Date: 7/11/2008 1:25:00 PM
From Authorid: 64414
I am curious too! **waits patiently for some comments**  |
Date: 7/11/2008 1:37:00 PM
From Authorid: 23075
not in Canada. My friend had a liver transplant, and he waited on the list but that was normal. Never paid for the surgery either.  |
Date: 7/11/2008 1:37:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
I just have to ask: What subject was the class that a teacher would find educational value in showing students this movie? Just like showing "An Inconvenient Truth" in schools to promote a specific agenda without allowing for any other "Hollywood" perspective shown which has an opposing viewpoint, I can only think of our schools these days as indoctrination institutions instead of institutions where thought and reasoning skills are explored. God Bless.  |
Date: 7/11/2008 2:05:00 PM
From Authorid: 26803
who told you you wouldn't pay? The cost would be huge, and it would come from taxation.  |
Date: 7/11/2008 2:40:00 PM
From Authorid: 51876
I truly do not think we need a universal health care system that would push even more pharmacueticals onto our populace.We just need to make our system work.It's not Health care that is not good in America, it's just that we use Insurance to pay for everything.Another game that is perpetuated itself beyond normal control.Somehow we need to revamp the whole system.As long as there are doctors having to go to school for a couple of decades we are paying back for their education.Somehow Medical Colleges and Hospital need to work together to train more quickly.If you don't have Insurance you get no help unless you go to public hospitals that are notorious for corruption and abuse.I do not know how to make it work, just does not work now, guess the U.S. needs to find succesful models from other countries that have good public health care and make it work.  |
Date: 7/11/2008 3:16:00 PM
From Authorid: 63219
The U.S.A. can't afford universal healthcare, I'll tell you that right now. Another political myth to attract attention...  |
Date: 7/11/2008 3:43:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 55344
I was taking classes to be a Pharmacy Technician, We bill insurance alot.   |
Date: 7/11/2008 4:31:00 PM
From Authorid: 32806
No, it does not mean you wait forever, but you pay via taxation, it could not possibly be free. Look at the UK's NHS. Nothing is perfect, but it does work here.  |
|
Date: 7/11/2008 10:11:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
Thanks for answering. My hope with a "universal" system of any kind is that it would run efficiently. But if universal health care were run efficiently, the position you are training for would be less in demand -- as opposed to our current system where such a position is downright necessary. So from your perspective, it would seem that an inefficient universal system, or the current system best insures your future job prospects. God Bless. |
Date: 7/11/2008 11:29:00 PM
From Authorid: 4309
LoL. The pros and cons of it lol? You have to actually have a system to support such a system. That is the "CON" of it. The Pro of it is its nice to think about. If society wanted to start setting up that pipe dream of say Socialism it would take a good more than just saying lets do it. Without more advanced technology it becomes an even more daunting task. You always work with the system you have, not the system you wish you had. Making our current system work its best currently would probably be best done through true republican conservativism that actually even follows the constitution on matters that throw the tax payers money away.  |
|
Date: 7/11/2008 11:31:00 PM
From Authorid: 4309
First Here is a Start. |
|
Date: 7/11/2008 11:31:00 PM
From Authorid: 4309
http://www.unsolvedmysteries.com/usm498855.html |
|
Date: 7/11/2008 11:41:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 55344
Thanks for all the comments!! I was very confused about that movie, it made it look like universal healthcare was PERFECT.. but I knew there had to be some things wrong with it! |
|
Date: 7/11/2008 11:45:00 PM
From Authorid: 4309
Here is a second start to maybe lead you into thinking of how any kind of universal healthcare could possibly even begin to be imagined within the society we have. |
|
Date: 7/11/2008 11:45:00 PM
From Authorid: 4309
http://www.unsolvedmysteries.com/usm499295.html |
|
Date: 7/11/2008 11:56:00 PM
From Authorid: 4309
lol you cannot say anything is wrong with it or everything is right with it. There is no system for it. The canadian system for instance is flawed of course but most of the things that try to attack it are not exactly spreading fully factual information and their motivation for doing so is much on the same level of when you see TV adds codeming native American casinos and you can see in small print or if you investigate it that the adds are sponsored by say Las Vegas or another gambling area that might lose business due to indian gaming taking a share of customers. Universal Healthcare though in our current system (US Is horribly setup and pretty much bankrupt at the moment with fiat money that is worthless) is just not a practical thing to just say DO IT DO IT DO IT. More welfare state is not what the USA needs. |
|
Date: 7/11/2008 11:59:00 PM
