism WILL FAIL - as all systems will. Democracy will fail, too. And that will hopefully lead to an evolutionary development rather than a devolutionary setback.

But will they fail permanently? Democracy is not a new concept. It rose. It fell. It rose again.

While the nations/empires that practiced democracy may be over, it doesn't mean that democracy won't rise again.

[Eileen]

I have it on good authority that he's a BLEEDIN COMMUNIST /rantriffic

Some people also have it on good authority that he's a Muslim and a terrorist.

[Jack Flak]

Some people also have it on good authority that he's a Muslim and a terrorist.
Yes! Exactly.

[Lateralus]

Some people also have it on good authority that he's a Muslim and a terrorist.
Bill Ayers is a terrorist, and a long-time friend of Obama. That doesn't prove that Obama is a terrorist, but it does raise some questions regarding his judgment.

[Magic Poriferan]

Bill Ayers is a terrorist, and a long-time friend of Obama. That doesn't prove that Obama is a terrorist, but it does raise some questions regarding his judgment.

One thing I've learned is that politics and personal life are two very different realms. I've been friends with many people that I would honestly assassinate to keep from holding an office.

[Not_Me]

*grins* While this may seem like a very un-NTJ thing to say, fairness is overrated. Not when fair doesn't work any better than unfair.

If you have 2 equally bad system, you're suggesting that the fair one is not preferable?

[Not_Me]

The Canadian health care system ensures that everyone gets access to mediocre service. The American one rations higher quality service to only the people who can afford it. Both system sucks.

[Not_Me]

A simple concept, pfft. You're just shifting your argument.

I don't know why I waste my time with you. You have such a poor understanding of economics, I feel like I'm discussing hygiene with a hobo.

Why do you resort to condescending personal attacks instead of debating his/her point? If s/he respond in kind, then the discussion will just degenerate into an insult secession.

[Lateralus]

If you have 2 equally bad system, you're suggesting that the fair one is not preferable?
Who says they're equally bad?

[Lateralus]

Why do you resort to condescending personal attacks instead of debating his/her point? If s/he respond in kind, then the discussion will just degenerate into an insult secession.
Because I had already debated those points. It's a waste of time to repeat myself. My assessment was that ajblaise doesn't understand economics. That's why he's caught in his illogical loop.

[Not_Me]

Who says they're equally bad?

Enyo appears to be asserting that fairness is unimportant.

[Magic Poriferan]

It is typical of lateralus to attribute all disagreance with him to a lack of education.

Anyway, I like a system where health costs are proportionate. They're based on how much the patient can afford. That way, even the down-trodden get covered, but the system doesn't run out of money, since so much can be reaped from the wealthiest citizens.

However, I'm probably going to be told that it is somehow unfair to take excess money from the rich and use it to save dying people.

[Athenian200]

Obama's acceptance speech was beautiful. He's right about a lot of things that are wrong with the Bush doctrine.

But there was one part that had me screaming at my TV in disbelief:



How, may I ask, does he propose to cut taxes while introducing universal health care? I live in Canada now, but will be contacting the Embassy for my absentee voter ballot. Universal health care is the main reason that Canadians pay more taxes than Americans.

Even if we stopped funneling billions of dollars into Iraq right this instant, we still cannot afford to pay for Universal Health Care without raising taxes.

And this says nothing about the fact that our national debt is horrifying. We either need to take the steps to resolve it, or just hand our country over to China. No steps can be taken to reduce it if we reduce taxes and build universal health care. On the contrary, it can only go up.

So, tell me, is he running for President of the United States, or Mayor of Crazytown? I can't see anything more from him right now than flawed logic and false promises.:soapbox:

I read his book, "Audacity of Hope." My opinion was that he's an eloquent speaker with good intentions. However, I don't think he's right for president. He seems more qualified to be a motivational speaker. He has the charisma, but I don't think he has the skills to be president. There's a chance he might choose a good cabinet if he gets elected, of course, but he doesn't really seem to understand the issues himself.

It's possible, though, that he's just telling people what they want to hear, and has a completely different agenda than he advertises. He may well understand more than he seems to. I have no idea.

[Lateralus]

It is typical of lateralus to attribute all disagreance with him to a lack of education.
All disagreements? That's a pretty broad claim. If you had said 'disagreements with socialists', your statement might have some validity, but you didn't.

Anyway, I like a system where health costs are proportionate. They're based on how much the patient can afford. That way, even the down-trodden get covered, but the system doesn't run out of money, since so much can be reaped from the wealthiest citizens.

However, I'm probably going to be told that it is somehow unfair to take excess money from the rich and use it to save dying people.
No, what would happen is that the rich would just go outside the system. Result: Bankruptcy, another failed intellectual social experiment.

