USA really too different from English-speaking world to have similar policies?

[curlcoat]

@RickJay

And you think this gives you an insight into Canadian poverty and relative levels of poverty between the two countries?

Living on the border gives you no insight at all; you have anecdotal observations of one place in Canada. Most Canadian poverty is tucked away from the border, and the REALLY bad stuff is on Indian reservations. We have an entire class of people, many of them hopelessly poor, who actually have a different legal designation from other Canadians that helps to keep them poor.

I am aware of the Indian issues up there. I suppose you think living in Ontario means you are an expert on BC? It certainly seems to give you delusions of grandeur regarding what I might or might not have experienced having interacted with Canadians almost all of my adult life. I’m sorry that it insults you that I have a good impression of your countrymen as compared to mine.

Believe me, we have lots of poor people, and the fact that you have not personally seen then means jack shit. We have lots of welfare bums.

Did I ever say that you all didn’t have any?

That’s hilariously dumb. If the reason for unemployment was overpopulation, then the current U.S. unemployment rate should be the highest it has ever been, which it is not. In 1932 the United States had 125 million people and an unemployment rate of 25%. Today the population is 300 million people and the unemployment rate is about 7.5%. Tell me, if overpopulation causes unemployment, how did the unemployment rate NOT go up while the population was increasing so much?

Give it a rest with you being the expert on everything. You should know that you cannot compare today with over 70 years ago! And 1932 sheesh.

[Tuckerfan]

Paperless hospitals save lives.

Results from a large-scale Johns Hopkins study of more than 40 hospitals and 160,000 patients show that when health information technologies replace paper forms and handwritten notes, both hospitals and patients benefit strongly.

One of the benefits of adopting UHC is that it can help speed the switch to a paperless hospital and it also makes it easier and safer for a doctor/nurse/medical professional to work at multiple facilities (as so many do these days), since UHC will mean a uniform standard in terms of things like software and the like.

[curlcoat]

@woodstockbirdybird

Which would be me how, exactly? I’m responding to a specific poster’s use of the term - a poster whose history leads to the fairly obvious conclusion that he’s using “underclass types” to mean “minorities”. You’d probably do well to think for 2 seconds before you open your idiot yap, but then I guess you’d never have anything to post.

Perhaps if you took your own advice you would be able to realize that there are quite a few people out there who do not have time to read every single post in every single thread on this board. You are the one that opened his, uh, yap and labeled someone a racist based on apparently nothing.

Nice to know it’s the poor who are oppressing the middle class, though.

Think before you post. I didn’t say that.

[curlcoat]

@Gam_Zeh_Yaavor

Actually I think it’s getting harder and harder to live on a middle class income more because the middle class is being destroyed. Look at the alarmingly growing income disparity in this country before you blame the poor for taking your money away. Oh wait, I forgot: you’re an idiot.

You are the idiot. What do you think the cause of that “alarmingly growing income disparity” and why it is getting harder and harder to live on a middle class income? Go find out, I’ll wait. Might be interesting to see what you come up with.

[curlcoat]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Those things are welfare. The dole refers specifically to unemployment benefits- and in any case, those things are also much easier to obtain in the UK and Canada.

Shrug. I was taught that the dole was charity.

It certainly isn’t worth the price you pay now.

Why not? I pay far less in premiums than I get back in services.

Of course that makes it less ridiculous. If virtually no other national government can provide a basic level of service for less than ours, the only rational conclusion is that ours does a pretty good job.

Except you can’t conclude that because those countries have UHC. Maybe that is why they pay more in taxes.

Or we might just stop capping med school enrolment.

Why is that done?

It’s exactly the same thing as sales tax. 6.5% doesn’t look so bad now, does it?

Where did you get 6.5%? We pay 7.75% here.

[Idle_Thoughts]

It boggles my mind why people still try to debate with curlcoat and Brazil when they’ve shown time and time again they don’t care about anything that are as silly as facts!

Cite

Cite

[RickJay]

@curlcoat

If it’s true that we pay less tax than most others, that doesn’t make it any less ridiculous. We have only my husbands income, we are only middle class and between all of the payroll taxes we pay out almost 30%.

Wow. I’m in Canada, married couple with two good incomes, and we don’t pay that much tax. Maybe our taxes aren’t that high after all.

And we get health care, too!

[foolsguinea]

@curlcoat

Why not? I pay far less in premiums than I get back in services.

[color mine]

I pay far less in premiums than I get back in services.

I pay far less in premiums than I get back in services.

Think about what you’re saying. You’re expecting a free-market private program to give you more value than what you pay in. Which means, long-term, a) somebody’s getting screwed, & b) your benefits are not sustainable.

