Why can't we in America talk seriously about Socialism?

[Oddish]

Obviously. We weren't being compared to other nations, though. We were being called wealthy by Western, first world, standards.

Yeah, just trying to put things into perspective.

 

[GQ Chris]

I am a working Stiff at the moment, but I am strapping on my Capitalist bootstraps and will create jobs in the future.

 

[GQ Chris]

by the way, has anyone seen my Ronald Reagan shirt, lol.

 

[Im_A]

At any rate, I am still driving at the point that a publicly funded health care system, is better than that of privately funded.

And in the US case that is only a difference of the government funding 30% more money.

As I said before, the only reason our system is having issues is because of nurses and doctors going abroad to to practice for more money or that we have an issue with institutes actually denying people to study medicine in Canada, and then they go abroad and study anyways.

Ours is strictly due to a lack of professionals in the practice. The US has more than enough staff to support a socialist system. Sure they may have to work longer hours for their money, and if it isnt contract, well they make more money, but it is a system if implemented right, will work.

This doesn't address any issue concerning for me. How are we going to pay for it? If there is a global recession and a recession in the US how can anyone in their right mind call for universal health care? There's only one reason I can think of....the government masking idealistic beliefs to get more money because taxes will have to increase.

Population between Canada and USA is a huge statistic:
Canada:The 2009 estimate:33,834,000
USA:The 2009 estimate:307,860,000
United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That's a huge difference in population. Again, how do you expect a socialistic health care system to be worthwhile and non-detrimental to the on going massive spending our government that is racking our nation into immense debt worse than any other president we've had in office.

Say the estimated difference of 274,026,000...that's a considerable difference don't you think? Now no matter of the reasons you say that there is waiting problems in Canada(that is really inmaterial to me in regards to the issue of the reasons etc) in a country that has that less of population and having some type of waiting list, how does anything you say give Americans any hope for universal health care program?

Now let's look at difference by geographic and how the government is divided. I may need your help because your a Canadian and you would know more than me about how your politics work, but I'm going to take a stab at this.

Your country has 10 provinces and 3 territories. Canada has a government based on a parliment with a democratic tradition correct? A Canadian on here explained something to me in regards to how the works. The simplified version from my memory of how he told me was, that pretty much the provinces run themselves. I would have to assume that of the territories as well. No real reason for much government interaction when population is considerably low. Proof of that is let's compare your largest province population whise as compared to our largest state.
Ontario:13,150,000
California:36,756,666
Hmm...Our largest state is has more population than your entire country. How do you expect us to pay for it? How do you expect a capitalist, free market nation by birth and blood to pay for this? China at least has the excuse of being a communist nation. Let's look at their reform:

China is undertaking a reform on its health care system. The New Rural Co-operative Medical Care System (NRCMCS) is a new 2005 initiative to overhaul the healthcare system, particularly intended to make it more affordable for the rural poor. Under the NRCMCS, the annual cost of medical cover is 50 yuan (US$7) per person. Of that, 20 yuan is paid in by the central government, 20 yuan by the provincial government and a contribution of 10 yuan is made by the patient. As of September 2007, around 80% of the whole rural population of China had signed up (about 685 million people). The system is tiered, depending on the location. If patients go to a small hospital or clinic in their local town, the scheme will cover from 70-80% of their bill. If they go to a county one, the percentage of the cost being covered falls to about 60%. And if they need specialist help in a large modern city hospital, they have to bear most of the cost themselves, the scheme would cover about 30% of the bill

Public health-care in China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WHO | The world health report 2000 - Health systems: improving performance
-The reform of the rural cooperative medical system in the People's Republic of China: interim experience in 14 pilot counties. Authors: Carrin G.1; Ron A.; Hui Y.; Hong W.; Tuohong Z.; Licheng Z.; Shuo Z.; Yide Y.; Jiaying C.; Qicheng J.; Zhaoyang Z.; Jun Y.; Xuesheng L. Source: Social Science and Medicine, Volume 48, Number 7, April 1999, pp.961-972(12)
Why do I used China...because it is roughly 1.3 billion people populated and look at how this reform is. Do you consider that progress?

