Taoman said:
Canada has done well. Is there flaws? Of course. The first flaw was that the ID cards did not have picture IDs so anyone could anyone else's card. That cost the government a lot of money. They fixed that by adding pictures on the ID cards and have trimmed down that cost.
Another flaw is that the funding is provincial instead of Federal. So smaller provinces have less funds to cover expenses. e have the same problem with our own public school systems. So inner-city schools get lower funding and therefore worse conditions and less programs than wealthier middle class suburbs.
But the idea of having a social safety net to cover the expenses of universal healthcare is a good idea, but it would require all of us valuing the well being of each other. Which is why I chose to offer making healthcare affordable through subsidies and price controls. You still have not explained why making a necessary service, like healthcare or education, affordable is a bad thing.
Perhaps all you have to go on is an unreasonable fear/loathing of socialism based on McCarthyesque propaganda being hammered into your head since birth.
If Canada's socialized medicine is so great, why would any sane Canadian purchase private insurance?
Let me clue you. The delays for care are widespread. In some cases people have died as a result of waiting too long. Those who are not on the "serious" lists find themselves waiting and suffering in pain.
The Vancouver, British Columbia-based Fraser Institute keeps track of Canadian waiting times for various medical procedures. According to the Fraser Institute's 14th annual edition of "Waiting Your Turn: Hospital Waiting Lists in Canada (2004)," total waiting time between referral from a general practitioner and treatment, averaged across all 12 specialties and 10 provinces surveyed, rose from 17.7 weeks in 2003 to 17.9 weeks in 2004.
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4271
I do not have "unreasonable" fear/loathing of socialism. One only has to look at the facts.
Taoman said:
So you feel it is better to make necessary items unattainable for the poor and working classes? Mass production is not the problem, it is marketing. We know potato chips are bad, because of the additives. Foods like this are contributing to our poor health as a nation. These agri-businesses that pushed out all of our farmers has replaced our food with garbage. Now even foods like beef, chicken, broccoli and so on have poisons in them. We are inundated with marketing of the mass produced products. Every movie has a Fast-food/cereal/video game tie-in. That is not progress and blatant evidence that our best interests are not represented by our elected officials.
If marketing is "the problem" as you say, why are apples more costly than chips? I never see ads for bags of apples.
You appear to be one of those people who support the "food police". Where does it say in our Constitution that anybody has the right to tell anyone what they can or cannot eat? Don't you believe in indidividual freedom? If we go to socialized medicine the government will take away a lot of that because it will then have the power to dictate your lifestyle choices.
Taoman said:
Right, and they live with multiple familes crammed into houses and apartments, work two or three crappy jobs, subsist on rice & beans, and ship most of that cash back home. Are you suggesting that we should follow this model? Should we go back to flop houses with shared bathrooms? Should we all work two or three crappy jobs and not be a part of our familes? What is wrong with earning a livable wage?
The problem is the cost of living is too high. We need to elevate the cost of living so that families who earn minimum wage (or just above) can afford to live.
We accept that the economy is a two income reality. Thanks to Reagan, mom & dad must work to survive. Okay, fine. But are you suggesting that we should work two or three jobs each if we are not worthy of a better paying job? Whose responsibility is it to raise they latchkey children?
Flop houses with shared bathrooms? Sounds like college days. Yes I am suggesting we follow this model. It appears that many immigrants also like this model as they keep on coming here for the privilege of living in a flophouse because they know it is only temporary. They know they can pursue a better life here. Believe it or not nobody has the "right" to be handed anything for free. You need to work for your supper. The government has no right to take from one person and give it to another person. I suppose you are going to call me hard-hearted again for saying that…too bad. That's how Americans learn the nitty gritty of life and to value their hard won freedoms. Socialism is a form of government servitude.
Taoman said:
That is a lie. Look at Russia: the only people sitting on their asses getting fat were the politicians & KGB chiefs. Everyone else worked hard, very hard. Socialism doesn't take away the incentive to work. You are very misinformed if you believe that.
Would you have liked to work under Socialism in Russia? You'd work twice as hard and get half as much.
That's why the Socialist propaganda today is such a lie. They promise utopia (and for some for a while this seems true) but in reality you get hell in the end.
Taoman said:
And privatized healthcare is even less effective than anything the government can do. It won't become expensive, it will become effective. No more class distinction and economic sanctions for necessary medical care.
Less effective than anything the govt. can do? What do you think of the effectiveness of Medicare? Now there's a great example of what the govt. can do. Not.
Today's health care is not as privatized as it should be. It should be privatized to the point where you and your doctor are making your health care decisions, not an insurance company. If you think an insurance company is bad for your health care, wait until the government takes over. You want politicians managing your health care?
Taoman said:
No, the free market doesn't work. I don't think you have read anything I have said. We need price controls and subsidies to make it affordable. We need zero restrictions for pre-existing conditions. We need a social safety net to cover the costs of the lower classes.
I think voucher systems are even more limiting than anything we have discussed here.
Try reading my words and thinking it through next time.
I have been reading and thinking about your position. I don't buy it. You haven't provided any real proof that socialized medicine will work...you just have the heartfelt
belief it will work.
IMO we don't "need" any of that stuff you claim we "need"...price controls and subsidies (other than for the core poor) are not necessary to provide our health care. Instead we need a health care system that is rid of government and insurance company interference. Once third parties get their grubby hands out of the sytem the market can work.
Take a look at WalMart. This is private enterprise at work without the price controls and subsidies. You can go there and buy $4 prescriptions. Believe it or not, that is helping a lot of poor and working class people. Going further, Walmart is also going to set up clinics at many of its stores. People will be able to go there and get everyday health care at a low cost. It will help take the pressure off regular clinics which should help everybody. A great boon to the poor and "disenfranchised" wouldn't you say? That's the free market at work.
. Until we as people in this country decide to realize & understand that our society is and will be judged by history as to how we cared for our poor, young and old and that we dropped the ball and handed it over to greedy healthcare insurance co. CEO's(Kaiser-thanks Nixon)
and sharholders and doctors who have all become filthy rich at the expense of our health.
and we rank very low on infant mortality rates. We need a universal health care system that will allow doctors to be doctors and treat patients and practice preventative medicine rather than stuff pills down their throat. Big pharma controls the FDA and the AMA so now doctors know little more than what they are allowed to know which seems not much more than writing a script for pills.
) No the founders didn't like democracy (as they knew it, 18th Century style) but they'd be okay with the idea now that the fear of the tyranny of the majority has been dealt with in many other democracies by various forms of representation.