From Authorid: 4309
The "Evils" you hear about the canadian System just are not that "Truthful". People really should let the Canadians do what they want and worry about their own backyard. Definettly in the USA though we couldn't even afford what the Canadians have implemented. So people in the USA need to just get real. |
Date: 7/12/2008 12:32:00 AM
From Authorid: 36967
long limes, long demand. No Competition, Higher Taxes, the problems outweight the good.  |
|
Date: 7/12/2008 6:24:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 55344
So, it would just be easier to stay with what we have, rather than change over? |
Date: 7/12/2008 8:24:00 AM
From Authorid: 30093
The majority people who don't want universal health care are those who are rich enough to afford things as it is, and just don't want to pay the taxes on a universal system. I know how it is on the lower end. I imagine most of us at USM know how it is. What we have now is a broken system, and nobody can convince me otherwise. Of course universal health care isn't perfect, but nobody ever claimed there wouldn't be issues. I think if we can spend billions of dollars on upkeep of nuclear warheads, then we could certainly afford to throw some of that money at health care, but what do I know?  |
|
Date: 7/12/2008 3:55:00 PM
From Authorid: 4309
Taxes lol. there are many entities out there that do not want universal Healthcare. Some of them the insurance companies. Some of them the politicians who get "Incentives" not to want it but it is ludicrous to even begin to discuss such a system funded by the tax payers lol. That is not how you make such a system spring out of thin air in the United States. United States is Broke. Its money is a fiat money and worthless. without a Gold Standard or anything to back up its currency other than things like actual GNP and the workers of the United states which sadly both are also falling. So much of the United states is going downhill. People probably should snap out of the fantasy. Creating more welfare state without a system to even fund it is not something can just be done. All you would do is create more debt and bigger federal government. Lets borrow more from china!!! YEAH THATS THE ANSWER!!!!!!! Create another beuracracy that funnels and wastes money? So that for every $10 put into it 10 cents get channeled to the actual cause its setup for? The only thing the US can do without actual setups and change is at least first go to true Conservatism, get rid of the fiat money, and start to get out of debt before you say answer everything with Higher Taxes!!! Thats the ticket!!!!. The real Wealthy wouldn't even see it and it definettly wouldn't pay for anything. It is just not happening. There is no easy button. stapple's store magic doesn't actually exist and doesn't apply to the real world. The people that would get taxed the most of course that are omg omg rich!!!! are those that are less than the 10,000,000 possible tax bracket and most of those will be those earning the supposed higher middle class tax brackets. First persons over 100,000 than approaching 250,000 , with a dramatic cutoff at about over 400,000. These people ar not "Rich" though either. You will have say those in the say 1- 2 million bracket paying a bigger share than those in the 20 million. Those in the 10 million pay more than those in 20 as welll but none of these people are "wealthy. A Basketball player might be considered to be "RIch". The guy who signs his paycheck that is pretty wealthy. but even he is not wealthy. You want to start talking about doing some kind of socialism you have to start talking about how you can make the community wealthy and not at the expense of the citizen. any citizen. Unfortuneatly that might just involve pushing aside most politicians and a great deal of fortune 500 companies. So if you are unwilling to do that than live with the system you have. and stop pretending you want something that is ludicrous to suggest without with equally ludicrous suggestions of how it will magically work without real logical change.All you have to do is tax tax tax!!!! Spend Spend Spend!!!!! |
Date: 7/12/2008 7:32:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 55344
Sorry, I didn't mean to start an argument.. I was just very confused  |
|
Date: 7/12/2008 9:03:00 PM
From Authorid: 4309
Would like the author to read some of the links I posted though because it really does go towards some of the discussion I would actually have on this subject. |
|
Date: 7/12/2008 9:06:00 PM
From Authorid: 4309
Even if you.! |
|
Date: 7/12/2008 9:09:00 PM
From Authorid: 4309
But if nanaki wants to actually start discussing how to have a workable socialism than by all means we can do that. We could even discuss other things that wouldnt be reforming so much that it would that difficult of a task. Keeping the system we have and getting America out of debt which if the Socialism Ideas want to start coming out again it would be much easier to start enacting them. |
Date: 7/13/2008 3:49:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