My whole point is, there are so many other equations into this. Who has pulled socialistic healthcare perfect? Canadians? People here have shown that to be just the fact, and your reasons does not detere the fact that Canada does not have a perfect health care system. France is rated the best, by why wouldn't it be? The population is so small in comparison. China? The above to me says no. Any other takers? Russia? Before the collapse of the USSR, it seemed to work good. I find it ironic how the nation collapssed but yet their health care was successful as a socialistic health care. Then after the collapse, the reforms went no where.

The new Russia has switched to a mixed model of health care with private financing and provision running alongside state financing and provision. Article 41 of the 1993 constitution confirmed a citizen's right to healthcare and medical assistance free of charge.[citation needed] This is achieved through compulsory medical insurance (OMS) rather than just tax funding. This and the introduction of new free market providers was intended to promote both efficiency and patient choice. A purchaser-provider split was also expected to help facilitate the restructuring of care, as resources would migrate to where there was greatest demand, reduce the excess capacity in the hospital sector and stimulate the development of primary care. Finally, it was intended that insurance contributions would supplement budget revenues and thus help to maintain adequate levels of healthcare funding.
The OECD reported that unfortunately, none of this has worked out as planned and the reforms have in many respects made the system worse. The population’s health has deteriorated on virtually every measure. Though this is by no means all due to the changes in health care structures, the reforms have proven to be woefully indequate at meeting the needs of the nation. Private health care delivery has not managed to make much inroads and public provision of health care still predominates. The resulting system is overly complex and very inefficient. It has little in common with the model envisaged by the reformers. Although there are more than 300 private insurers and numerous public ones in the market, real competition for patients is rare leaving most patients with little or no effective choice of insurer, and in many places, no choice of health care provider either. The insurance companies have failed to develop as active, informed purchasers of health care services. Most are passive intermediaries, making money by simply channelling funds from regional OMS funds to healthcare providers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Russia#Reform

Another reason why people get their panties in a rightful twist in America? This sounds so familar of what may be happening here with supposed 'public options'. Just think, yes I am making a comparision to Russia like some may jump on that I'm being a bit extreme here, but its post-cold war Russia so for those who think it.

So who has done it so well enough that we should change our system to be like the rest of the free-world? Any takers?

For those who want a socialistic health care for America, how do you expect the government to pay for it? How do you shawn101 think America should pay for it if your convinced that your type of health care is the best?

Is the broke government robbing Peter who is in poverty to pay Paul who is also in poverty any way to keep anything afloat? Is health care really going to get fixed when all 3 parties are broke?

 

[Tamara224]

The definition of "wealthy" is not exact, but in this case we're distinguishing between those who can afford health insurance, and those who can't. So if you can afford health insurance, you're a lot closer to the definition of wealthy than someone who can't afford it.

Oh, that's fun! We get to redifine words however and whenever we want to? Yay!

Okay, my turn. My definition of "wealthy" is someone who makes $60 trillion a year.

LOL, jk.

There's a lot going in to whether or not a person can or cannot afford health insurance. For example: what if it's just not a priority for them? What if they could afford it if they got rid of the car, or spent less on luxury items like entertainment? I know a lot of people who complain about being poor but refuse to give up luxury items. It's a matter of priorities for a lot of people.

Incidentally, lawyers are some of the top income earners in the U.S., so I don't think you can be put in the same camp as someone who works for minimum wage at a job that provides them zero benefits.

Not all lawyers make a lot of money. I don't. I make enough to pay my student loans and other bills with only a little spending money left. For my first two years out of law school, I did not have health insurance.

Also, I have not always been a lawyer. For a while I was a poor student making less than $10K a year.

I know what it's like to not have any money and not be able to afford health insurance.

I also know what it is like to be able to afford health insurance and decide not to purchase it anyway because it's not a priority for me. That's what I did in college and law school. I could have gotten student health insurance for like $400 a semester. I could have afforded it. I decided I'd rather use the money for other things instead.

