It's May 13, 2024, 01:47:47 AM
Do these American idiots actually want something that even resembles the Canadian model? Because it would collapse in the US, and maybe collapse the US. Keep an eyer out in Canada please and see how we slowly pay more and coverage slowly becomes less, and we slowly increase debt because of it. It's a horrible model that will self destruct soon. The US needs to change their system, but more government is not the answer.
Olbermann talking bipartisanship is like Hitler talking about the value of Jewish life. He's the left wing equivalent of Glenn Beck.
Quote from: Shallow on December 17, 2009, 08:29:20 AMDo these American idiots actually want something that even resembles the Canadian model? Because it would collapse in the US, and maybe collapse the US. Keep an eyer out in Canada please and see how we slowly pay more and coverage slowly becomes less, and we slowly increase debt because of it. It's a horrible model that will self destruct soon. The US needs to change their system, but more government is not the answer.
Quote from: M Dogg on December 17, 2009, 06:34:48 PMQuote from: Shallow on December 17, 2009, 08:29:20 AMDo these American idiots actually want something that even resembles the Canadian model? Because it would collapse in the US, and maybe collapse the US. Keep an eyer out in Canada please and see how we slowly pay more and coverage slowly becomes less, and we slowly increase debt because of it. It's a horrible model that will self destruct soon. The US needs to change their system, but more government is not the answer.The problem with the US system M Dogg is you have less Government with regards to health care, but not with regards to medicine and practice of medicine. The FDA and legal mumbo jumbo gets right in the face of drug companies and doctors making sure they charge as much as possible for shit, and then lets the insurance companies run lenient. The question Americans should be asking isn't why aren't insurance companies covering us? It's; why is the coverage so much to begin with? And that is where less government should be key.A doctor could not perform a operation free of charge, and a medical genius could not pass his tried and true drug through the motions with out big business greasing the wheels.
Quote from: Shallow on December 17, 2009, 06:48:52 PMQuote from: M Dogg on December 17, 2009, 06:34:48 PMQuote from: Shallow on December 17, 2009, 08:29:20 AMDo these American idiots actually want something that even resembles the Canadian model? Because it would collapse in the US, and maybe collapse the US. Keep an eyer out in Canada please and see how we slowly pay more and coverage slowly becomes less, and we slowly increase debt because of it. It's a horrible model that will self destruct soon. The US needs to change their system, but more government is not the answer.The problem with the US system M Dogg is you have less Government with regards to health care, but not with regards to medicine and practice of medicine. The FDA and legal mumbo jumbo gets right in the face of drug companies and doctors making sure they charge as much as possible for shit, and then lets the insurance companies run lenient. The question Americans should be asking isn't why aren't insurance companies covering us? It's; why is the coverage so much to begin with? And that is where less government should be key.A doctor could not perform a operation free of charge, and a medical genius could not pass his tried and true drug through the motions with out big business greasing the wheels.In the industrial world, we have the worst health system. We are just above Cuba, and if you have no money in our country you are shit out of luck. The free market has no business in certain areas and peoples lives is one of them. In Canada, there is an issue with their health care, but at the same time you have a better health care than we do. You look at it like this. We are tied to jobs because we need health care, we have an issue because people that have ideas are tied to their jobs. If you have an idea for a small business, and you want to invest your money in this, you can't. You are tied to a job just so you can have health care, and leaving your job means you and your family are not protected. This system does not foster creativity and allow people to venture out and grow, what this system creates is conservative minded people afraid to invest in themselves and stay at their jobs. Are countries creativity comes from 20 somethings that are not afraid of their health, and they are not afraid of risk, but it cripples are older population that may have had a great idea but can't risk leaving their job. That's how our system, in case you wanted it in free market terms.