I’ve always been a bit confused as to the healthcare situation in the US. If you’re poor, you seem to be better off in a country like the UK or France, than the richest nation on earth. Ireland’s system is far from perfect, but my boyfriend’s medical card ensures he doesn’t have to worry about affording medication for his diabetes. I have no idea as to the intricacies of how healthcare systems work, but I would have thought that if any nation could set up a system which minimises the flaws present in say the European countries’ systems, it would be the U.S. That a patient (who isn’t wealthy) in France or the UK seems to be better off, is baffling to me.  |
|
Date: 7/14/2008 7:23:00 AM
From Authorid: 4309
Heh. US is far from the wealthiest Nation on Earth. |
|
Date: 7/14/2008 9:56:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
Poor people DO GET healthcare here in the U.S. via each state's welfare system. Wealthy people ostensibly can afford health insurance. It is the working families whose employment benefits either have never included health insurance, or whose employers have decided it is too expensive for them to continue paying for and tell their employees that they will have to have either all or some of the insurance premium deducted out of their paycheck (and the decision is then to keep the insurance or not) who have been affected in our country. If those working people are considered "poor" now because they don't have health insurance, but the state welfare system won't cover them because they are employed, then I suppose you can classify them as "poor". The only poor I'd be concerned about in those situations are the poor of health. I find that those who are insured have the whole medical community looking to perform tests, procedures, referrals on in order to continue a source of income rather than any actual "health" care. God Bless. |
|
Date: 7/14/2008 2:21:00 PM
From Authorid: 4309
YOu know deb. I am always shoping around for people to join me in my real political crusade /party. Say if we can fin 50 people that make sense that is at least 50 senators right there in each state. OF course it would probably be even a 10 year goal to put in a compatible president as well with it all . Maybe even shop around for someone to be my president to my vice. I do know you constantly make sense so more people like you for all positions and we might have something. |
|
Date: 7/14/2008 5:04:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
Hmmm… Maybe divert some money from defence to healthcare? Just a thought... |
|
Date: 7/15/2008 8:48:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 55344
I like that thought, DP. |
|
Date: 7/15/2008 12:30:00 PM
From Authorid: 4309
YOu can take the entire Iron Triangle budget and it DOES NOT = UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE. LOL Or people can stop making silly suggestions and start first fixing everything budget wise to even contemplate setting up a system that would actually support Universal Healthcare, other socialism ideals etc properly. |
|
Date: 7/15/2008 12:53:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 55344
Yeah, we definitely have A LOT of work to do in other areas! |
|
Date: 7/15/2008 12:54:00 PM
From Authorid: 4309
Of course even starting anykind of that kind of change is not happening instantly. You first have to fix up the current system anyway and it still will not happen instantly after that. Getting out of debt with the rest of the world. Having money that isn't worthless. Isnt a Fiat Currency. Getting rid of costly departments of course. Bueracrcies. Reforming everything we can budget wise and using what will actually work with the current system. YOu work with the system you have. Not the day dream system you wish you had. YOu fix your current system first. It would involve alot of house cleaning and most of the work for it must be done in a TRUE CONSERVATIVE/CONSTITUTIONALIST/REPUBLICAN FASHION. Tax Tax tax then throw the money away does not work. ALl politicians need to pretty much go. Fake Republicans and democrats but throwing on more welfare state/ big beuracracies isn't going to go anywhere. Shrinking the Federal government/eliminating costly (If not cmpleteely useless)departments/bueracracies has to be done first. Not trying to expand it out of nowhere. Every $10 you throw into this silly idea will only see 10 cennts of it going to the program if that and even if it was only 10 cents thrown at it instead of $10, it would still not be in budget. So many things have to be reformed first. Heck crap like "bailing out" far beyond all the mortgage companies (far beyond what they ever should have gotten "arguable if anything anyway" and beyond what they could have possibly needed )that just happened recently at the expense of the tax payer coffers is ridiculous. Everything like that needs to be fixed. Corporate Welfare is just more welfare stat. Anything that costs the Tax payers more money will delay any socialistic pipe dreams that cannot just happen out of nowhere. Perfect Technology suddenly dropping in our laps might speed that up a bit but you work with what you have. One of the problems is that United States was actually one of the closests to true socialism for awhile through capitalism. But through capitalism it has also gone communistic which is not easily reverted to Socialism. You will have have too much of a problem with those that are being the ones steering this whole capitalistic communism funneling all the money and controlling like a communist nation controls. ONly way to even begin anything is to get all the people together behind common sense first. System is still there to fix it back to a workable system. YOu also need these people to keep the resolve to keep it that way and then you can start to lean to the socialism ideas. if you want to discuss all of that let me know. It is really an interesting subject after all. |