At the moment, I'm considering canceling my health insurance again. My boss pays for it all and I think I'd rather he give me that money instead. I don't go to the doctor that often and it's a lot cheaper to pay for the services than what the insurance costs every month. I know it's a risk... if I were injured or something, I'd be stuck with a big bill. But a health savings account sounds like a better idea for me right now.

 

[Im_A]

I also want to ask:
All the liberals and foreigners who do not agree with us so called conservative, redneck, closed minded, right-wing extremist ken-folk Americans who are against one, socialistic health care and against Dr. Obama and Biden and Associates Clinic, tell us how we should do it in our times? Tell us how we should do it with our recession? Tell us how we should do it with being the type of government we are and being around the 3rd to the 4th largest populated country?

Keep idealistic meaning out of this. Meaning, keep how sad it is that a certain percentage is going without insurance. No one that is against the two things above are saying our current system is perfect but raising the already known fact that people have been complaining for years does not answer any of the desperate questions that need answered (at least in my opinion it doesn't and since I'm asking, I'm going to go with it). Keep sentimental stuff out of it.

How do y'all expect us to pay for this great and best health care system when we can't even keep Medicare from going broke?

I want figures, economic theory to discuss. I want programs, funds, the way the market would be used in this. The way the money gets around between the patient, doctors and the government. I want to know how it is not going to increase the already inflating deficit that when our government is forking over tax paying money to bail banks out, the auto industry etc out that now it is wanting to give us health care? Is it not shocking that some of us don't think of this like a Christmas gift that we don't care how we got it?

Again go to economics, programs, funds, the market, comparing to the increasing federal deficit.

If one cannot talk on this level, don't bother responding to this specific post. I am willing to listen and be open minded to learn and to discuss. I will do my best to give counter arguments and find counter arguments, but I will not respond to anyone who cannot talk on the level of the actual spending, the actual government overhaul, the increasing deficit, the fact that if all we are doing is passing debt around, how does anyone think we can afford this?

I invite anyone to discuss on this level since the OP supposedly wanted a serious discussion on this. If I have missed any response to my initial response to the OP I apologize and will in time respond. This is just another invite.

 

[Oddish]

I haven't done enough economy lessons to answer that lol. I wish I had the answers. No system will ever be perfect though.

 

[AlexeiKaramazov]

Oh, that's fun! We get to redifine words however and whenever we want to? Yay!

Okay, my turn. My definition of "wealthy" is someone who makes $60 trillion a year.

Isn't that how language works? As soon as you get enough people to agree on a word's meaning, then that becomes its definition...until it inevitably changes, that is

There's a lot going in to whether or not a person can or cannot afford health insurance. For example: what if it's just not a priority for them? What if they could afford it if they got rid of the car, or spent less on luxury items like entertainment? I know a lot of people who complain about being poor but refuse to give up luxury items. It's a matter of priorities for a lot of people.

I agree with this. Priorities in the United States tend to focus on material wants rather than practical needs. This is totally backwards.

Not all lawyers make a lot of money. I don't. I make enough to pay my student loans and other bills with only a little spending money left. For my first two years out of law school, I did not have health insurance.

Also, I have not always been a lawyer. For a while I was a poor student making less than $10K a year.

I understand that, and didn't mean to imply that you're regularly out gallivanting in your shiny new BMW. Trust me, I'm in a high income profession as well but I know that doesn't make me a billionaire. I just think that it's different for someone with no children who works in a high-paying field and whose disposable income is sure to go up throughout their lifetime than it is being a mother of five who works at Wal-Mart and has no hope of increasing her income.

I know what it's like to not have any money and not be able to afford health insurance.

I also know what it is like to be able to afford health insurance and decide not to purchase it anyway because it's not a priority for me. That's what I did in college and law school. I could have gotten student health insurance for like $400 a semester. I could have afforded it. I decided I'd rather use the money for other things instead.

At the moment, I'm considering canceling my health insurance again. My boss pays for it all and I think I'd rather he give me that money instead. I don't go to the doctor that often and it's a lot cheaper to pay for the services than what the insurance costs every month. I know it's a risk... if I were injured or something, I'd be stuck with a big bill. But a health savings account sounds like a better idea for me right now.