[Little Linguist]

I read his book, "Audacity of Hope." My opinion was that he's an eloquent speaker with good intentions. However, I don't think he's right for president. He seems more qualified to be a motivational speaker. He has the charisma, but I don't think he has the skills to be president. There's a chance he might choose a good cabinet if he gets elected, of course, but he doesn't really seem to understand the issues himself.

It's possible, though, that he's just telling people what they want to hear, and has a completely different agenda than he advertises. He may well understand more than he seems to. I have no idea.

RIGHT! Very good post - this is exactly what I meant. Kudos for you.

[Little Linguist]

All disagreements? That's a pretty broad claim. If you had said 'disagreements with socialists', your statement might have some validity, but you didn't.


No, what would happen is that the rich would just go outside the system. Result: Bankruptcy, another failed intellectual social experiment.

What you have to understand (you: general) is that it would not fail immediately. For a while - perhaps even 40 years if the economy is good and America gets strong again - it would work. Then everyone sits on their laurels, abuses the system, etc. Do you really think the rich will ever pay a proportionate amount of taxes? Hell no. They would just get more write-offs so that they don't have to pay.

So who - in effect - pays for the system? Not the poor - they cannot afford it. Not the rich - they don't want to afford it, and they have sleazy accountants who can circumvent the laws in legal ways. The solution? About 35-40% of the population (the middle class, who is struggling in America as it is) pays for the health care of 95% of the nation for mediocre service, while the rich bastards get private health care, which is better anyway.

I'm not saying the American system is better. There are some serious issues that need to be revamped. No question. In a land where so much money is made, no one should have to die when he/she could have lived if they had the money. But I'm not so sure that universal health care is the way to go.

On a more positive note, I wonder if there isn't some kind of middle ground - something that would ensure quality and competition while allowing everyone to get some form of health care while avoiding bureaucratic nonsense. It'd be something to ponder.

What do you think????

[Magic Poriferan]

No, what would happen is that the rich would just go outside the system. Result: Bankruptcy, another failed intellectual social experiment.

Go outside the system to what?

[Peguy]

Wow some interesting points were made in this thread. Especially by Little Linguist, keep the good work up. :)

Unfortunately, Im not entirely able to contribute much at this time. Im worn out from the various discussions I had about church-state relations and whatnot.

I will throw in my two cents and state that yes the welfare state is an inefficient system and in the end cannot be sustained. Obama's policies for "change" are largely just further developments of the kind of system America has lived under since FDR's New Deal.

If Obama really was interested in change, he'd propose starting the process in dismantling the system before it collaspes under it's own weight. Unfortunately the only candidate to propose such a thing(Ron Paul) was snuffed out by the media and the political elites.

[Peguy]

On a more positive note, I wonder if there isn't some kind of middle ground - something that would ensure quality and competition while allowing everyone to get some form of health care while avoiding bureaucratic nonsense. It'd be something to ponder.

What do you think????

Yes there is and it goes by countless names, depending on which area of the political spectrum you decide to look. Within Anglo-Catholic circles it was referred to as Distributism, within German Catholic circles it was called Solidarism, within many Left-wing circles it was called Mutualism, within some American Republican circles it was called Democratic Capitalism. Some enviromentalists call it Bioregionalism. And numerous other names.

The basic premises of such a system is a free but fair market, and a market built upon the foundation of local-based economies - as opposed to an abstract global corporate economy. Now that doesn't mean international trade is non-existant, far from it. Rather the notion is that local economic needs have to be taken care of first before one considers global trade.

The economist E.F. Schumacher referred to this as "economics as if people matter". And he also summarised its creed as follows: "small is beautiful".

That's about as simple as I can explain it at the moment, but so much more is involved.

If you want, I can post some interesting stuff on this if you're interested in further exploring it. :)

[Enyo]

If you have 2 equally bad system, you're suggesting that the fair one is not preferable?

You're assuming that they're equally bad. Having lived in both, I can say that I honestly don't feel that they are.

My parents were not well-off when they were still alive. They're both dead now because of their health problems, but they were able to get the treatment that they had needed, with all of their limbs attached.

Had my diabetic father needed the angioplasty treatment that he'd received in the States to prevent amputation, but lived in Canada, I'm confident that he would not have received in on time. Because of the relationship that he had with our family physician, and our family physician's relationship with my father's surgeons, he was able to get the treatment that he needed.

Our family physician used his connections to improve my father's quality of life and keep him alive another eight years longer.

We weren't dirt poor welfare cases, but we were definitely trailer trash from the south. I've never known anyone who died because they couldn't afford treatment. I know of people who have been near death because of the wait list in Canada.

[Enyo]

The Canadian health care system ensures that everyone gets access to mediocre service. The American one rations higher quality service to only the people who can afford it. Both system sucks.

