unexplained_mysterie
Registered Member
Who is Shrub #2 G Bush or Obama. it will have to happen because of Obamas spending 3.7 trillion for his first year budget
Exploding debt threatens America
- Thread starter madanthonywayne
- Start date
Only for the rich - upper 20%. The US economy has been underperforming for the lower classes for a generation now.mysteries said:
And the drain on the economy from the medical care mess is more than a little responsible for the severity of the recession we're in.
So? More reason to dump a malfunctioning system, and adopt something that might work.mysteries said:
Many of the Canadians coming here are paid for by Canada, at our prices. So that would be a wash - Canada's already paying for the high end US stuff, on its current budget. And I'm not following your logic about more people leaving the US for cheaper care elsewhere under a single payer plan (as tens of thousands do every year under our current system): if care here were paid for in advance, they would be saving no money, right?mysteries said:
The point was that we could install a single payer universal coverage system with better outcome stats than our current system without (in theory) raising taxes at all. That would leave a huge slack fund - everything that Americans are paying for private insurance, plus boondoggle reductions such as from Plan D - for buying even better care standards.
Not that that's realistic - there are many reasons that US health care costs more, it's not all competition inefficiency and Commons tragedy - simply that one's intuition needs recalibrating after so many years of propaganda from the insurance business.
The US system of healthcare is just too corrupt and inefficient...overall quality is poor. There are a few places where quality is good but that is not enough for a nation of more than 300 million souls.
I find the administrations arguement that a single payer system is needed for competition. That alone say how a lot about how screwed up the healthcare system is.
And the response from the other side is even more revealing, "we will not be able to compete with the governement run system so we will be forced out of business". Is that an admission that the current system is fatally flawed if it cannot compete with a government run system.
The best arguement for a government alternative to private care is the arguement from the private side of the fence...."we will not be able to compete against the government run system and we will be run out of business".
I find the administrations arguement that a single payer system is needed for competition. That alone say how a lot about how screwed up the healthcare system is.
And the response from the other side is even more revealing, "we will not be able to compete with the governement run system so we will be forced out of business". Is that an admission that the current system is fatally flawed if it cannot compete with a government run system.
The best arguement for a government alternative to private care is the arguement from the private side of the fence...."we will not be able to compete against the government run system and we will be run out of business".
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
The US system of healthcare is just too corrupt and inefficient...overall quality is poor. There are a few places where quality is good but that is not enough for a nation of more than 300 million souls.
I find the administrations arguement that a single payer system is needed for competition. That alone say how a lot about how screwed up the healthcare system is.
And the response from the other side is even more revealing, "we will not be able to compete with the governement run system so we will be forced out of business". Is that an admission that the current system is fatally flawed if it cannot compete with a government run system.
The best arguement for a government alternative to private care is the arguement from the private side of the fence...."we will not be able to compete against the government run system and we will be run out of business".
So we are going to make it more inefficient and corrupt? great concept.
Better re-read the post. The healthcare industry is arguing that the government would be more efficient and they would not be able to compete with government.
unexplained_mysterie
Registered Member
I'm going by inflation, unemployment and growth
I agree that the system we have now isn't good, but the system in Canada is worst
NO many of the rich in Canada are paying out of there wallets.
Some people are going overseas for expensive surgery that isn't coverd by insurence, aswell as some that aren't covered at all.
Then why does Obama need 1.5 trillion dollars for, why doesn't Congress Democrates want to see the numbers from the CBO?
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
Really? and just look at Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, yes models of efficiency and lack of fraud.
Medicaid/Medicare Fraud
Medicare and Medicaid fraud is rampant in the United States and it threatens the well-being of millions of hardworking citizens who need benefits. ...
http://www.whistleblower.info/medicaid_medicarefraud.html
And overlooking the class structure of the American economy - I noticed.mysteries said:
Obama's plan is quite different from the lefty single payer option.mysteries said:
It has better statistical outcomes and much lower costs, and it covers everyone.mysteries said:
Bankruptcy involving medical bills is very rare in Canada, rather than a third of all bankruptcies. No one in Canada has to keep a bad job, marriage, or residence, just for the medical insurance. No employer has to consider the cost of medical insurance when hiring. No one has to sue an insurance company simply to recover otherwise ruinous medical costs for minor-liability injuries.
But that's nothing special - every major Western industrial country can say the same.
And many aren't - the ones who need fancy MRIs in a hurry, say, rather than the ones who want cosmetic boob jobs without waiting two years.mysteries said:
The US system does suck, doesn't it.mysteries said:
And they're still a third cheaper than private insurance for the same coverage.buffalo said:
unexplained_mysterie
Registered Member
I have seen in person the Canadian system and how so many people cant stand waiting in lines and the tax they have to pay for it. I guess we will seen Obamas plan soon.
Then you need to tell limbaugh, hannity, levine, et.al. to tell their buds in the healthcare industry to cool down they have nothing to fear from a gorvernment run plan because they are certianly more efficient than the government. But it seems the healthcare industy doesn't share your confidence in their ability to be more efficient providers of healthcare...interesting. What does that say about the healthcare industry in the US?
and shrubs last one was 3.4 do you have a point?
Well the family I have in canada seems to think their system is alot better than ours. and frankly all of the reason given by righties' against UHC are already in our system and we see less in other systems so...
unexplained_mysterie
Registered Member
My point is that all three are shrubs, how can you complain about Bush yet Obama is spending more. 3.7 trillion his first years budget
unexplained_mysterie
Registered Member
The CBC loves to bitch about how bad it is in America, its a station thats ran by the Canadian government liberals.
clearly you don't get why bush was called shrub do you? well for one thing Obama didn't go out ofd his way to conceal his spending like bush did. Bush probably spent more it was just outside of the budget. Our debt didn't bouble under bush for no reason.
unexplained_mysterie
Registered Member
Do you have any facts to backup such a claim. how did bush spend more money without going threw congress? Obama is using funny math when it comes to numbers. thats why his left wing friends don't want to use those numbers.
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
pj always claims to have posted the facts in a earlier post, but you can never find the post of said facts.
yes.
um i never said he didn't.
how so or is this more of the usual right winy say something with basis in reality.
well of course your not going to find what you never bother to look for.
Last edited by a moderator:
If that's the kind of logic behind all of your healthcare theories, well, it speaks for itself. The private sector is saying that it can't compete with a government subsidized plan. Take medicare. A friend of mine who was on medicare complained that his medicare supplement (which covers the 20% medicare doesn't cover) costs way more than the medicare itself (which covers the other 80%). Why would that be? Simple, medicare is subsidized by the government. It doesn't have to charge enough to cover its costs, because the US taxpayer makes up the difference. The same thing would happen with a public plan open to all. The apparent"cost" to the consumer for a public plan would be far below what any private company could match until it drove them all out of business. Meanwhile, the cost to the US taxpayer would continue to grow, this at a time when we are already running record deficits.And the response from the other side is even more revealing, "we will not be able to compete with the governement run system so we will be forced out of business". Is that an admission that the current system is fatally flawed if it cannot compete with a government run system.
LOL. As stated above. That's not their argument at all.