What’s this “everyone else” horseshit? I work. Probably earn more than you. I’m one of the people paying for it. And I’m fine with that.
Simple. It was the first one that popped up when I Googled it. 
See? No ulterior motives involved.
Nope, they are just liberals. I don’t imagine that this board draws many Canadians who have a conservative mindset. Look how much larger the U.S. population is and how few conservatives post here. Looked at in that context, it’s a wonder we have Sam at all. And besides, liberals are notorious for being willing to put up with almost anything as long as: a.) everyone else is paying for it; and b.) no one has it better than anyone else.
These are two of the primary forces that drive liberalism, and they, combined with the liberalism’s amazing ability to utterly ignore the harmful consequences of it’s own actions and policies, largely prevent our liberal Canadian members from seeing (or should I say “acknowledging”) the problems with Canada’s health care system.
Still, some of them occasionally do, and when they do their comments are usually followed by proclamations to the effect that “Yeah…well…sure they have problems but they aren’t trying to adopt OUR system, are they?” So it really doesn’t matter even when someone from Canada does complain about there system, does it?
St. Arving! I like that. From time to time I think about changing my name so as to lessen the jolt in cognitive dissonance that people get from my member name vs. political viewpoint, but I haven’t because it was suggested by someone I’m very, very fond of. But St. Arving…I’m gonna have to give some thought to that one. Thanks, luce. 
Well, if you’ll tax your high-earning brain for a moment and think about it, I was referring to people who were living under communism in the Soviet Union. There is plenty of liberal support among certain high-earning factions of the U.S. population. Hollywood is notorious for it. It’s easy to be generous with everyone else’s money when you’ve got all that you need and forget how difficult it is for most people to earn the money they make.
And then there’s that well-known liberal guilt thing…
So the fact that you may make a lot of money but still support liberal causes doesn’t really count for much, does it?
That’s the spirit – don’t let those silly Canadians try to convince you that they’re not living in a post-apocalyptic hell state due to their evil socialized medicine. How would they know, they’ve all got Stockholm Syndrome! Which, incidentally, is one of the many many diseases not covered by their UHC!
For the record, I thought the conservatives’ attempt to curry favour by eliminating monthly premiums was a dumb thing to do. I’d have happily paid double.
So, that’s your new thesis? The whole “lazy poor stealing from hard-working real Americans” thing didn’t quite hold up, so now it’s only the lazy poor *AND *the ultra-rich liberals who could ever possibly support social programs?
Let us know when they get something correct, will you?
St. Arving of Brickwall, patron saint of cognitive dissonance. Feast day: April 1.
Oh, I know who you were referring to. And I also noted the equivalency you were trying to draw between people supporting UHC (which the new plan isn’t even close to) and people who were apparently shiftless and happy to let the rest of society take care of them. Just another of your bullshit points, unless you think everybody on these boards who support socialized medicine are on welfare. Which, knowing your posting history, you probably do.
Also, I’m hardly rich - I just assumed I earned more than you because you’re what - like, 80? So I figured you didn’t work any more. I’m basically middle class, but I was poor for most of my life, and I know exactly how hard it is for most people to earn the money they make. I also know how easy it is for them to lose it all because of medical bills. But of course, liberals couldn’t genuinely care about others - it’s all just liberal guilt.
That’s the part I don’t get. I’ve known some people who flat don’t give a shit if you live or die, and guilt ain’t one of their issues.
I was able to find this thread, in which Starving Artist and I mix it up a bit. You can imagine who took what side. Anyway, in fairness and to his credit, in the course of my back-and-forth with him, Starving Artist did provide a cite to the Canadian Press, which I will grant is a reputable Canadian source. See the beginnings of our debate on page 2 at post 67, and continuing on through page 3.
Unfortunately, Starving Artist’s cite dealt with a speech made by the incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association, an organization that he seemed to assume spoke with governmental authority. From the cited thread, post 71, by Starving Artist:
To which I replied, at post 75:
We went on like this for a while, and in the end, nothing was resolved. I didn’t expect it would be; but the important thing is, as I think I alluded to in our debate, that perhaps somebody whose heels weren’t quite so dug in as Starving Artists’s, would learn something.
Once again, for the benefit of those who haven’t heard this yet, health care in Canada is delivered via a single-payer insurance system; each province is the insurer, which is why it is necessary to avoid broad statements about “the Canadian health care system” because there is no such single thing; and physicians (even the president of the CMA) are not government employees with quotas or caps, but rather, independent businesspeople who bill the insurer for care provided, much like a body shop bills the claimant’s auto insurer for repairs provided after a collision. I’m not sure how much clearer I can be, but if Starving Artist chooses to make certain claims about health care delivery in the provinces and territories of Canada while ignoring these supportable facts (which can be confirmed through too many Canadian sources to cite here), then I’d suggest that he is not fighting ignorance; rather, he is perpetuating it.
Yeah, only thing wrong with that is that it’s not true at all.
If only. Apart from anything else, cutting out the ninety layers of bureaucracy required by a system in which there are 900 possible payors all with their own policies and procedures would cut our health care costs in half.
So I assume you would be in favor of nationalizing every food producer, distributor, and retailer (i.e., grocery stores and restaurants) so we could cut the administrative costs in the food system?
Well, that certainly follows! Just like if you want shoes for walking, you must surely want them for dinner.
Of course. Why, you can find me declaiming the spiraling cost of food on these boards on a daily basis!
Well, pardon me for assuming that you were just against “administrative costs” across the board and not only when it comes to health care.
And what makes you think he isn’t? However much it pains your one-size-fits-all mentality, the free market is better at some things; the government at others. It’s quite clear from the evidence all over the world that a regulated free market is better with food*, and that a government mandated or outright government run system works better with health care.
Not everyone is obsessed with the idea that there is one, and only one solution to all problems, you know.
- outside of emergency situations, at least.
The facts do not show that UHC is better with health care.
The facts do. Your interpretation of them doesn’t.
Thanks. I see you are correct. I also note that as seems typical, for him, when presented with factual information that undermined his position, S_A tried to move the goalposts, and for good measure, tried to dismiss your points as irrelevant.