You are a liability to the business that cares for you. You cost them money, money they rely on customers to give them by choice. The responsible, rational thing for that business to do is to stop payments to you. Maybe not the honorable thing, but the economical choice.

And you object to an institution that can work outside those economic rules, the government, which sees you as a citizen to which it has a duty, taking over?
:smack:

[curlcoat]

@RickJay

Wow. I’m in Canada, married couple with two good incomes, and we don’t pay that much tax. Maybe our taxes aren’t that high after all.

And we get health care, too!

Yeah, kinda my point. Canada can do it and do it right, for whatever reason (wish I knew), but apparently the US can’t. Do you begin to see why I’m not interested in paying even more taxes to our government?

[Lobohan]

Is it pretty much only stupid people that are against UHC? I see the same moronic objections raised and shot down time after time.

Anyone know any smart people against it?

[curlcoat]

@foolsguinea

[color mine]

I pay far less in premiums than I get back in services.

I pay far less in premiums than I get back in services.

Think about what you’re saying. You’re expecting a free-market private program to give you more value than what you pay in.

No, that isn’t even close to what is said up there. Really Not All That Bright said that my health insurance isn’t worth what I pay for it, and my response was why not? I pay less in premiums than I get back in services, so it seems to me that my insurance is worth more than what I pay for. It has nothing to do with what I expect.

Which means, long-term, a) somebody’s getting screwed, & b) your benefits are not sustainable.

Uh, well, since insurance companies have been around for decades, it looks like the benefits will be sustainable. I’m sure there are lots of folks out there paying for health insurance that they don’t use, or don’t use as much as they pay in which helps keep the company afloat. And they negotiate prices with doctors, labs, etc so the company pays less than I would if I had to pay the whole thing. I really don’t think you need to worry about the insurance company.

You are a liability to the business that cares for you. You cost them money, money they rely on customers to give them by choice. The responsible, rational thing for that business to do is to stop payments to you. Maybe not the honorable thing, but the economical choice.

And you object to an institution that can work outside those economic rules, the government, which sees you as a citizen to which it has a duty, taking over?
:smack:

Huh? You are saying that any time someone uses their insurance benefits at a rate that exceeds their pay in, they should terminate their policy? You are worried about an insurance company?

And somehow this translates into I should trust the government to take as good care of me?

[curlcoat]

@Lobohan

Is it pretty much only stupid people that are against UHC? I see the same moronic objections raised and shot down time after time.

Anyone know any smart people against it?

Despite your bias, I am smart and I am against it. Haven’t seen any of my basic problems with the idea shot down at all.

How about you tell me why it is such a good idea? I mean, other than the idea that those who still have a little bit of money left should use it to pay insurance premiums for even more people than we already do.

[Lobohan]

@curlcoat

Despite your bias, I am smart and I am against it. Haven’t seen any of my basic problems with the idea shot down at all.

Which is pretty much proof you aren’t smart.

How about you tell me why it is such a good idea? I mean, other than the idea that those who still have a little bit of money left should use it to pay insurance premiums for even more people than we already do.

Because it would be cheaper than what we do now. Because 31 percent of American health care dollars are spent on overhead, that is to say bodies to push the paperwork though. Because the 350 billion we’d save would be enough to cover the 47 million people we aren’t covering and give better coverage to the tens of millions of under-insured. We would save business a ton of money spurring the economy. We would, by having a larger base of covered spread the risk over a larger field. We would take all the money that the insurance companies skim as profit and use it to help people.

I could go on, but it’s all been said before and you’re just a stupid, simple cocksucker who is angry at the idea of someone getting something for nothing. So please go sit your worthless minge down and let the adults talk, kay?

[foolsguinea]

So you have a good deal, & an insurer who honors its contract with you. And you’re scared that change could disrupt that.

Well, the nature of the free market is that it is dynamic. Executives are replaced, everything is for sale eventually, everything crumbles & fades. So maybe the free market will give you a disruptive change, & cost you everything you thought you could count on, without any change in the law. And as I said, you’re a liability.

And this very thing has happened to people in this country. Look at Madoff’s clients, who thought they were smart investors, getting a good deal. But what do you care about them? For today, you’re OK.

You know what? On a national policy level, I just don’t care that much about you. Or me, for that matter. It’s the system that concerns me. Maybe you, individually, would end up worse off. Maybe I would. I’m OK with that if it means that society in general is better off.

How about you tell me why it is such a good idea? I mean, other than the idea that those who still have a little bit of money left should use it to pay insurance premiums for even more people than we already do.

A. No premiums. Tax-based funding means that the money comes from the economy as a whole.

B. As such, we’re not taxing those who only have a little bit left. The model at work here, we hope, is not Social Security withholding, but progressive income tax.

C. Administering it through the civil service, & for the whole country, means greater efficiency than that of umpteen private companies.