Quote from: M Dogg on December 17, 2009, 07:09:04 PMQuote from: Shallow on December 17, 2009, 06:48:52 PMQuote from: M Dogg on December 17, 2009, 06:34:48 PMQuote from: Shallow on December 17, 2009, 08:29:20 AMDo these American idiots actually want something that even resembles the Canadian model? Because it would collapse in the US, and maybe collapse the US. Keep an eyer out in Canada please and see how we slowly pay more and coverage slowly becomes less, and we slowly increase debt because of it. It's a horrible model that will self destruct soon. The US needs to change their system, but more government is not the answer.The problem with the US system M Dogg is you have less Government with regards to health care, but not with regards to medicine and practice of medicine. The FDA and legal mumbo jumbo gets right in the face of drug companies and doctors making sure they charge as much as possible for shit, and then lets the insurance companies run lenient. The question Americans should be asking isn't why aren't insurance companies covering us? It's; why is the coverage so much to begin with? And that is where less government should be key.A doctor could not perform a operation free of charge, and a medical genius could not pass his tried and true drug through the motions with out big business greasing the wheels.In the industrial world, we have the worst health system. We are just above Cuba, and if you have no money in our country you are shit out of luck. The free market has no business in certain areas and peoples lives is one of them. In Canada, there is an issue with their health care, but at the same time you have a better health care than we do. You look at it like this. We are tied to jobs because we need health care, we have an issue because people that have ideas are tied to their jobs. If you have an idea for a small business, and you want to invest your money in this, you can't. You are tied to a job just so you can have health care, and leaving your job means you and your family are not protected. This system does not foster creativity and allow people to venture out and grow, what this system creates is conservative minded people afraid to invest in themselves and stay at their jobs. Are countries creativity comes from 20 somethings that are not afraid of their health, and they are not afraid of risk, but it cripples are older population that may have had a great idea but can't risk leaving their job. That's how our system, in case you wanted it in free market terms.Nothing you said had anything to do with what I said but I'll respond to it anyway;You want to bring up growth and creativity, and you want to mention Canada? That makes no sense. Anyone up here that has an idea and wants to make it big, goes down south. You guys are filled with people that stay put for health care. We're filled with taxes that drive people away. You will not grow as a market one bit by going with public heath the way we have it. It would cripple you with the costs.
In my opinion the government handing out so-called free health care to the masses is a great idea. But thats in theory. I just do not have faith in this government, or any for that matter, to run it correctly. When you have government run industry mixed with the need to serve mass amounts of people you get legal red tape everywhere. Look at the school system, hell, look at the DMV. Why does it take 3 hours to get a new pic for a license? Better question: how long would it take if the government didnt run that place? Not three hours. What we need is better rules governing the system we have now. Can't get health care if youre over 25 (on your parents insurance). Why? If youre going to school full time who gives a shit if youre over 25. That could be changed and many more people could be covered. Also, we have free health care here in California available to those who are poor already. I say improve that system thats in place (widen coverage through better use of tax dollars or by raising luxury taxes, etc). As for Olbermann and Beck being compared, they both spew propaganda for one side and one side only: their side. It isnt about issues, usually, with those guys. Dont get me wrong, I agree with both on some issues and they can be pretty entertaining. But thats my point I guess. How can you be honestly for "issues" when you only agree with one side, all the time? This is the problem with people in our country. They are so polarized they only see their side of the issue, and cant ever conceed anything. Politicians in congress voting strictly down party lines, shit makes me sick. I view Olbermann and Beck as mouthpieces for fools like this.
Quote from: Russell Bell on December 18, 2009, 09:35:42 AMIn my opinion the government handing out so-called free health care to the masses is a great idea. But thats in theory. I just do not have faith in this government, or any for that matter, to run it correctly. When you have government run industry mixed with the need to serve mass amounts of people you get legal red tape everywhere. Look at the school system, hell, look at the DMV. Why does it take 3 hours to get a new pic for a license? Better question: how long would it take if the government didnt run that place? Not three hours. What we need is better rules governing the system we have now. Can't get health care if youre over 25 (on your parents insurance). Why? If youre going to school full time who gives a shit if youre over 25. That could be changed and many more people could be covered. Also, we have free health care here in California available to those who are poor already. I say improve that system thats in place (widen coverage through better use of tax dollars or by raising luxury taxes, etc). As for Olbermann and Beck being compared, they both spew propaganda for one side and one side only: their side. It isnt about issues, usually, with those guys. Dont get me wrong, I agree with both on some issues and they can be pretty entertaining. But thats my point I guess. How can you be honestly for "issues" when you only agree with one side, all the time? This is the problem with people in our country. They are so polarized they only see their side of the issue, and cant ever conceed anything. Politicians in congress voting strictly down party lines, shit makes me sick. I view Olbermann and Beck as mouthpieces for fools like this. Word, the other thing is governments want to run every facet of the health system (like in the UK) therefore constantly dictating to the doctors what is and isn't acceptable, constantly being judged on "efficiency". The government actually degrades the quality of the health care by setting target after target, which aren't actually improving, instead it forces the hospitals to meet them to the detriment of care.