|
Date: 7/15/2008 1:16:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
Hmmmm. It is our government's duty to protect it's citizens (i.e., have some defense mechanisms in place); it is not their duty to provide everyone with healthcare. Here's a novel idea: Get healthcare costs in line with reality and have evreyone pay as they need. God Bless. |
|
Date: 7/15/2008 1:18:00 PM
From Authorid: 4309
For instance on even say the Iraq war I am all logical. No bleeding heart there. I know there was a plan to attack Iraq before even 9-11. I own a copy. Over 300 pages. Original plan was just to give one of saddams generals his Mustache in a quick coup. All to privatize the oil. THey interviewed and chose. everything was setup. I chuckled to myself of course about the bogus weapons of mass destruction excuses used. No weapons found changed to freeing iraq. Oh noes Brutal Dictator video of him supposedly gassing his own people. IT was ancient video of people that where gassed by Iran in the first place with weapons provided by the UNited states. But none of that changes my judgement. I do not judge. I look at the information as is. Sadam was put in power by the USA and he just wasnt at the times of planning an attack against him playing ball the way they wanted. Not allowing certain things , like outside investments (Much like other countries next on the agenda). The goal of breaking opec was a neo con one. Privatizing the OIl to flood the market and drop the cartel oil price. If I truly cared about that I would fight tooth and nail about how we stopped buying cheaper oil from Mexico which other than robber barrons milking the huge GNP of Mexico dry, helped ruin mexicos economy and send the people into illegal immigration. INflate the currency when it was actually starting to compete with the dollar. Inlation is just an invisable tax on the poor but it doesnt tug my heart to recognize the reality of it. KNowing that IRaq was a war in the beginning to go after the oil doesn't tug at my heart strings. As a COnservative though that would discuss the tax payer I would discuss he problem minus the bleeding heart. AKA they used up massive amounts of tax payers dollars and then didnt even get the oil. Only people geting anything from this war are not the tax payers. THey are only funding it. ALl their money being funneled into corporate welfare programs and private iron triangle contractors etc etc. THe robber barrons everywhere taking the american tax payer mone. ANd if tax payers havent cant supply enough . Easy answer. BOrrow more from everyone (Like china) and put the burden of paying it back on the tax payer. I recognize that this "war" should have been declared by congress, otherwise its not a war. I recognize that supposedly congress is so scared of losing votes for losing this "war" at a later time and that it might be unpopular the whole time anyway. But that is more of the bad cop good cop routine anyway. Just smoke screen excuses. I know that the president has the power to put troops on the ground without a declared war and It does not tug at my heart strings if he does for w/e reasons but it is not so nice to the tax payer. I recognize that without cogress declaring the war and the costly quagmire insues that it can only be funded for 2 years by the tax payer. That doesn't tug at my heart strings but I would say yes its an ilegal war and the funding by law on paper should cease. WHat is silly is you will have people tell me I am unamerican and do not support my troops heh. Support your troops!! Increase the budget!!! THey do not see anything from it. Iron triangle people etc etc do but troops will still have to go through scrap to try to find armor for their humvees and not be supplied correctly anyway. thir paychecks wont increase. thy could make more american tax payer money going through private contractors like black water and put themselves at less risk. anyway if you want to discuss other things of the actual topic socialism. more than willing |
|
Date: 7/15/2008 1:22:00 PM
From Authorid: 4309
"Hmmmm. It is our government's duty to protect it's citizens (i.e., have some defense mechanisms in place)" True Story |
|
Date: 7/15/2008 1:23:00 PM
From Authorid: 4309
Large enough standing army to protect AMerica at home an possibly broad which doesn't take much. All in favor of conservatively reducing the size of the federal government and ramaking it correclt say aye!!!!! Heh |
|
Date: 7/15/2008 1:24:00 PM
From Authorid: 4309
possibly abroad |
|
Date: 7/15/2008 1:25:00 PM
From Authorid: 4309
this would be one of those times I would be interested in what BCAR had to say heh. Definettly Base. |
Date: 7/15/2008 1:48:00 PM
From Authorid: 27826
Supposedly?! No, Wiley. He did gas his own people.  |
|
Date: 7/15/2008 5:46:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
