Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
I applaud both PLC and GenSeneca who both understand the true nature of the enemy even though they take different political views.
Move to Canada if you want to live in a more socialist society. There is no place for me to go in order to live in a more capitalist society.
It's not that we "can't" mortgage the wealth, liberty and prosperity of future generations, its that up to now, we've been smart enough to avoid doing so.
In a word, yes. But a more accurate word would be Unconstitutional.
So you don't have a source for your numbers?
BTW, how many Canadians come to the US for healthcare and how many Americans go to Canada for healthcare? If their system is such a great bargain, why do so many come here?
WHO is lying to push an agenda.... Just as the IPCC lies to push their agenda.
YES!!! Have you ever looked at the historic chart comparing third party spending to out of pocket expenses for healthcare?
![]()
If we created Food Insurance and ran it on the same premise and at the same level as HC insurance, you would notice that the price of food would quickly skyrocket out of control as insurance, rather than the consumer, took over the role of paying food bills. This isn't coincidence, its causality in action.
On an individual basis? No... but certain groups will get preferential treatment. HC rationing will impact the young and the elderly the most... those paying little to nothing in taxes and therefore of little to no value to a Collectivist society that runs on the taxation of its working age citizenry.
In a free market the cost of things, even things like health care, fluctuate, sometimes increasing and sometimes decreasing, sometimes costs even grow or shrink faster than inflation.Both Canada and the US are capitalist societies. The "more socialist" mantra is simply a talking point. If health care can be streamlined, then by all means, let's do so. If we don't, the costs will soon run us into bankruptcy. How much longer do you think we can continue to allow health care costs to increase faster than the rate of inflation? The current system is not sustainable.
No, we absolutely can mortgage the future by continuing to allow health care costs to escalate. Pretty soon, not even the middle class will be able to afford it.
If you want a strict interpretation of the constitution, then 90% of everything that the federal government does is unconstitutional. Such a strict interpretation would have worked well in the 18th. century, but, luckily for us, we now live in the 21st.
The people who think about it just a little deeper know that we spend more because we get more and that other countries hide their true expenses in taxes.Actually, yes I do. I thought everyone knew by now that the US was #1 in health care spending.
It is still the least that you could do for her. Have you done anything at all? At most you could pay her bills and drive her to appointments. But I have not asked of you did the most that you could do; only if you have done the least. So have you?
I don't know. Do a lot of Canadians come here? The US doesn't rank very high on the list of medical tourism destinations. In fact, we send a lot of medical tourists abroad from this country. If we have the best medical care, why do so many Americans travel abroad?
No, the individual would decide who should be in charge of rationing. He/she could choose the public option, and allow government to decide, choose private insurance and allow the company bureaucrats to decide, or perhaps, if the insurer decided against a particular treatment, could dig into his pocket and make his own decision.
She's my friend and what a real A$$hole would have to ask what I do or don't do for my dearly beloved neighbors...but that's where you and I obviously part ways!!!
People ASSume that I'm a rude jerk because they don't like my sense of humor; you on the other hand just ARE A RUDE JERK and revel in it!!! I don't bring my personal life on here for your entertainment...I used her very specific story because of the instance that was the example for the health topic...but when you have to be drawn a picture and you still just DON'T GET IT
I KNOW THAT YOU ARE BEING OBTUSE ON PURPOSE AND I DON'T PLAY THOSE CHILDREN GAMES![]()
She's my friend and what a real A$$hole would have to ask what I do or don't do for my dearly beloved neighbors...but that's where you and I obviously part ways!!!
People ASSume that I'm a rude jerk because they don't like my sense of humor; you on the other hand just ARE A RUDE JERK and revel in it!!! I don't bring my personal life on here for your entertainment...I used her very specific story because of the instance that was the example for the health topic...but when you have to be drawn a picture and you still just DON'T GET IT![]()
Oh, now I understand where you're coming from... you think the constitution is an outdated, antiquated document and applaud the fact that its completely ignored by government.If you want a strict interpretation of the constitution, then 90% of everything that the federal government does is unconstitutional. Such a strict interpretation would have worked well in the 18th. century, but, luckily for us, we now live in the 21st.
I did know we were number one, that wasn't at issue, it was your numbers. Here's what you originally said:Actually, yes I do. I thought everyone knew by now that the US was #1 in health care spending.
The fact remains that we pay 17% of our GDP for health care, while Canada pays 10% and France pays 7%.
If a Rolls Royce is so good, why doesn't everyone drive one?If we have the best medical care, why do so many Americans travel abroad?
I never cited a single radio pundit but you did cite WHO. Leave the strawmen and stereotypes to the Radical Leftists.So, WHO can't be trusted, but the the radio pundits who keep telling us we have the best medical care system in the world have no political agenda, and can be taken at face value. Sure, sure, that's believable.
There is a wedge (insurance and government) between the consumer and the provider. The larger the wedge, the greater the gap gets between what we pay out of pocket and what the third party pays... in short, costs rise in direct proportion to the lowering of out of pocket expenses. As those costs rise, people push to make the wedge larger. Problem is, the wedge is the problem causing the rise.So, out of pocket expenses are going down, while insurance costs are going up? What conclusion do you draw from that?
You missed the point of the analogy. Lets say there is food insurance. You"Food insurance"? Now, there's a stretch.
Once there is a public option, everyone has to pay into it whether they use it or not, so those not in the public option will be subsidizing the costs through higher taxes and will still have to pay for their own insurance as well.No, the individual would decide who should be in charge of rationing. He/she could choose the public option, and allow government to decide...
Government runs on taxes, they know who butters their bread.it is a huge stretch to say that the government will favor working class people over seniors or youth simply because they pay more in taxes.
The voice of the people doesn't matter to Washington politicians, they think they know what's best for you and they are pushing for the "greater good" of society. If that means you have to go with less, then that's a sacrifice you are expected to make as your obligation to the collective.Seniors also have a higher percentage of active voters, which gives us a much bigger voice in government than other demographics.
Just wait and see if Medicare is allowed to go under, or whether those still working will pay higher taxes to support it.
I think you've arrived at the correct conclusion despite your premise being wrong on the source of rising costs.My prediction is that nothing meaningful will come from the current partisan wrangling, that medical costs will continue to soar, that fewer and fewer Americans will have access to health care at all, that the cost of private insurance will soon be out of reach of most employers, and that the current public option will require higher taxes. Further, the cost to employers will force more and more corporations overseas where they don't have to pay for employee health insurance.
Polls show 50% of the people do not think it is the govt's responsiblityt to provide health care.you want the republican bill debated? Win the house , senate, or white house maybe and you can...but the american public said no to Republicans on all 3...so suck it up and enjoy being powerless. You had 8 years to debate it...you did not do it...