Really? I can't say that I would agree to that. If it were true that Americans don't get treatment unless they can pay, my father would have never met his grandson. My mother would have never met her great granddaughter.

I firmly believe that having a strong relationship with your physician can help, regardless of your financial status. (Our family doctor has now treated five generations of my family.) While my doctor in Canada tries, that connection is not there.

My Canadian doctor has tried for five years to treat my migraines. He's tried various drugs. The only one that actually worked was one that he never should have prescribed, because it was contraindicated for my asthma that he'd also treated me for. Which sucks, because I found relieve from a drug that will not be re-prescribed.

[Enyo]

Enyo appears to be asserting that fairness is unimportant.

I didn't find the fairness to be as important. I've lived with both systems. Have you? I wasn't the one who stated that they were equally bad.

Both have their pros and cons.

[Peguy]

Both have their pros and cons.

And both suck for their different reasons.

[Enyo]

Go outside the system to what?

Another country, perhaps, like Canadians do here?

[Not_Me]

Really? I can't say that I would agree to that. If it were true that Americans don't get treatment unless they can pay, my father would have never met his grandson. My mother would have never met her great granddaughter.

I firmly believe that having a strong relationship with your physician can help, regardless of your financial status.



But are your circumstances typical? It's not reassuring to have to depend on charity when your health is at risk.

For people like yourself and myself, who can afford it, there is no doubt that the American system is superior. However, I'm arguing from the social policy perspective. How do we create a system to make sure the poor get the care they need? Or do we just say "buzz off, bum."

[Enyo]

But are your circumstances typical? It's not reassuring to have to depend on charity when your health is at risk.

For people like yourself and myself, who can afford it, there is no doubt that the American system is superior. However, I'm arguing from the social policy perspective. How do we create a system to make sure the poor get the care they need? Or do we just say "buzz off, bum."

My only experience with the working poor (and any other experience in American health care) is in the state of Florida, as that's where I spent my first 23 years. That being said, Medicaid takes care of quite a few of the needs of the working poor, and it honestly seems to fall right on par with Canadian health care.

Maybe Medicaid should be broadened a bit more in terms of who and what it covers in order to help the working poor? Even so, though, it should be a temporary measure for the adults in the working poor class, as it is part of a welfare system. It should be a hand up, not a hand out.

FWIW, though, my Canadian health care is not free. While taxes that we all pay up here do subsidize it, I also have to pay MSP, which is our fee for partaking in the Canadian health care. For families making $30k/yr or more, it costs us $53/month per adult. (Or something like that. The husband pays the bills.) It does not cover vision or dental. Most Canadians have the option of getting extended medical of various quality through our employers, just like most Americans with full-time work have the option of getting some kind of health care through their work. The difference is, while the insurance through American employers covers everything with varying co-pays and deductibles, our extended in Canada is just for prescription drugs, dental, and vision.

I do have to pay my chiropractor (which is the only thing that has helped make the migraines that my Canadian doctor has not been able to treat) out of pocket. Neither our extended or MSP will cover it.

[GZA]

The Canadian health care system ensures that everyone gets access to mediocre service. The American one rations higher quality service to only the people who can afford it. Both system sucks.

How is it not as high quality? Our doctors get the same training. Waits are longer for things that involve expensive and complex ecuipment, yes, but at the end of the day I think it works better than only a few people getting it. It's a human right, I would be mortified if other people couldn't get what they have the right to while I could because of money.

The strang thing about Canada's helth care is that to my knowledge, cosmetic surgery is free but pills arn't. But doctors arn't trained for non-life saving cosmetic surgery because it's a waste of resources, so you'd get one crappy face lift anyway.

And we need more doctors. The system would work more efficiently if we trained more doctors. It sucks because it's possible if we just made more medical schools. Their are tonnes of people who apply for medical school who are good enough but don't make it just because there arn't enough slots in the schools to teach everyone.

[Anja]

I interupt this thoughtful and serious debate to interject a message from the Universe.

Regardless of who our new president may be, the first words of his acceptance speech are certain to be:

"Why am in in this handbasket and where are you taking me?"




I am an Intuiter.
(I am not a pessimist. I am not a pessimist. I am not a pessimist.)

:smile:

[Enyo]

The strang thing about Canada's helth care is that to my knowledge, cosmetic surgery is free but pills arn't. But doctors arn't trained for non-life saving cosmetic surgery because it's a waste of resources, so you'd get one crappy face lift anyway.

And we need more doctors. The system would work more efficiently if we trained more doctors. It sucks because it's possible if we just made more medical schools. Their are tonnes of people who apply for medical school who are good enough but don't make it just because there arn't enough slots in the schools to teach everyone.