Wouldn’t providing medical care fall under protecting citizens Deb? In this day an age, with terrorism apparently the biggest threat, I’m thinking resources like Arabic translators are possibly as important, if not more so, than expensive bombers. Perhaps the ideal universal healthcare system would not be possible no matter where you cut funding, but I wonder what would happen to the money that’s being spent in Iraq, were the troops to withdraw by say 2010 as Obama proposes. |
|
Date: 7/15/2008 5:48:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
I mean, to prevent another Sepember 11th from happening, it seems as though you need a top notch intelligence network, as opposed to tanks/bombers etc. etc. (I’m assuming these cost more) |
|
Date: 7/15/2008 7:38:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
No. Health care is a function of economics. If there is a need and a provider, then the cost should commiserate with demand. Providers shouldn't create a false demand because it is easy to "code" for insurance purposes, thereby causing an artificial cost hike in the whole industry. When the politico demands that the government "protect them" by providing medical coverage the function of an economically sound industry becomes a bureaucracy, not a business, which, is course, what HAS happened in this country, and, which, of course, is why health care is artificially priced. It (artificial prices not based on reality) is the reason this country is in the economic situation it is in now, and I don't see how the function of "protecting citizens" with such things as higher prices on everything now, is the pinnacle of anyone's ideology. God Bless. |
|
Date: 7/15/2008 9:08:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 55344
I think we all agree that something needs to change... but what? lol |
|
Date: 7/16/2008 12:18:00 AM
From Authorid: 4309
angel I never say anything to be wrong. The same weapons caught at the ports by a curious port authority that the suppliers got a slap on the wrist where the same ones who supplied the gas to iran and it was Iran not iraq in those ancient videos. But it is ok that you believe what you do not know. THat whole weapons deal was going on forever and a day and it was pretty much a fluke they where "caught" and then they just ran the weapons differently, through different channels. Nothing came of it anyway really but I do not having any bleeding heart feelings over it. It just was what it was. I do know though the ancient videos that tugged at all heart strings of all the confused in the USA was footage from when Iran Gassed the Kurds using United States provided Missiles was well played and people just ate them all up |
|
Date: 7/16/2008 12:20:00 AM
From Authorid: 4309
Sadly though even you can Submit the request to the DOD through FOIA for that basic information. Its not a secret after all. |
|
Date: 7/16/2008 1:03:00 AM
From Authorid: 27826
:P |
|
Date: 7/16/2008 5:27:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
I don’t see why a government’s obligations to its citizens should begin and end with law enforcement. If you’re saying that Government interference in healthcare is counterproductive, I would point to countries which have some sort of universal healthcare equivalent where the average person seems to be better off. |
Date: 7/16/2008 9:04:00 AM
From Authorid: 4309
" Date: 7/16/2008 1:00:00 AM From Authorid: 27826 I was referring to the poison gas attack on Halabja..where in at least 42 cases the Iraqi regime has used poison gas against the Kurdish population.. <===== LoL. If you want I can help you in obtaining actual DIA reports, Defense Department reports, CIA reports etc. It will take some money and time but you will learn that A That Iraq and Iran where fighting and that Kurds where caught in the crossfire. You will also learn that Iraq never had the Blood Agent Gasses responsible and only Iran did, and that they came from the United States. There was never any evidence of Iraq ever gassing the kurds at that incident and of course did not use any hydrogen cyanide, cynogen clhoride, etc. All which Iran had and used . Bombarded the place with it. Iraq did have mustard Gas but there was never even any evidence that they even used that to any effect in the battles crossfire on the Kurds. The people who where dead where all Iranian Poisoned but people can scour yahoo for gov sites all they want or watch the news. Doesn't change reality.. <3 You  |
Date: 7/16/2008 9:13:00 AM
From Authorid: 4309
Expanding the Federal Government is not in the Constitution. Keeping it small and protecting the interests of the people is its function. Not supplying welfare at the peoples expense. Forcing taxes etc. Taxes are already illegal as is. Where are you going to get the direct tax needed to fund this wild idea? You can only legally tax profit, not earned wages. It has been going on illegally for eons anyway and adding more will be silly and it would still not work anyway. If you want to discuss rationally how Americans can move towards a system you seem to be overly concerned must happen in America. Sure but no more of this simply cut this or that and magically case solved. Economics and our current system sadly doesnt work that way.