It's true that it's older people who incur the bulk of health care costs. Young people can get away with dropping the insurance and most of the time that will work out just fine. I wouldn't mind a plan that offered free health insurance to everyone but offered a tax break for those who opt out. But then if someone has a major crisis, they might lose their house. It could be a gamble. I do think I'd feel better knowing that this was a result of personal choice rather than unavoidable poverty, though.

My opinion on this whole issue is that it's not acceptable for people to lose their homes and their savings because of health issues. I just think we should provide a safety net of some kind. We're the wealthiest nation on earth, and we should be able to help our poor. What we've got now just isn't good enough.

 

[AlexeiKaramazov]

I also want to ask:
All the liberals and foreigners who do not agree with us so called conservative, redneck, closed minded, right-wing extremist ken-folk Americans who are against one, socialistic health care and against Dr. Obama and Biden and Associates Clinic, tell us how we should do it in our times? Tell us how we should do it with our recession? Tell us how we should do it with being the type of government we are and being around the 3rd to the 4th largest populated country?

Keep idealistic meaning out of this. Meaning, keep how sad it is that a certain percentage is going without insurance. No one that is against the two things above are saying our current system is perfect but raising the already known fact that people have been complaining for years does not answer any of the desperate questions that need answered (at least in my opinion it doesn't and since I'm asking, I'm going to go with it). Keep sentimental stuff out of it.

How do y'all expect us to pay for this great and best health care system when we can't even keep Medicare from going broke?

I want figures, economic theory to discuss. I want programs, funds, the way the market would be used in this. The way the money gets around between the patient, doctors and the government. I want to know how it is not going to increase the already inflating deficit that when our government is forking over tax paying money to bail banks out, the auto industry etc out that now it is wanting to give us health care? Is it not shocking that some of us don't think of this like a Christmas gift that we don't care how we got it?

Again go to economics, programs, funds, the market, comparing to the increasing federal deficit.

If one cannot talk on this level, don't bother responding to this specific post. I am willing to listen and be open minded to learn and to discuss. I will do my best to give counter arguments and find counter arguments, but I will not respond to anyone who cannot talk on the level of the actual spending, the actual government overhaul, the increasing deficit, the fact that if all we are doing is passing debt around, how does anyone think we can afford this?

I invite anyone to discuss on this level since the OP supposedly wanted a serious discussion on this. If I have missed any response to my initial response to the OP I apologize and will in time respond. This is just another invite.

I think one of the fundamental problems with this kind of argument is that it conflates difficult with impossible. The government may fail to accomplish one goal, but that does not mean it cannot accomplish another. We musn't forget that governments are made up of people, and the ones who failed in the past are not the people who are leading us today. This was really the essence of Obama's campaign message: "We can do better".

I prefer to believe that real change is possible, that government can actually succeed...if we really want it to.

 

[Im_A]

I haven't done enough economy lessons to answer that lol. I wish I had the answers. No system will ever be perfect though.

I don't have the answers either and I hope people are not thinking I have all the answers with my blatant disregard to socialistic health care and the administrations ideas in regards to 'reforming health care'. I also agree that no system will ever be perfect either. I want to talk on that level because to be flat out honest, here's what I see from ALL sides:
1. We have to take care of the percentage without health care!
2. No communism! No communism! No communism!
3. All other free nations have socialized health care!
4. No government overhaul, no government overhaul, but take care of me when I retire!
I do not find myself relating with the loud mouthed extremists on either sides and find myself hard to warrant a respectable discussion with any of them. It may be solely because my concerns are not as high on the list of concerns of others? I don't know. I'm tired of the extreme nonsense(pun is intentional).

I do believe though that if we are going to change from imperfection to imperfection, one better have an impeccable reason and solid, sound economic proof that this will not keep us in the problems we are currently in or makes us worse, that the problems that socialistic health care countries have regardless of reason will not happen for us or at least will be better dealt with quickly and I find the constitution, the letter of the law of our country and people have concerns with this issue and this topic, to be more of the guide to this and not idealism.