Cosmetic surgery is free to a point. There are cosmetic surgeons out there who can do face lifts and boob jobs. You'll have to pay for the ones that are done just for vanity (breast implants, face lifts, and tummy tucks, for example), but some are covered. My biopsy on my face was done by a plastic surgeon, because my family doctor (who has done the rest of my biopsies) didn't want to leave me with a huge scar. If I wanted a breast reduction, it would be covered because large breasts = back problems and so forth.

My doctor back in the States that I adored so much is actually Canadian. :)

As for the lack of doctors, how much of it is due to funding? How much of it is due to the fact that some of our Canadian doctors are leaving the country because they can make more money elsewhere?

But when it comes to quality of medical care, I'd only had two doctors in my entire life when I lived in the States. They are far superior to the doctors that I've had here. I haven't heard much good about any of the doctors in town, either. :P

[Not_Me]

How is it not as high quality? Our doctors get the same training. Waits are longer for things that involve expensive and complex ecuipment, yes, but at the end of the day I think it works better than only a few people getting it. It's a human right, I would be mortified if other people couldn't get what they have the right to while I could because of money.


That's good on paper, but the wait could mean life and death. For example, if person needs an MRI to determine if they have cancer, any delay could allow the disease to progress to the incurable stage.

Another problem is that there won't be enough money to sustain such a system as the population ages.

[Enyo]

That's good on paper, but the wait could mean life and death. For example, if person needs an MRI to determine if they have cancer, any delay could allow the disease to progress to the incurable stage.

Another problem is that there won't be enough money to sustain such a system as the population ages.

Yup. I'd also like to point out that it's first come, first serve, period. I had a CT scan done for my migraines. There's a wait list for them. Once you're signed up, you're signed up. You don't get bumped back because someone has something that may be more life-threatening.

If I'm up for an MRI because I may have a torn ligament in my knee, and after I'm already signed up, someone needs an MRI because they may have cancer, then that's just too bad. I was first, so they'll have to wait. (Unless there's a cancellation. But do those cancellations occur because the needing party just up and died or something?)

While it's fair that in terms of the patient's monetary resources, I hardly think it's fair that my torn ligament gets priority over someone's possible cancer just because I got in line first.

(This is from an outpatient perspective, only. I'm pretty sure that if you're admitted and they think that you need an MRI right then like on House, you'll get one. :P)

[Little Linguist]

Wow some interesting points were made in this thread. Especially by Little Linguist, keep the good work up. :)

Unfortunately, Im not entirely able to contribute much at this time. Im worn out from the various discussions I had about church-state relations and whatnot.

I will throw in my two cents and state that yes the welfare state is an inefficient system and in the end cannot be sustained. Obama's policies for "change" are largely just further developments of the kind of system America has lived under since FDR's New Deal.

If Obama really was interested in change, he'd propose starting the process in dismantling the system before it collaspes under it's own weight. Unfortunately the only candidate to propose such a thing(Ron Paul) was snuffed out by the media and the political elites.

Thank you for your support, hon! :) I agree with your claims about the extension of FDR's New Deal; although the system was essential at that time to get the country out of a slump in a democratic manner, what often happens is that people do not adapt the system to changing times. That resulted in a great deal of abuse of the system until folks ended up reforming at the final hour. Then, again, they cannot react to changes, so a lot of people suffer.

One serious critique I have of the democratic system, at least as it currently stands, is that it is really not flexible enough to adapt quickly to changes in economic and political climate. Okay, in a way, that's good because we should have a stable system that is not whimsical. However, when it is so engrained that there can be no kind of meaningful change, that's a problem.

I was not surprised when Ron Paul got weeded out. You see, it is not in the interest of the system to have someone who is going to impose REAL change.

That's why I am so skeptical of this Obama guy because IF he WERE serious and his change COULD be implemented, HE would have been weeded out a long time ago as well. *shrugs*

[Little Linguist]

Yes there is and it goes by countless names, depending on which area of the political spectrum you decide to look. Within Anglo-Catholic circles it was referred to as Distributism, within German Catholic circles it was called Solidarism, within many Left-wing circles it was called Mutualism, within some American Republican circles it was called Democratic Capitalism. Some enviromentalists call it Bioregionalism. And numerous other names.

The basic premises of such a system is a free but fair market, and a market built upon the foundation of local-based economies - as opposed to an abstract global corporate economy. Now that doesn't mean international trade is non-existant, far from it. Rather the notion is that local economic needs have to be taken care of first before one considers global trade.

The economist E.F. Schumacher referred to this as "economics as if people matter". And he also summarised its creed as follows: "small is beautiful".

That's about as simple as I can explain it at the moment, but so much more is involved.

If you want, I can post some interesting stuff on this if you're interested in further exploring it. :)

Yes, I would like some more reading material on the matter. It always helps to get different perspectives.