|
|
Date: 7/16/2008 9:15:00 AM
From Authorid: 4309
slso making sure there is a national defense/standing army does not = policing the people /police state which is illegal or using the army against the people which is illegal. |
|
Date: 7/16/2008 9:18:00 AM
From Authorid: 4309
You cannot force other people to pay for other people. More forced Welfare State does not fall under protecting the citizens. |
Date: 7/16/2008 9:24:00 AM
From Authorid: 13119
Canada is doing very well with their health care and in actual fact spending less than the states on health care.We have a lower infant mortality rate than the states and contrary to some people's belief here, We Do Not Wait long times for medical aid. Elective surgeries do have a wait time but tough, they are elective. I would not trade Canada's health care system for a lack of universal health care for anything. I agree that comparing the states and Canada can't happen we are lucky enough to have had the system in place for many many moons, it would be impossible to do today. another thing though, for all those who are knocking Canada's system watch out, a ton of Americans actually come up here to take advantage of our services. If we were that bad would they really be doing that?  |
|
Date: 7/16/2008 11:45:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
If what you say is true Wiley, then I would simply say that the constitution ought to be changed. I believe the concept of taxation to be both fair and necessary, and ultimately beneficial for all concerned, and that every government should have an obligation to provide for the health, safety and education of its citizens. (I’m not disputing your interpretation of your constitution, simply saying that this is the way I reckon things *ought* to be in my opinion) |
|
Date: 7/16/2008 1:55:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 55344
I agree with you Magoo, I live right across the Detroit river... and I know of people who have gone over there to get stuff done. |
|
Date: 7/17/2008 2:39:00 AM
From Authorid: 4309
Lol DIrect Taxes ON LABOR IS NOT FAIR LOL. Excise Taxes on PROFIT IS FAIR. You make no profit off labor. It is Bartered Exchanged, In which most cases you are actually taking a Loss when you look at it. Labor is YOUR PROPERTY. If I trade My TV for your TV. Guess what that is called. A Barter.NO TAXES. The day The Local School Janitors all get a perfect national survey in each and every area done on how much they earn can be considered profit, then that is the day they can be legally taxed, otherwise thy are being illegally direct taxed. You have to first figure out what the Custodians position in even one area could be subjectively said to be worth. ALthough it is a Barter after all of Labor (Property) for payment. You would need some kind of appraisal just like real estate. You have to take into consideration all kinds of factors as well. After all someone just getting that job/applying in any area, is going to be getting that areas starting most likely so someone who has legitimately earned raises based on being WORTH MORE /Experience is not suddenly making Profit to be taxed. COst of living increases is definettly not Profit. It doesn't even cover Cost of Living anyway for the most part. Experience raises do not suddenly make up for it and leap into profit either. The constitution has Stood up for how long now? Most successful document in History for how long now? You need some education and experience in alot of areas DP. The world isnt at all what you imagine it to be and definettly Every COuntry you always try to speak expertly about you are so lacking that you really should just stop, ask, and listen instead for once. If you want lesson though you know I am always here and will actually give you a discounted fee. |
|
Date: 7/17/2008 2:01:00 PM
From Authorid: 4309
canad isnt perfect of course but it is in a better position of course. It definettly doesnt have the unregulated regulatory body like the FDA and the lobyists, politicians, insurances, hospitals. coprorations etc like it is setup in the USA. If you live near canada and need a prescription it is a no brainer to go to a place with the better setup to get it filled but its not /ez for the USA to just magically get even canadas setup out of nowhere. |
|
Date: 7/17/2008 2:10:00 PM
From Authorid: 4309
would have been nice to discuss the system of canada though so it can be divulged in depth here so the people can see what the system Magoo was mentioning consists of and discussing this statement " agree that comparing the states and Canada can't happen we are lucky enough to have had the system in place for many many moons, it would be impossible to do today" |
|
Date: 7/17/2008 2:16:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