Plus I have a hard time seeing progress when we move from imperfection to imperfection without any solid, impeccable reasoning. So if there is none, why change our current system? Why not address the actual problems in our system once and for all? It has taken a threat of state ran health care to say, "Our health care needs a lot of work" and that's sad, and I'm just as guilty as the next person.

 

[AlexeiKaramazov]

As a followup, I realize I didn't provide any hard data like Im_A was asking for. I don't think there's any point in trying to go into the details because the problem is too big. If it isn't self-evident that the United States has enough money to guarantee its citizens life-saving healthcare, there's nothing to discuss anyway. To me, that's a stone cold fact and everything else is just logistics. We CAN do it. Let the geniuses figure out how and propose their plans to us.

 

[Im_A]

As a followup, I realize I didn't provide any hard data like Im_A was asking for. I don't think there's any point in trying to go into the details because the problem is too big. If it isn't self-evident that the United States has enough money to guarantee its citizens life-saving healthcare, there's nothing to discuss anyway. To me, that's a stone cold fact and everything else is just logistics. We CAN do it. Let the geniuses figure out how and propose their plans to us.

How can you not discuss this? WE HAVE A LIFE SAVING health care already!!! The insurance my family had for me, saved me several times due to my extreme allergy to tree nuts. It also saved my sister's life when she was a baby. So if you don't mind, its one thing to be for socialized health care, but at least acknowledge the very fact that the current system has done amazing when it comes to reaching the health concerns. It has saved my life, and the people I love. You offer nothing but the copy of Obama's speeches via the internet.

I'll also throw this out there:
You trust the experts? The same people that gave your tax paying dollars to CIT group(just one example and why not throw some anti-Bush since it started under Bush and now Obama hasn't done anything to counter the bad move of Bush on the economy because now he is creating new problems that all rests on his shoulders and Obama's shoulders alone) who is filing chapter 11 and has wasted the 2.3 billion TARP money given to CIT group? You trust the experts who has let Medicare go on a devastation road to bankruptcy in several years down the road? You trust the experts who have increased the federal deficit so many times over what any other president has done?

 

[Brad2009]

To me, that's a stone cold fact and everything else is just logistics. We CAN do it. Let the geniuses figure out how and propose their plans to us.

Actually, its all logistics - and that ivory-tower types will somehow get it right on the first try is sooo far from something that we can just take for granted. If we screw this up, in a time of economic turmoil, the result could be devastating. You want a simple solution which doesn't require alot of thought - I've got it.

The existing bankruptcy laws, which were tightened under Bush (one of the few things done under him that I liked) could simply be altered to grant a narrow exception for medical bankruptcy. Yes, the uninsured would still run the risk of losing their possessions if they required a major procedure. But it doesn't require a plan or spending and wouldn't add to the burden of the already strained system.

And that's not even to mention that the 'next big thing' is supposed to be bio-med. Undercutting the capital system which lies beneath the bio-med industry seems to be among the worst ideas I can think of.

 

[Im_A]

I think one of the fundamental problems with this kind of argument is that it conflates difficult with impossible. The government may fail to accomplish one goal, but that does not mean it cannot accomplish another. We musn't forget that governments are made up of people, and the ones who failed in the past are not the people who are leading us today. This was really the essence of Obama's campaign message: "We can do better".

I prefer to believe that real change is possible, that government can actually succeed...if we really want it to.

You call socialistic health care better, when you can't prove anything? So you basically just stated here that you can't prove anything with hard data that Obama's idea of health care reform is good, realistic, plausible, something good. You just repeat the Obama rhetoric then. 2x you have admitted to not being able to answer my question. Don't waste anymore of my time then. After your comment about 'needing life saving health insurance', I have no desire to talk politics with you unless you can answer my questions on the topics I have asked them to be answered.


On the last note that I'll talk to you on this, only because 'fools' love to have the last word:
I prefer to believe in responsible government spending, a small government that works from the bottom up, a constituional republic that is based on representative form of democracy and fixing the health care system that used to be the best health care system in the world. Congressmen and women who care about the future in an accountable manner, in a responsible manner and not party politics, idealistic beliefs that they can't even prove through hard data, theories in economics, actual live data etc. You want change, give up on the tease of the executive office and get back to your local elections in your districts, in your city, in your state.