You're assuming that they're equally bad. Having lived in both, I can say that I honestly don't feel that they are.

My parents were not well-off when they were still alive. They're both dead now because of their health problems, but they were able to get the treatment that they had needed, with all of their limbs attached.

Had my diabetic father needed the angioplasty treatment that he'd received in the States to prevent amputation, but lived in Canada, I'm confident that he would not have received in on time. Because of the relationship that he had with our family physician, and our family physician's relationship with my father's surgeons, he was able to get the treatment that he needed.

Our family physician used his connections to improve my father's quality of life and keep him alive another eight years longer.

We weren't dirt poor welfare cases, but we were definitely trailer trash from the south. I've never known anyone who died because they couldn't afford treatment. I know of people who have been near death because of the wait list in Canada.

Good points. :hug: I'm sorry your parents died, but I'm sure it opened up your perspective to the pros and cons of the system. Thank you for sharing.

Really? I can't say that I would agree to that. If it were true that Americans don't get treatment unless they can pay, my father would have never met his grandson. My mother would have never met her great granddaughter.

I firmly believe that having a strong relationship with your physician can help, regardless of your financial status. (Our family doctor has now treated five generations of my family.) While my doctor in Canada tries, that connection is not there.

My Canadian doctor has tried for five years to treat my migraines. He's tried various drugs. The only one that actually worked was one that he never should have prescribed, because it was contraindicated for my asthma that he'd also treated me for. Which sucks, because I found relieve from a drug that will not be re-prescribed.

There are some strange cases in which people cannot be covered by insurance. The very poor are supported by Medicare (or is it Medicaid? I always confuse them!!!) and people with good jobs often have great medical benefits. But what about people who have three part time jobs with no benefits and not enough money to pay for private health insurance? Or the people who are trying to get a start as freelancers who cannot afford health insurance yet? These people are cut out by the system. Also some HMOs are really anal retentive regarding what you can do and where you can go and what kind of treatment they cover. *shrugs*

On the other hand, I am not sure if this needs to be solved by universal health care. My first inclination would be to have some kind of hybrid system, but I don't know if that is really feasible or not.

I didn't find the fairness to be as important. I've lived with both systems. Have you? I wasn't the one who stated that they were equally bad.

Both have their pros and cons.

Sure, fairness is essential. HOWEVER, how do you define 'fair' in the case of the health care system, and how do you plan to assure this 'fairness'? That is the really essential question here.

And both suck for their different reasons.

Heh! Agreed. That's why I think some kind of hybrid would be better.

Another country, perhaps, like Canadians do here?

Hmmm...

But are your circumstances typical? It's not reassuring to have to depend on charity when your health is at risk.

For people like yourself and myself, who can afford it, there is no doubt that the American system is superior. However, I'm arguing from the social policy perspective. How do we create a system to make sure the poor get the care they need? Or do we just say "buzz off, bum."

I'm surely not advocating that anyone should die merely because they do not have the money. However, I am advising you to do a very, very intense cost-benefit/SWOT analysis before you go off in favor of something TOTALLY different.

My only experience with the working poor (and any other experience in American health care) is in the state of Florida, as that's where I spent my first 23 years. That being said, Medicaid takes care of quite a few of the needs of the working poor, and it honestly seems to fall right on par with Canadian health care.

Maybe Medicaid should be broadened a bit more in terms of who and what it covers in order to help the working poor? Even so, though, it should be a temporary measure for the adults in the working poor class, as it is part of a welfare system. It should be a hand up, not a hand out.

FWIW, though, my Canadian health care is not free. While taxes that we all pay up here do subsidize it, I also have to pay MSP, which is our fee for partaking in the Canadian health care. For families making $30k/yr or more, it costs us $53/month per adult. (Or something like that. The husband pays the bills.) It does not cover vision or dental. Most Canadians have the option of getting extended medical of various quality through our employers, just like most Americans with full-time work have the option of getting some kind of health care through their work. The difference is, while the insurance through American employers covers everything with varying co-pays and deductibles, our extended in Canada is just for prescription drugs, dental, and vision.

I do have to pay my chiropractor (which is the only thing that has helped make the migraines that my Canadian doctor has not been able to treat) out of pocket. Neither our extended or MSP will cover it.

Right, right, right!!!! You should reform the current system, of course!!!! But that doesn't mean throwing out the whole system in favor of a totally new one where the foundation isn't there. Right?

How is it not as high quality? Our doctors get the same training. Waits are longer for things that involve expensive and complex ecuipment, yes, but at the end of the day I think it works better than only a few people getting it. It's a human right, I would be mortified if other people couldn't get what they have the right to while I could because of money.