Ergo, as a middle income household, you might (if the tax formula is handled right) come out ahead.

[I_Love_Me_Vol.I]

@Shodan

But your point about preventative care is not as convincing as it might be. The federal government already spends hundreds of millions of dollars on taxpayer-funded vaccinations for children. Yet substantial numbers of children - from 37 to 56% - are unvaccinated.

Yeah but that only shows we need to strengthen our educational system as well. Part of the reason so many children are unvaccinated is because their mommies get their medical advice from supermarket tabloids that instruct them not to vaccinate their children because they may “catch the autism” or some such crap.

I propose UHC *and *improving our sad public education system (step one: any school board member who votes for Creationism curriculum will be summarily shot in the middle of their feet and hands–Instant Stigmata, Praise Jeezuss!) We desperately need both, right now, and we can afford it (just as soon as we get out of Dubya’s trillion dollar personal vendetta misadventure.)

Look-- primarily the problem here is that the average American is dumb as a box of rocks and more selfish still. Fix that and we may have a chance… *don’t *fix it and it’s just that much more caca to wade through on the SDMB.

[furt]

@Lobohan

Which is pretty much proof you aren’t smart.

Nice little self-confirmation thing going on there. If some doesn’t agree with you, they are ipso facto stupid.

You want people who oppose UHC to start posting IQ scores? Mine’s eleventy billion.

[Lobohan]

@furt

Nice little self-confirmation thing going on there. If some doesn’t agree with you, they are ipso facto stupid.

You want people who oppose UHC to start posting IQ scores? Mine’s eleventy billion.

Not at all. Disagree with me all you want. However not understanding when the answers to your questions are laid out clearly and simply isn’t a sign of mental awesome.

[curlcoat]

@Lobohan

Which is pretty much proof you aren’t smart.

Because it would be cheaper than what we do now. Because 31 percent of American health care dollars are spent on overhead, that is to say bodies to push the paperwork though. Because the 350 billion we’d save would be enough to cover the 47 million people we aren’t covering and give better coverage to the tens of millions of under-insured. We would save business a ton of money spurring the economy. We would, by having a larger base of covered spread the risk over a larger field. We would take all the money that the insurance companies skim as profit and use it to help people.

I could go on, but it’s all been said before and you’re just a stupid, simple cocksucker who is angry at the idea of someone getting something for nothing. So please go sit your worthless minge down and let the adults talk, kay?

Oh fercrissakes. You think you prove me stupid and you smart because you believe that the government of the United States will be able to do something more efficiently and with less cost than private companies and add 47 million more people in on top of it? Jesus.

Yes, the masses are asses.

[curlcoat]

@foolsguinea

So you have a good deal, & an insurer who honors its contract with you. And you’re scared that change could disrupt that.

Well, the nature of the free market is that it is dynamic. Executives are replaced, everything is for sale eventually, everything crumbles & fades. So maybe the free market will give you a disruptive change, & cost you everything you thought you could count on, without any change in the law. And as I said, you’re a liability.

Ok, so your argument is that I should support a great unknown change now, rather than take the chance that something that hasn’t failed me in well over 25 years will?

And this very thing has happened to people in this country. Look at Madoff’s clients, who thought they were smart investors, getting a good deal. But what do you care about them? For today, you’re OK.

What does a ponzi scheme - excuse me, an accused ponzi scheme - have to do with this?

You know what? On a national policy level, I just don’t care that much about you. Or me, for that matter. It’s the system that concerns me. Maybe you, individually, would end up worse off. Maybe I would. I’m OK with that if it means that society in general is better off.

You mean like how well Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare have worked out?

A. No premiums. Tax-based funding means that the money comes from the economy as a whole.

B. As such, we’re not taxing those who only have a little bit left. The model at work here, we hope, is not Social Security withholding, but progressive income tax.

C. Administering it through the civil service, & for the whole country, means greater efficiency than that of umpteen private companies.

Ergo, as a middle income household, you might (if the tax formula is handled right) come out ahead.

If the tax formula is handled right…:rolleyes: I’m not really into “might” either.

A. No premiums by that name, just taxes. It’s still money.

B. Oh, good, even more income tax.

C. I’m sorry, I don’t have this sort of faith in the government. Apparently even the government doesn’t have faith in themselves either since they are privatizing Medicare.

[amanset]

@curlcoat

If it’s true that we pay less tax than most others, that doesn’t make it any less ridiculous. We have only my husbands income, we are only middle class and between all of the payroll taxes we pay out almost 30%. Which doesn’t include sales tax, property tax, user fees on the cars, gas tax…

Diddums. 30% is the basic rate here (Sweden). You get an extra 20% slapped on everything over 327,600 SEK (40,602 USD at the current exchange rate).