Former Top Canadian Dr. Brian Day: Obamacare Will Bring Rationed Care & Skyrocketing
- Thread starter meme
- Start date
C
Cancel5
Guest
Bush is no longer President, move on...
Again a bunch of disingenuous garbage. There's a thread with the video of the "fearless leader" speaking of incrementally working towards a government-only option, and other congressional "leaders" speaking of the same.
I stated it simply. Until that post I made no mention of the incrementalism, however this is incrementalism at its worst.
We can come up with something better than the Canadian or UK solutions. I'd prefer that the only people that are on any government care are those who are totally unable to get any other care. I would prefer that there would be no government database of your medical information because I see privacy issues and have reason to distrust the benevolence of the government.
Do you know what is unsustainable? The government-only option that these nitwits that people elected consistently state they are working towards (incrementally). Why don't we look to an option like the Japanese option rather than look at one that is currently failing as we type?
C
Cancel5
Guest
We can, but I don't think we will, the polarization is so deep now that I don't see the sides coming together for the good of us all.
I have lost faith in our system Damo. I hate to say it, but it is what I see happening to this country, we are so divided we will do ourselves in!
C
Cancel4
Guest
The president has been extremely patient.
It's nearly time for the obstructionists to get on board or be swept aside.
It's nearly time for the obstructionists to get on board or be swept aside.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
apple0154
MEOW
Not quite. People expect to get something back from a Ponzi scheme and from Social Security and from a savings account. That doesn't mean they are all Ponzi schemes.
Universal medical coverage is an insurance policy and most people hope they don't get to collect on their policy.
It may happen that way, but I still believe we can come up with something better, but the only way that will happen is if we do not settle for second best.
C
Cancel5
Guest
Run for office!
apple0154
MEOW
If it's incremental then people have a chance to experience it and build on it as time goes by. If private insurance is seen as better then obviously people will not vote for those who propose further government involvement.
However, one still has to realize there is not one country that has dissolved it's universal plan and reverted to the old "pay or suffer" system. Not one single country.
For one to be aware that dozens of countries can sustain a universal plan and those countries have sustained such plans for decades but the US can not is just ridiculous.
In any case, being aware of the foregoing, surely one is compelled to try.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Somebody who came into the bank after you doesn't pay into your savings account; someone else who came into the social security system does, just like a Ponzi scheme.
m-w.com
What incrementalism does is make it so people like you can pretend that "this" law doesn't make it that way... or the next law... until people are in the middle of an unsatisfactory and failing system wondering what they'll do to fix it without having to start over.
My goal is to avoid that by consistently pointing out the fact that people don't want this plan and would prefer one that doesn't have the "government option." We don't even need to take the first step on this particular path. We hold maps that show different paths to the same destination, we just want to take the less difficult path.
apple0154
MEOW
If previous governments had followed a map we wouldn't be where we are. Hillary had a map but some folks had no plans on going the same place and that place was insuring everyone has coverage. That's the problem.
We can't trust successive governments to keep the ball rolling because they don't even want to play the game. We've seen the result over the last 15 years.
Something has to be put in place so people are covered. That's why Obama said it can't wait any longer. The Repubs had their chance to put forward a proposal. Fifteen years worth of chances ever since Hillary brought it up.
The option to fall back, to cancel the idea, to do nothing has to be removed because if it is easy to do successive governments will try and do that. That is the reason for the urgency. It must be resolved the country is headed towards full coverage. Then the conversation, the negotiations, the fine tuning starts.
That, IMO, is incrementalism. The question about are we going to cover everyone has been settled. Now the discussion shifts to how but while the discussions go on more and more people will receive coverage. Now there's some urgency to find the best answers.
If previous governments had followed the easier path...
If wishes were fishes then we'd all cast nets.
Long ago there was one offered, much like this one, by Nixon. The DNC decided to reject it and try to pass their own so they could get more political credit... wonder what happened to it? Because people play politics with it, like they are doing now only debating the one legislation never even bringing up the other ideas... Because of actions like that is why we get the results we do. There is no reason to accept this, or to cheer it on. It is reckless to make this into a partisan issue, reckless and stupid.
Seriously, we can do better than this toilet log, and I hope that the Senate Bill looks better than this. The Coops do sound better than government, kind of like a health care union.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Just once, I want one of these opponents of single payer system health care to stand in front of a MSM camera and say, "Here's the deal, I've got mine and I don't give a shit about anyone else.....but somebody better be there to put food in the supermarkets, clean my streets, keep that coffee shop open, etc., whenever I need them. And if even SUSPECT that any of my tax dollars are going to help out anyone else, they'll be hell to pay."
Then at least we'll all know where we stand with each other.
Then at least we'll all know where we stand with each other.
apple0154
MEOW
That reminded of this article. I'd give appropriate credit but I don't know who the author is.
Joe Republican
Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards.
With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised.
All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too.
He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.
In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.
Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air.
He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.
Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union.
If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.
It is noon time and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.
Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe also forgets that his in addition to his federally subsidized student loans, he attended a state funded university.
Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards to go along with the tax-payer funded roads.
He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.
He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.
Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day.
Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."
The "partisan hacks" on the other side would like nothing better than no bill at all. The evidence is there in the history of the past 15 years. What do they care what happens as long as the government continues to pay for their healthcare and the healthcare industry contunues making "contributions" to them?
George Will mentioned Nixon today, he also pointed out how inexpensive healthcare was then, so, apparently, there was no great pressure to change the system then and noone could anticipate the costs skyrocketing as they have.
You want to ask me "again" a question I don't recall being asked, however, even if I did understand the question, I don't understand the relevence of illegal abortion with the topic.
Paraphrasing you, "putting this on the solid faith that the 'for-profit healthcare industry' will be forever altruistic is IMO just retarded". The evidence is in the fact that the entire system is up for discussion today based on the questionable results of the past in a private system. The fact that some already have their insurance paid by third parties and have not had to experience being turned loose into the system is probably the reason for any, valid or invalid, controversy at all.
Regarding your point about the WWII Japanese and, to a lesser extent, Germans, and our conduct toward Native Americans, I would like to point out that, in addition to slavery and Jim Crow, all of the above were deemed Constitutional, a result of the document maybe you and certainly almost all of the others of your political persuasion, and their voices, contend is heresy to consider subject to interprative change, even if necessitated by time and progress. The country's policies toward Native Americans had already begun at the time of those same Founding Fathers that wrote the Constitution, that and slavery were, apparently, not problems in their minds. Is it an example of the foibles of government? Sure, but in this instance, isn't it a case of having your cake and eating it too when placing it in context with the healthcare issue?
Last edited:
Your reply will be the thunder of silence, marking the truth of your post.
C
Cancel4
Guest
So it has proven.