The strang thing about Canada's helth care is that to my knowledge, cosmetic surgery is free but pills arn't. But doctors arn't trained for non-life saving cosmetic surgery because it's a waste of resources, so you'd get one crappy face lift anyway.

And we need more doctors. The system would work more efficiently if we trained more doctors. It sucks because it's possible if we just made more medical schools. Their are tonnes of people who apply for medical school who are good enough but don't make it just because there arn't enough slots in the schools to teach everyone.

Yeah, like I said, both systems have to make some serious reforms.

I interupt this thoughtful and serious debate to interject a message from the Universe.

Regardless of who our new president may be, the first words of his acceptance speech are certain to be:

"Why am in in this handbasket and where are you taking me?"




I am an Intuiter.
(I am not a pessimist. I am not a pessimist. I am not a pessimist.)

:smile:

Hehehe.

Cosmetic surgery is free to a point. There are cosmetic surgeons out there who can do face lifts and boob jobs. You'll have to pay for the ones that are done just for vanity (breast implants, face lifts, and tummy tucks, for example), but some are covered. My biopsy on my face was done by a plastic surgeon, because my family doctor (who has done the rest of my biopsies) didn't want to leave me with a huge scar. If I wanted a breast reduction, it would be covered because large breasts = back problems and so forth.

My doctor back in the States that I adored so much is actually Canadian. :)

As for the lack of doctors, how much of it is due to funding? How much of it is due to the fact that some of our Canadian doctors are leaving the country because they can make more money elsewhere?

But when it comes to quality of medical care, I'd only had two doctors in my entire life when I lived in the States. They are far superior to the doctors that I've had here. I haven't heard much good about any of the doctors in town, either. :P

Good points.

That's good on paper, but the wait could mean life and death. For example, if person needs an MRI to determine if they have cancer, any delay could allow the disease to progress to the incurable stage.

Another problem is that there won't be enough money to sustain such a system as the population ages.

RIGHT. Aging population is a serious problem for universal health care for two reasons: a) They don't pay taxes, so they don't support the system. (i.e. they don't pay as many taxes, anyway). b) As they age, they need more medical care.

Heh. Everyone wanted to extend life expectancy, and see what it has brought us??? More social concerns than you can shake a stick at. Yeah, folks, this is what happens when you toy with nature.

Yup. I'd also like to point out that it's first come, first serve, period. I had a CT scan done for my migraines. There's a wait list for them. Once you're signed up, you're signed up. You don't get bumped back because someone has something that may be more life-threatening.

If I'm up for an MRI because I may have a torn ligament in my knee, and after I'm already signed up, someone needs an MRI because they may have cancer, then that's just too bad. I was first, so they'll have to wait. (Unless there's a cancellation. But do those cancellations occur because the needing party just up and died or something?)

While it's fair that in terms of the patient's monetary resources, I hardly think it's fair that my torn ligament gets priority over someone's possible cancer just because I got in line first.

(This is from an outpatient perspective, only. I'm pretty sure that if you're admitted and they think that you need an MRI right then like on House, you'll get one. :P)

Yikes!

[Anja]

Why can we afford the war in Iraq, you know - the five month war - and we can't afford health care?

[Lateralus]

We can't afford either. Besides that, eliminating the effect of competition will drive health care costs higher. So as expensive as health care is, right now, creating a universal health care system will make it even more expensive.

[ajblaise]

We can't afford either. Besides that, eliminating the effect of competition will drive health care costs higher. So as expensive as health care is, right now, creating a universal health care system will make it even more expensive.

Per person, we spend more on health care than every nation in the world, which includes all the nations with universal health care.

[Lateralus]

Per person, we spend more on health care than every nation in the world, which includes all the nations with universal health care.
That's irrelevant. It will still drive costs higher.

If you wanted to properly refute my point, you would have to show how universal health care has lowered costs in nations like Britain, Germany, and France.

The government could set price controls to try to stop the rising costs, but that would only cause shortages (waiting lists). That's Economics 101.

[ajblaise]

That's irrelevant. It will still drive costs higher.

If you wanted to properly refute my point, you would have to show how universal health care has lowered costs in nations like Britain, Germany, and France.

The government could set price controls to try to stop the rising costs, but that will only cause shortages (waiting lists). That's Economics 101.

Well I'm not sure how credible your theory is, the healthier nations can do it for less, yet you are so certain we can't.

[Lateralus]

Well I'm not sure how credible your theory is, the healthier nations can do it for less, yet you are so certain we can't.
I already stated how you can make your point, but you completely ignore that and continue to compare apples to oranges. Read up on this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method).

[Anja]

My point is that costs for everything are going to rise. That's a certainty. So it's a matter of where we set our priorities.

[ajblaise]

I already stated how you can make your point, but you completely ignore that and continue to compare apples to oranges. Read up on this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method).

