I’d like to request that this thread be moved to Great Debates. Given the level of discourse that it’s elevated to (on average, obviously), and the fact that duplicate threads are annoying as heck, it would seem to fit better there.
No can do–too many personal insults… Besides, all the best debates are in here, hadn’t you noticed? You can call a troll a troll, call a shithead a shithead, call an obnoxious fucktard a… well, you get the idea. It makes for a more honest and better debate, overall, as well as being a whole lot more fun. Welcome to the Pit! 
There goes my 20 bucks
I mean, oh, what a shame.
Actually, in some ways, you’re right. I am fairly fiscally conservative. I don’t believe the government is the most responsible and efficient agent of our collective monies. I do believe in gay marriage, most ecological issues, drug legalization, pro-choice, etc.
And WeirdDave, Pucette, and I went to a Depeche Mode concert in Baltimore in uuuuuh, 2002? We got thoroughly hammered together, but that’s pretty much as far as our association has ever gone. I frequently disagree with him on here. My beliefs do not in any way conform to his.
My mother is dead, and my father is about as poor as it’s possible to be and still live indoors.
No, I think not. I abandoned any hope of real debate on this topic yesterday, when I couldn’t seem to get any of you to admit that I was at least attempting to glean some real information (with a couple of exceptions).
In many ways, you guys are a lot like the extreme right-wingers. You both hate people that don’t take sides.
So, instead, I think I’ll wander by whenever I feel like it, cherry pick what I want to answer, and stop giving a shit about your opinion.
Not quite. In 2006, per-capita spending for health care in the U.S. was US$6,714; in Canada, US$3,678, according to OECD data.
No, not really. I certainly don’t hate you! And taking sides is perfectly fine.
I do wonder though, if you’d comment on your theory that a bloated administration would be the inevitable result of UHC, when a peer reviewed article tells us that:
I mean, it’s not really my opinion that administrative costs of health care (that covers the entire population of Canada) is measurably lower than the administrative costs in the United States (where a significant portion are not covered)
I wasn’t trying to equate your political beliefs to his. I was simply saying that using the “I’m very liberal so when I don’t like UHC, it means more” when you’re not in fact all that liberal, is similar to one of his standard tactics. When called on one of his far-right stances, we are occasionally blessed with his “But I’m a Democrat” responses, as if that showed that his stance wasn’t really that far out there.
Again, I don’t think you necessarily meant it in that way, but it came across in a similar manner to me.
But is the US$6,714 money spent by the taxpayer alone, or does it include private insurance funds ?
So it is the other option, that you just don’t think something serious could happen to you. Or you are paying out of pocket for insurance and are nowhere near accurately describing yourself as ‘poor’.
Are you going to take your ball and go home too?
Actually, I did mean to address this, but I was rather suddenly overcome with SDMB-related ennui.
Canada has roughly 1/10 the population of the United States. Granted, I’m not sure how efficiently the Canadian government works, but I’m fairly certain that success with a small population concentrated in a few major centers may not necessarily translate into success with a gigantic population spread out over many, many, many more cities of varying sizes.
I’d be much more inclined to give the entire idea credence if, say, the entire EU had been successfully running a UHC program for some time.
Excluded middle fallacy.
No, I doubt it. More likely, I’ll stick around and return the occasional snarky comment. If it annoys you, I think I’ll manage to bear up somehow.
Actually, one of the major challenges (and increased costs) is the fact that we are a very large (geographic) country, with population spread out quite considerably. Remote communities are costly to support, and innovations must be looked at (ie remote telemedicine) We also do have more than a few cities, some on the large side, others smaller. Another complexity is that Health care is a provincial responsibility, so we have 10 different Health Ministries looking after 10 different health ministries (which in turn are governed under one federal act - the Canada Health Act) Confusing, no?
And let me tell you, I don’t think you’d get anyone agreeing that the Canadian and Provincial governments are models of efficiency. I’m pretty sure we’re no better than you.
Good point - According to World Health Organization, Core Health Indicators. U.S. government spending was US$2724 vs. US$2214 on a purchasing power parity basis ($2724 and $2121 on a non-adjusted basis); total U.S. spending was US$6096 vs. US$3137 (PPP) ($6096 and $3038 on a non-adjusted basis).
I’ve heard it stated that 90% of the Canadian population lives within 100 miles of the US border. It would seem that just a small minority face these challenges. Or I could have heard a bunch of crap.
This appears to be true, just by eyeballing it.
Better yet, how about I show him the big welt on my arm where I BIT MYSELF in the middle of a seizure while I sleeping and didn’t even realize it. And how I can’t go to the doctor for it, because I don’t have the cash? Hmmmm…didn’t think so.
You’re supposed to sleep with your bootstraps clenched between your teeth so that doesn’t happen–didn’t you get the Rand Society memo? Besides, if you were sufficiently mentally disciplined you could just stop those seizures–the fact that you have them at all is evidence of your moral failings.
See, Rand, I got it covered–no need for you to participate in this thread at all!
Yea not letting poor people die of cancer. The asshole:mad:
We pay more than other countries and get less. We cover less people. Health problems have been the largest cause of bankruptcy. Our medical care is way down the line behind most industrialized countries. Our corporations say medical costs folded into the cost of doing business makes them unable to compete. Why do we need to keep this system?
I forgot. Our doctors are the highest paid in the world. Our insurance companies take billions to run a system that serves themselves first. We call new methods experimental and do not cover them. we have expensive malpractice caused by poor doctors and cost cutting hospitals. We have a terrible emergency network system. Many poor children go without treatment.
Quite possibly true. I can’t imagine that this could be the sole reason why Canada could institute UHC for a reasonable cost and modest bureaucracy, while the US cannot, and therefore should not try.
My impression of Americans is that they can do quite amazing things once they put their mind to it; and this includes the state and federal governments.