 

[Tamara224]

It's true that it's older people who incur the bulk of health care costs. Young people can get away with dropping the insurance and most of the time that will work out just fine. I wouldn't mind a plan that offered free health insurance to everyone but offered a tax break for those who opt out. But then if someone has a major crisis, they might lose their house. It could be a gamble. I do think I'd feel better knowing that this was a result of personal choice rather than unavoidable poverty, though.

I absolutely agree. I'm not opposed to lower cost health care. I'm not even opposed to a certain amount of socialization in health care.

What I'm opposed to is taking it out of the hands of individuals and putting all discretion in the hands of big government.

Also, like I'm_A said... if we're going to change systems then we should make darn sure that we understand what we're doing, why we're doing it and what the foreseeable consequences are. I think that it's absolutely vital that we look at the flaws in other systems before we go adopting those systems. And like I said before... it's a matter of what we think is more important.

I know it's tough on single mothers and stuff. But the truth is that the really poor in our country already have access to government funded health care. And still we have a problem. So... the question is - if Medicare isn't working, why would we essentially make it bigger?

Also, there are other ways to fix the problems. Socialized big-government medicine is not the only option. But for some reason, no other options or fixes are being proposed.

The insurance industry is out of control. Not just health insurance. Car, home, malpractice, etc, etc.

I would love it if someone would say "okay, we have problems, we realize that. Let's analyze those problems and see if we can figure out what is causing them. Like, why are insurance premiums going up? What is causing them to be unaffordable? Is there a way insurance practice could be reformed to make it more affordable?"

Instead, politicians and so many others just start screaming "CHANGE!! We need change!!" But change what? And why? And how will the change help? Should we really do an about-face? Or can we tweak some things and make it more efficient?

Not all change is for the better.

 

[canehdianhotstuff]

Ok, I talked to some friends that have moved from Canada to the USA about a health care comparison, and everyone one of them says the same thing. "God, forbid we get sick here, because we can't afford it"

One of them had to pay $655 for some simple blood test to be done that I get for free here. And another had to pay $500 for here baby for some simple blood test and a vaccine. Here those are also free.

Free being defined as payed through taxes.

Another friend has a duel-citizenship (US doesnt recognize it anymore I know). He needed to travel for something and required vaccines. The US it would have cost him around $900, he came to Canada for the weekend, and got them for $100.


That seems like a total rip-off to me. They are paying for the lab work as well, which they shouldnt be. Insure companies are surely ripping them off.

The cost of insurance seems unreasonable per the health care actually given.

 

[canehdianhotstuff]

I absolutely agree. I'm not opposed to lower cost health care. I'm not even opposed to a certain amount of socialization in health care.

What I'm opposed to is taking it out of the hands of individuals and putting all discretion in the hands of big government.

Also, like I'm_A said... if we're going to change systems then we should make darn sure that we understand what we're doing, why we're doing it and what the foreseeable consequences are. I think that it's absolutely vital that we look at the flaws in other systems before we go adopting those systems. And like I said before... it's a matter of what we think is more important.

I know it's tough on single mothers and stuff. But the truth is that the really poor in our country already have access to government funded health care. And still we have a problem. So... the question is - if Medicare isn't working, why would we essentially make it bigger?

Also, there are other ways to fix the problems. Socialized big-government medicine is not the only option. But for some reason, no other options or fixes are being proposed.

The insurance industry is out of control. Not just health insurance. Car, home, malpractice, etc, etc.

I would love it if someone would say "okay, we have problems, we realize that. Let's analyze those problems and see if we can figure out what is causing them. Like, why are insurance premiums going up? What is causing them to be unaffordable? Is there a way insurance practice could be reformed to make it more affordable?"

Instead, politicians and so many others just start screaming "CHANGE!! We need change!!" But change what? And why? And how will the change help? Should we really do an about-face? Or can we tweak some things and make it more efficient?

