"Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured...but not everyone must prove they are a citizen." Now add this "Many of those who refuse, or are unable, to prove they are citizens will receive free insurance paid for by those who are forced to buy insurance because they are citizens." Quoted from Ben Stein America...what a country!!!
Yes. It was a ridiculous solution to providing citizens with universal healthcare. Keeping private insurance companies in the loop will only serve to keep costs high (With their soaring profits) and subject citizens to the whims of insurers as to what treatment you will have covered. Unfortunately, that was the only way to get it through a partisan government. Canada's entire healthcare budget is less than that of Massachusetts! That is because the insurance is delivered by a non-profit goverment institution rather than private insurance. Do we have longer waiting times? Yes... for many elective procedures. However, the quality of our healthcare is excellent and the Canadian life expectany is higher than that of the U.S.. We must be doing something right.
Aww c'mon Bruce, I thought the Canadian life expectancy being longer was strictly the result of better beer. Actually Bruce this Obamacare is a huge boon for the health insurance companies. That is the reason that AARP supported it. They stand to make billions off this law. If you look at the incline in healthcare costs I think you will find that there is a correlation between the advent of the governments involvement in healthcare via Medicare and the increased costs. Once government got involved the costs started to skyrocket. Many physicians here in the US also have to schedule tests to keep their risk of malpractice suits down which has also greatly added to the cost of US healthcare. The point of the quote was that those who are citizens who will be penalized under the new law for not having health insurance but who will have to pay for non-citizens to get free health coverage. Under Obama's new law the advantage to being a US citizen is .....what? If I'm penalized for being a citizen and not having health insurance and rewarded for not being a citizen by having health coverage given to me, then why would I want to be a US citizen? My Canadian clients are probably split 50/50 on their love/hate relationship with the Canadian healthcare system. Whether someone is in favor of the Canadian system or opposed to it, I don't really think that the comparisons with the US system is accurate. The US is a much different country in terms of demographics, culture, and history.
Why reinvent the wheel? Why not just copy socialized(oh, scary word, right..?) health-care from countries that actually do have it and has had it for years and years..? Im happy I grew up with "free" health-care in Sweden. Sure, taxes were and are around 35-38%, but we also did get a LOT for that cash. Plus nice tax-returns by the end of October/November. As Ive never lived nor plan to live in the US, I cant comment on why people seem to be so freaked out by something that has the word "socialized" in it. I mean, you guys do have libraries, Fire Dept, Police, etc, right? I do not know much about the health care system before Obamacare(?), except that I have friends whose parents had to borrow absurd amounts of cash for small and simple surgeries. Im sure there MUST be a "meet in the middle"-type of solution? Or are Repubs and Dems too busy throwing feces at each-other on a daily basis? Seems like the attacks on each other(both sides) has gotten the upper-hand of actually RUNNING a country... Scary. Maybe the US would need a "third party", someone that breaks the mold and actually focuses on the nation and its citizens themselves? Ps. Since I was a kid, Ive never heard of any other parties than Dems and Repubs. To those Americans that have time, could you explain this to me? Just curious and I do not fancy Wikipedia and similar websites when it comes to real info. Cheers´n´beers!
Rawkus I certainly understand your comment about re-inventing the wheel, but I think it is not quite that simple. It's easy to say that a system works in Canada or Sweden or Denmark so therefore, it will work in the US. Sweden and Denmark do not have a population nearly as diverse as the US. Also in the US we have a very large population that has been on some form of public assistance for generations. Once some form of public funding is in place for whatever purpose, it just never leaves. Romney drew a great deal of flak for his 47% comment and many have jumped in with "not all of them are moochers" which fails to note that many of them are moochers and this Obamacare is going to be fraught with more waste than any program in our history. Third parties have been tried here in the US before. Teddy Roosevelt had the Bull Moose Party in the early 1900's and Strom Thurmond had the Dixiecrats in the 1950's and most recently we had Ross Perot and his party. Perot is a fine example of why third parties have not worked in the US. Most people who vote a solid Democrat Party ticket will vote for a Democrat regardless of who it is. It could be Arnold the Pig and if he runs as a Democrat, he'll get their vote. To give you an example of that, the ten poorest cities in the US have one very common thread. None of them have had a Republican Mayor in the last 50 years. Getting back to Perot. He is the reason Bill Clinton became President. When Perot ran, he split the Republican and Independent votes away from George Bush (the Elder) and which allowed Clinton to waltz in. Traditionally Republican voters and the unaligned voter will tend to vote more of a split ticket than the Democratic voter. Hence, a third party candidate just ends up throwing the election to the Democrat. For that reason, third parties haven't worked here in the US.
Well... the beer may have something to do with it...lol. When people talk of government run programs in other countries in a positive light could it be that these programs are run more efficiently and less wastefully than what you experience in the U.S.? I mean we all have government waste and incompetencies but maybe you are dealing with a bigger problem with it? We have our problems and challenges with Healthcare in Canada but I think you would find very few Canadians that would want to scrap it in favour of going to a fully private system. Personally, I would not like living under Obamacare. The mandate that you have to buy private insurance, the fact that you are still subject to the whims of a private provider who's sole purpose is profit and keeping down costs. And the Supreme Court ruling that it is a "tax" challenging the wording and validity of the Constitution. For all the good that comes with it, and there is some good, I would have voted against it and held out for a truly National Healthcare program.