Aaah. I see the subject of Ireland has been brought up. The whole population of Ireland is LESS THAN the single metropolitan area I live in. The area of Ireland is LESS THAN a fourth of a size of the state I live in. I bring that up because I can see where a universal health care system is possible in smaller countries such as that. However, just in this one metropolitan area there are several Mayor's Councils on Health, the Governor's Council on Health, the County Department of Health, etc., etc., etc. If there was some "thing" called universal health care put into place, then there are layer upon layer upon layer of bureaucratic positions that would suddenly . . . WHAT? All those bureaucrats are going to lose their job because their positions are now unnecessary? Or will this "new" "system" require all the same levels of bureaucracy? You can see a politician's dilemma here, can't you? To institute a "universal health care system" that is RUN EFFICIENTLY is going to be a political backfiring as all these unneeded people -- who were, more or less, put into these jobs as political favors in the first place -- will lash out in the next political cycle against the instigator of such a system. To keep the system as it is, is also unpopular as far as being a politician, since so many people are clamoring for it to change, to not change it does not set well with people whom you told you would change it. But that is what people want to hear so if you keep telling them you will change it, but politically can't change it, but to keep telling them you will change it, may get/keep you in your position. The problem isn't that we don't tax our populace (in whatever form of tax) enough to put programs in place, the problem is the political system that has metamorphosed from one which was here for ALL the people to one which is there for the people who are ingrained in the political scene as it is now (Republicans and Democrats). They have a stranglehold in place which enables them to continue on in their positions without having to do anything for the people other than make nice-sounding speeches in which they claim they will change something which they politically can't do or else it would end up changing their own employment status. God Bless. |
|
Date: 7/29/2008 5:43:00 AM
From Authorid: 51876
WOW, Wiley is a Genuis, It is hard to read his deep rants sometimes but when you do you see how everything is related to one another.He does all his homework and then some.For me Democracy is not Democracy when only 545 people set laws and run a country of multi millions.The Feds are like a drug dealer to the States and the drug is Spin and Fake Money.The Power of Lies on a Huge scale become Truth because thousands of people start believing ,because we all feel Inadequete and Helpless.Democracy only functions correctly in a lower population scale. It loses all of it's connection to the people that it supposedly "takes care of", that is my contention and no one can convince me otherwise...Guess this Post Discussion was so good ADM. let you post it again.I was told that I can't repost things from the past.Hmmmm |
Date: 7/29/2008 5:52:00 AM
From Authorid: 2030
My opinion, first you need a system in place that encourages prevention and good health practices. Then you have to realize that "free" isn't free and that like all welfare programs someone pays for it. Then you have to realize that most of those "rich" people got "rich" earning it somehow. Then you have to listen to a little story. There is a restaurant set up in the U.S. capital, run by a congressional board that sells meals to people who work in the capital building. It has never turned a profit or broke even. Recently it was bailed out to the tune of (if I recall correctly) $280,000. So do you really want the people who can't even manage a restaurant running the largest health care system in the world with your money?  |
|
Date: 7/29/2008 5:59:00 AM
From Authorid: 2030
Technology has given us all the means to live longer and treat more health problems. But I think the best health care was still the old small town Doc who delivered babys, set broken legs, and got paid directly by whatever means people could pay him. And instead of the magic pill he often gave advice. "Hey Doc, it hurts when I do this." "Well then sir I'd stop doing that if I were you". |
Date: 7/29/2008 8:00:00 AM
From Authorid: 24003
What Im confused about is, I know I saw this post a long time ago and now its on the front page. It says it was created today, but there are replies to it all the way back on 7/11. I thought I was losing my mind.  |
|
Date: 7/29/2008 9:25:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
LOL I guess it took a couple of weeks to clean it all up, Adrienne. I know it took me a bit of time to go back through all the comments to see that my last comment here in which I said "Ireland has been mentioned" is a bit out of context since none of the comments before it ***now;;*** mentions same. God Bless. |