Not all change is for the better.

I was just thinking if you could somehow implement a more socialized version of care for lower income people it would be great.

 

[Im_A]

Ok, I talked to some friends that have moved from Canada to the USA about a health care comparison, and everyone one of them says the same thing. "God, forbid we get sick here, because we can't afford it"

One of them had to pay $655 for some simple blood test to be done that I get for free here. And another had to pay $500 for here baby for some simple blood test and a vaccine. Here those are also free.

Free being defined as payed through taxes.

Another friend has a duel-citizenship (US doesnt recognize it anymore I know). He needed to travel for something and required vaccines. The US it would have cost him around $900, he came to Canada for the weekend, and got them for $100.


That seems like a total rip-off to me. They are paying for the lab work as well, which they shouldnt be. Insure companies are surely ripping them off.

The cost of insurance seems unreasonable per the health care actually given.

I would one, first ask her about her insurance policy. The deductibles she CHOSE by paying the monthly premiums. If you don't choose the right deductibles you'll screw yourself over simply because before the deductible kicks in, you'll have to cover the deductible, only having yourself to blame. I've had simple blood work done, and it was NEVER that high and the prior insurance I had with my last job, wasn't the best insurance company to say the least.

Your friend that travels, again, ask him about his insurance...the details. The deductibles, the plans etc.
I would just advise this because it is hard for any of us anti-socialized health care folk to see you are making any valid point when we would need to know detailed information, maybe even information that is too personal for us before we can read your post here and think, "he made a valid point".

 

[canehdianhotstuff]

I am making valid points. I do see your point in the difference in populations, something I had considered in all statistics calculations I look at. Pretty much Canada woes could be covered with more staff, which we are attempting to deal with what seems like an answer that never works, but we are throwing more money at it. But not the Federal government. Municipalities are offering money for doctors to bring their practice in. It's working.

I know nothing of the deductibles and what not, maybe it's just because they arent American citizens, I dont know.

 

[Im_A]

I am making valid points. I do see your point in the difference in populations, something I had considered in all statistics calculations I look at. Pretty much Canada woes could be covered with more staff, which we are attempting to deal with what seems like an answer that never works, but we are throwing more money at it. But not the Federal government. Municipalities are offering money for doctors to bring their practice in. It's working.

For you and ya know what, as long as it doesn't cross over the borders, great, hoorah! Keep it up north! Our health care was working for a long time and look how long we prospered and how we were leading the world with our health care. Something went wrong, I agree. Your points are valid about complaints about our current system. Yet if you can't prove your stance through hard statistical data of how it won't do the things that many of us Americans are worried about it, have fun with your own system is all I can say.

Oddly enough, if I am correct about how your government works, our relations between states and the federal government is probably not the same as the provinces and the parliment for Canada. Now this could lead to another topic but suffice it to say changes were made in the Senate decades ago and there was a huge change in relation with Congress, and the Senate. Yet, 10 provinces versus 50 states? (I'm assuming when you mean municipalities you mean provinces, if I am wrong I apologize) this year, it took so many states to get the state budget complete when the unemployment rate is up to 9.8 percent. How in the world could any state with maybe the exception of Virginia because their unemployment the last I heard was the lowest in the country but in all reality how could even they offer more money into their state to offer more practices? When all the banks went bankrupt, the housing market crashed, the state budgets can't afford something like this if we had a similar problem. The deficit is immense, who can afford it?

Even if the states could, what would that mean? We would have a mix of running things possibly; federal and private. The people don't want it but even if they did, I would ask how in the world is it feasible for the federal government of the United States to SUCCESSFULLY fund 50 states with an affordable, normal to above average health insurance policy. One state alone has more population than Canada, and that state is in the worst shape of all the last I heard.

Do anyone else question why does Europe have socialized health care? All those countries run themselves. Population is tremendously smaller. Of course a government could afford insurance for people if the population is small.

I'm only going on and on here because I'm trying to get my point across big time. I may not be accurate or pinpoint on. I try my best to be. I'm also going on and on to prove a point...your valid points mean nothing for America. They only mean something for Canada.