If you wanted to make your point, you would explain why America can't do what the rest of the industrial world has already done.

[Enyo]

Why can we afford the war in Iraq, you know - the five month war - and we can't afford health care?

We can't. That's why we're borrowing the money from China to pay for it.:rolli:

[Enyo]

If you wanted to make your point, you would explain why America can't do what the rest of the industrial world has already done.

If you want to maintain the current quality of care (and not have people waiting for hours in an ambulance because there's a minimum amount of time that they can wait in a hospital before that hospital is breaking laws of standards of care a la Britain), it will cost more. If you want the treatment to be readily available (as it is now) without people dying while waiting, it will cost more.

Basically, you have two options: health care for everyone with a delay, or health care readily available for those who can get it. (Again, I have a hard time associating it with cash flow, simply because my family never lacked for health care, even when we lacked in funds.)

[Lateralus]

My point is that costs for everything are going to rise. That's a certainty. So it's a matter of where we set our priorities.
Actually, it's not a certainty. Technological advances reduce costs over time. Look at televisions and computers for obvious examples (compare those to MRI machines and pharmaceuticals). There are two major areas where this has not occurred, education and health care. And those are the two major areas where there is the most government intervention.

[Lateralus]

If you wanted to make your point, you would explain why America can't do what the rest of the industrial world has already done.
The US can do what the rest of the world has done, which is to provide universal health care at enormous cost. Your argument was that universal health care reduces costs, but you haven't proven that point. You keep comparing costs in other nations to the US, and that's flawed methodology. You need to compare costs within those nations, both before and after universal health care.

[ajblaise]

If you want to maintain the current quality of care (and not have people waiting for hours in an ambulance because there's a minimum amount of time that they can wait in a hospital before that hospital is breaking laws of standards of care a la Britain), it will cost more. If you want the treatment to be readily available (as it is now) without people dying while waiting, it will cost more.

Basically, you have two options: health care for everyone with a delay, or health care readily available for those who can get it. (Again, I have a hard time associating it with cash flow, simply because my family never lacked for health care, even when we lacked in funds.)

We all hear stories of long lines and other problems in europe and canada, but it's not showing in their health stats.

The US is a rich country, we can afford to have universal health care without much of problems other nations have with it. Of course there is the fact that we are a fairly unhealthy nation to begin with, so maybe we need more health care than most nations.

[Enyo]

Actually, it's not a certainty. Technological advances reduce costs over time. Look at televisions and computers for obvious examples (compare those to MRI machines and pharmaceuticals). There are two major areas where this has not occurred, education and health care. And those are the two major areas where there is the most government intervention.

This is one of these cases where I love Glenn Beck. He loves to point out that things seldom, if ever, get better with government intervention. Free markets and capitalism are the greatest way to keep costs down because there's so much competition. If you can build a better widget, and you can build it cheaper and faster than the next guy, and then sell it for less, you'll make more money while the consumer will spend less money.

Reduce government control and let the market sort itself out.

I <3 Glenn Beck. (Which is funny, since I'm socially liberal but fiscally conservative.)

[Enyo]

We all hear stories of long lines and other problems in europe and canada, but it's not showing in their health stats.

The US is a rich country, we can afford to have universal health care without much of problems other nations have with it.

Which stats are you using? WHO? Their stats rate by the availability to everyone, not the quality or wait. A talented statistician can make those stats say whatever was needed to further an agenda.

I can't speak to what happens in Europe, because I don't live there. But I can speak to what I personally see happening in Canada. There are brutal waits.

A family friend had to wait a year for a doctor to biopsy her thyroid when she had a tumor. This mass was so large that it was visible in her neck, constricted her breathing and bent her windpipe, and took away her voice. She had to go to the emergency room many times because her tumor was strangling her and she couldn't breathe.

This is a reality, not an anecdote.

Tell me, though, if the US is such a rich country, why do we have a national debt in the trillions? Canada doesn't have a national debt. Canada has a surplus.

If you really want to have a national health care system that *works*, then pay off the debt and cut government spending, first. But I'd really rather see it get more capitalist and less nanny state, thanks.

[ajblaise]

The US can do what the rest of the world has done, which is to provide universal health care at enormous cost. Your argument was that universal health care reduces costs, but you haven't proven that point. You keep comparing costs in other nations to the US, and that's flawed methodology. You need to compare costs within those nations, both before and after universal health care.

If you want to dismiss the fact that other nations do it for less, you have to explain how they are able to do it for -in many cases- only half as much as we are, on un-universal health care. What makes them so special?

Economically, of course offering it to everyone should cost most. We are obviously wasting a lot of money as it is, so unless American's are naturally unhealthy, we could conceivably do it for less than we are now.

If it would end up costing more, I would have no problem with that.