Date: 7/29/2008 10:54:00 AM
From Authorid: 3835
Bruiex.. this is not a repost. It was deleted, the offending comments were removed, and the post was restored by an admin.  |
|
Date: 7/29/2008 11:01:00 AM
From Authorid: 24003
Oh ok! lol For a minute I thought I was in need of some healthcare myself. ahhh |
|
Date: 7/29/2008 2:18:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
*Cough*….So anyway…Deb, your point about Ireland - what about countries such as France and the UK which have much larger populations and thus are more likely to suffer the same bureaucratic problems you mention? |
|
Date: 7/29/2008 7:16:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
You tell me, DP. What about them? God Bless. |
|
Date: 7/30/2008 5:05:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
Well, though I haven’t seen the film myself, I understand that Sicko uses the British and French healthcare systems as examples the US could aspire to. These countries have much larger populations than, say Ireland for example (which hardly has a healthcare system to be proud of in any case). |
|
Date: 7/30/2008 9:41:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
You're going to have to give me a little more to go on, DP, other than what you DON'T know. God Bless. |
Date: 7/30/2008 2:14:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
Maybe you’re just rusty since it’s been a while since this post was active  You said above: “The whole population of Ireland is LESS THAN the single metropolitan area I live in. The area of Ireland is LESS THAN a fourth of a size of the state I live in. I bring that up because I can see where a universal health care system is possible in smaller countries such as that. However….” My point, as I hope you can now see, was that places such as the UK (where roughly sixty million people live) and France (slightly more) were extolled in Sicko as having models for the US to emulate. If the healthcare systems in these places offer a substantial improvement over the current US system, then this would seem to suggest that large population is not in fact a barrier to successful universal healthcare. |
|
Date: 7/30/2008 2:17:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
Now, you also brought up the question of the bureaucratic machinery which you say would inhibit any successful scheme being put in place. This might be treated as a separate issue from the question of population size alone, though we might also look towards the previous examples in order to see whether or not similar problems had to be overcome in those cases. |
|
Date: 7/30/2008 2:37:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
I still don't have enough information from your comment DP. I don't know whether those countries' health care systems were bureaucracies before they were universalized and if so, if the universalization of them reduced the bureaucratic ways of doing things or not. Whatcha got on that? God Bless. |
|
Date: 7/30/2008 2:44:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
I don’t know enough about each country, the point I was making was more hypothetical than all that. *IF* the healthcare systems in France and/or the UK are to be emulated, then it seems to show that it is possible to have half-decent systems in countries with large populations. To what extent this is complicated by bureaucracy I wouldn’t know. That was all. |
|
Date: 7/30/2008 3:17:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
O.k. Thanks for your honesty. God Bless. |
Date: 8/6/2008 4:33:00 PM
From Authorid: 64637
I honestly don't care what happens, just as long as I don't have to choose between health care for my kids or feeding them and paying rent. The least they could do is make sure it is more affordable for us. I personally do not have health care because it is way to expensive, but my children do because i have government assistance. It is really sad how these other countries can take care of their people and our country cannot do that. I am tired of paying out of my taxes for illegal aliens and their 15 kids to have medical insurance free of charge from the government, and me, a middle class voting citizen to have to go without. It really makes me sick to think that people are dying because they cannot afford to go to the doctor. I think personally that universal healthcare hasn't happened yet because the Doctors most likely wouldn't be making the bank that they are making now, and the government doesn't want to pay them what they are making now. I don't know, but I do know that something has to change.~~~~MidnightSun  |
Date: 8/17/2008 9:34:00 PM
From Authorid: 16865
I think having the UHC be an OPTION would be best. Not sure how that would work though since most of the state health care I have had was horrible... but it wasn't as bad as not having any at all. I am a bit torn on this. I will have to think about it.  |