Quote from: virtuoso on December 18, 2009, 11:44:18 AMQuote from: Russell Bell on December 18, 2009, 09:35:42 AMIn my opinion the government handing out so-called free health care to the masses is a great idea. But thats in theory. I just do not have faith in this government, or any for that matter, to run it correctly. When you have government run industry mixed with the need to serve mass amounts of people you get legal red tape everywhere. Look at the school system, hell, look at the DMV. Why does it take 3 hours to get a new pic for a license? Better question: how long would it take if the government didnt run that place? Not three hours. What we need is better rules governing the system we have now. Can't get health care if youre over 25 (on your parents insurance). Why? If youre going to school full time who gives a shit if youre over 25. That could be changed and many more people could be covered. Also, we have free health care here in California available to those who are poor already. I say improve that system thats in place (widen coverage through better use of tax dollars or by raising luxury taxes, etc). As for Olbermann and Beck being compared, they both spew propaganda for one side and one side only: their side. It isnt about issues, usually, with those guys. Dont get me wrong, I agree with both on some issues and they can be pretty entertaining. But thats my point I guess. How can you be honestly for "issues" when you only agree with one side, all the time? This is the problem with people in our country. They are so polarized they only see their side of the issue, and cant ever conceed anything. Politicians in congress voting strictly down party lines, shit makes me sick. I view Olbermann and Beck as mouthpieces for fools like this. Word, the other thing is governments want to run every facet of the health system (like in the UK) therefore constantly dictating to the doctors what is and isn't acceptable, constantly being judged on "efficiency". The government actually degrades the quality of the health care by setting target after target, which aren't actually improving, instead it forces the hospitals to meet them to the detriment of care. Yeah man exactly. Bureaucracy = red tape, legal BS, and a business (not hospital) being run. Rules being set up to "ensure" quality, but really they'd just be ensuring a clumsy and out of touch medical business that doesn't put realistic goals for patient health first. I work in education and I know how standards being taught to the students sound great, but in reality tie the hands of teachers to teach what they want or think is ok.Sure with government run health care everyone would be technically covered, but what does that really mean? How do you or I know that all of a sudden the government, which doesnt always have the peoples best interest in mind (thats putting it lightly), will help every person to the extent that an independent insurance provider wouldnt go (referring to your story M Dogg)? People fall through the cracks in society, and to think that we can somehow make that not true, in my opinion, is pure fantasy. And putting the strain on our economy and society that a healthcare free for all would create, just to try and create this fantasy land would be irresponsible.I find it intriguing that the people I've heard talk about this subject that are from countries where gov't run health care is taking place (Canada, UK) don't think the system works. Is that the consensus among people you know Virtuoso or anyone else?
Quote from: Russell Bell on December 18, 2009, 04:22:49 PMQuote from: virtuoso on December 18, 2009, 11:44:18 AMQuote from: Russell Bell on December 18, 2009, 09:35:42 AMIn my opinion the government handing out so-called free health care to the masses is a great idea. But thats in theory. I just do not have faith in this government, or any for that matter, to run it correctly. When you have government run industry mixed with the need to serve mass amounts of people you get legal red tape everywhere. Look at the school system, hell, look at the DMV. Why does it take 3 hours to get a new pic for a license? Better question: how long would it take if the government didnt run that place? Not three hours. What we need is better rules governing the system we have now. Can't get health care if youre over 25 (on your parents insurance). Why? If youre going to school full time who gives a shit if youre over 25. That could be changed and many more people could be covered. Also, we have free health care here in California available to those who are poor already. I say improve that system thats in place (widen coverage through better use of tax dollars or by raising luxury taxes, etc). As for Olbermann and Beck being compared, they both spew propaganda for one side and one side only: their side. It isnt about issues, usually, with those guys. Dont get me wrong, I agree with both on some issues and they can be pretty entertaining. But thats my point I guess. How can you be honestly for "issues" when you only agree with one side, all the time? This is the problem with people in our country. They are so polarized they only see their side of the issue, and cant ever conceed anything. Politicians in congress voting strictly down party lines, shit makes me sick. I view Olbermann and Beck as mouthpieces for fools like this. Word, the other thing is governments want to run every facet of the health system (like in the UK) therefore constantly dictating to the doctors what is and isn't acceptable, constantly being judged on "efficiency". The government actually degrades the quality of the health care by setting target after target, which aren't actually improving, instead it forces the hospitals to meet them to the detriment of care. Yeah man exactly. Bureaucracy = red tape, legal BS, and a business (not hospital) being run. Rules being set up to "ensure" quality, but really they'd just be ensuring a clumsy and out of touch medical business that doesn't put realistic goals for patient health first. I work in education and I know how standards being taught to the students sound great, but in reality tie the hands of teachers to teach what they want or think is ok.Sure with government run health care everyone would be technically covered, but what does that really mean? How do you or I know that all of a sudden the government, which doesnt always have the peoples best interest in mind (thats putting it lightly), will help every person to the extent that an independent insurance provider wouldnt go (referring to your story M Dogg)? People fall through the cracks in society, and to think that we can somehow make that not true, in my opinion, is pure fantasy. And putting the strain on our economy and society that a healthcare free for all would create, just to try and create this fantasy land would be irresponsible.I find it intriguing that the people I've heard talk about this subject that are from countries where gov't run health care is taking place (Canada, UK) don't think the system works. Is that the consensus among people you know Virtuoso or anyone else?And people in the US without money also think that our system doesn't work either. 46 million in the US will debate your points.