[ajblaise]

Which stats are you using? WHO? Their stats rate by the availability to everyone, not the quality or wait. A talented statistician can make those stats say whatever was needed to further an agenda.

I can't speak to what happens in Europe, because I don't live there. But I can speak to what I personally see happening in Canada. There are brutal waits.

A family friend had to wait a year for a doctor to biopsy her thyroid when she had a tumor. This mass was so large that it was visible in her neck, constricted her breathing and bent her windpipe, and took away her voice. She had to go to the emergency room many times because her tumor was strangling her and she couldn't breathe.

This is a reality, not an anecdote.

Tell me, though, if the US is such a rich country, why do we have a national debt in the trillions? Canada doesn't have a national debt. Canada has a surplus.

If you really want to have a national health care system that *works*, then pay off the debt and cut government spending, first. But I'd really rather see it get more capitalist and less nanny state, thanks.

NationMaster - Spending > Per person (most recent) by country (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_spe_per_per-health-spending-per-person)

The US is a rich country, we make the most, we just like to spend it.

Maybe if Canada didn't have a conservative PM your country would hire most doctors and create more facilities? Use some of that oil money.

[Lateralus]

If you want to dismiss the fact that other nations do it for less, you have to explain how they are able to do it for -in many cases- only half as much as we are, on un-universal health care. What makes them so special?
This is just flawed reasoning. Law, standard of living, and economic infrastructure are not equal between nations. Those differences will produce different starting points when entering a universal health care system. Just because a nation provides health care at a cheaper cost per citizen than the US does not mean that universal health care reduces costs. That nation may have had a lower cost than the US when moving to a universal health care system.

The US system, as it stands, sucks. But that does not mean that a universal health care system will lower costs.

Economically, of course offering it to everyone should cost most. We are obviously wasting a lot of money as it is, so unless American's are naturally unhealthy, we could conceivably do it for less than we are now.

If it would end up costing more, I would have no problem with that.
Explain why you think it would cost more.

[ajblaise]

This is just flawed reasoning. Law, standard of living, and economic infrastructure are not equal between nations. Those differences will produce different starting points when entering a universal health care system. Just because a nation provides health care at a cheaper cost per citizen than the US does not mean that universal health care reduces costs. That nation may have had a lower cost than the US when moving to a universal health care system.

The US system, as it stands, sucks. But that does not mean that a universal health care system will lower costs.


Explain why you think it would cost more.

For the US to offer universal health care at the same or lower cost, we would obviously have to re-work the health care system as it is. We shouldn't just simply add universal coverage to what we have now.

[Lateralus]

For the US to offer universal health care at the same or lower cost, we would obviously have to re-work the health care system as it is. We shouldn't just simply add universal coverage to what we have now.
And how would you 're-work' the system?

[Enyo]

NationMaster - Spending > Per person (most recent) by country (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_spe_per_per-health-spending-per-person)

The US is a rich country, we make the most, we just like to spend it.

Maybe if Canada didn't have a conservative PM your country would hire most doctors and create more facilities? Use some of that oil money.

What is the basis of these statistics? Where do they get their figures? How do they determine these stats? There's no explanation. However, they are derived from the World Bank. What's their agenda in these statistics?

I have to tell you that I honestly have a very hard time believing that Canada spends less than 2 grand per annum on each person.

[ajblaise]

And how would you 're-work' the system?

I'd put more focus on disease prevention, look at over-prescription in the US (more people are being prescribed meds, at younger ages, for more conditions), let law makers negotiate costs in the same way insurance companies do....things like this. The stuff pharm companies don't want us to do.

[ajblaise]

What is the basis of these statistics? Where do they get their figures? How do they determine these stats? There's no explanation. However, they are derived from the World Bank. What's their agenda in these statistics?

I have to tell you that I honestly have a very hard time believing that Canada spends less than 2 grand per annum on each person.

Hey baby I don't write it I just cite it.

And it's the World Bank we are talking about. They get criticized for favoring US business interests over dealing with poverty. They aren't some left wing organization out to make the US look bad.

[Enyo]

I'd put more focus on disease prevention, look at over-prescription in the US (more people are being prescribed meds, at younger ages, for more conditions), let law makers negotiate costs in the same way insurance companies do....things like this. The stuff pharm companies don't want us to do.

And this is when I point out that universal health care doesn't cover prescription medication in Canada. That's what extended health care coverage is for, if you can get it through your employer. (Hmm. This sounds familiar.)

Keep the government out of my medicine cabinet, thank you very much. I'd also prefer it if the government didn't determine how often I should have a pap smear.

[Enyo]

Hey baby I don't write it I just cite it.

And it's the World Bank we are talking about. They get criticized for favoring US business interests over dealing with poverty. They aren't some left wing organization out t