Obama needs to stop playing nice with people.

[Aaron]

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/edu/clock-horl ... 01-eng.htm

Estimated TOTAL population of Canada 33 million, congratulations you just ensured 98% of Californians. What about the rest of the 300+ Million Americans?

Apparently there are 66,307 physicians in Canada as of 2007.
http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/dispPage. ... 5oct2007_e

thats 1 doctor for every 500 patients

Contrast that with 884,974 doctors in the USA and 330+ Million Americans....
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-percent-of ... mprise.htm

thats 1 doctor for about ever 330 patients

What exactly is wrong with our system? Ours seems superior.

@NallOne
Your "We'll bill you later" argument is bull. It's completely discretionary by the doctor and or the institution. Btw, that "We'll bill you later" idea is the same as socialized medicine, how about a lifetime of inflated taxes to cover everyone?

Reducing my argument to party lines doesn't make me wrong. I could do the same for you.

And the waiting lines in Canada? I didn't bring that up, you did. By the way, I know Canadians that have come down to the states to get treatment. It goes both ways.

@Nobiyuki77
The difference between a gov't. and a corporation is that I can choose more then one corporation and I can even start my own corporation. Gov't. is forced. By the way, Corporations are held to gov't. standards. Your argument is flawed. You seem to be mixing Health Insurance with Health Care. Those are two vastly different fields.

Your reference about the banks doesn't take into account that the gov't. GREEN lighted the merger and the sale of many of the loans that have bellied up. I remember John McCain in 2004 complaining about it, and nobody cared.

======================================================================
It's been real fun arguing with you guys, but if you wont listen and address everything I post when I am doing that for you, then GG you win. I'm not gonna argue with you. That would be foolish.

[Nobiyuki77]

Point 1) Once again your premise is flawed. The plan is the cover the 40-50 million Americans who are NOT currently insured, not all 300 million+ Americans. Failed argument fails.

EDIT: 2nd reason why it fails. 33 million people's worth of taxes will pay for 33 million people's worth in health care. Conversly, 300 million+ people's worth of taxes will pay for 300 million+ people's worth in health care. Math + context = awesome

Point 2) This is not the argument. Most people who see doctors for preventive care make appointments ahead of time, they don't usually just rush in and demand to see a doctor immediately. That's what the emergency rooms are for. The idea of health care reform is the allow for preventative care so that people don't HAVE to rush to the emergency room unless it's out of their power, like a car crash for example. It also helps them PAY for it if they don't have private insurance.

Your "We'll bill you later" argument is bull. It's completely discretionary by the doctor and or the institution.

Tell that to my medical bills (looks at his doctor's bill, ER bill from April for the gastritis)

The difference between a gov't. and a corporation is that I can choose more then one corporation and I can even start my own corporation. Gov't. is forced. By the way, Corporations are held to gov't. standards. Your argument is flawed. You seem to be mixing Health Insurance with Health Care. Those are two vastly different fields.

The problem is when corporations own the government, the government wastes our tax dollars protecting their interests, not ours. Is that what you really want?

Oh, and by the by, Health Insurance and Health Care go hand in hand. You can't get Health Care affordably without Health Insurance. Some doctors (that don't work in an ER) will refuse to see patients who don't have Insurance. Failed argument once again, fails.

[Benevolent_Ghaleon]

I'm waiting for the lulz that are sure to ensue over a topic like this.

[Werefrog]

What exactly is wrong with our system? Ours seems superior.

Wait... what? By what metric? Doctor to patient ratio really doesn't say that much about the quality of the care (again, remember what I said about preventative care being more important). I will grant that it's a factor though.

It's been real fun arguing with you guys, but if you wont listen and address everything I post when I am doing that for you, then GG you win. I'm not gonna argue with you. That would be foolish.

Okay, now you're just being the kid that tries to take the kickball and go home when he's losing. Seriously, grow up. I might have been a little too harsh to you, but I feel that everyone else has treated you with respect.

But as Nall said, all your arguments are just GOP talking points. We've heard them all before. We don't really need to address them because 1) we've done that before (God knows I have at least) and 2) they're not real, intellectually sound arguments. These are attempts to scare people by saying if we switch to a socialized system they won't get health care (eg, saying there will be rationing or that someone over 40 will be sacrificed to save someone who is 20). Rubbish. We're not going to buy it.

The one actual coherent argument that you had was that maybe it works in Europe because there is lower populations in those countries. You still haven't responded to flaws that Nobi pointed out in that argument (in fact, the doctor-to-patient ratio actually counters that claim).

Oh, and yes, you can choose your government. It's called voting. Or... if that doesn't work, it's called moving to another country. If you dislike government so much, why don't you move to Somalia where there is no government? Maybe you could even be a pirate!

But back to Jenner's original topic, I do wish that Obama would be a little less moderate. For far too long we've going back and forth between extreme right Republicans, who try their best to destroy any social program (Reagan shutting down the mental health facilities and W. Bush doing what he did and almost destroying social security) followed by a moderate Democrat who basically just keeps the status quo. And to make things worse whenever the moderate Democrat tries to move the policies a little to the left (seriously, by standards in other countries, universal health care is concerned to be a centrist policy), people cry socialism. It's like we can never move on from Ronald Reagan.

[Nobiyuki77]

It's been real fun arguing with you guys, but if you wont listen and address everything I post when I am doing that for you, then GG you win. I'm not gonna argue with you. That would be foolish.

Translation: Wah, why won't you let me win?? I'm not playing with you anymore! *kick dirt*

[exigence]

This mess is giving me a headache, and if I'm going to have one the rest of you better get some excedrin ready.

Healthcare is not a right, its not something the government is required to provide for anyone. I have friends and relatives who can't afford to go to a hospital, do you know what they do when they break and arm or get sick? They suck it up and go to work, I've seen my dad stitch up deep wounds with my moms sewing kit. no one in my family has seen a doctor in a few years. When native americans felt death drawing near they didn't ask the chief to collect shells from everyone in the tribe to get universal shamans, they wandered off to die. I've also heard some pretty nasty horror stories from people waiting up to 24 hours in British hospitals, oh and if you try to leave before you see a doctor the police haul you off to jail. Its not just Obama thats being a -Plantella- its everyone that complains about not affording healthcare, people get sick people die its how the world works, no healthcare system is going to change that. Go to the store buy some Campbell's Chicken Noodle Soup, Dayquil, and Sprite if you still fell sick wander off into the woods and die like a real native american.

[Benevolent_Ghaleon]

Go to the store buy some Campbell's Chicken Noodle Soup, Dayquil, and Sprite if you still fell sick wander off into the woods and die like a real native american.

You're high. I can tell.

[Sonic#]

This mess is giving me a headache, and if I'm going to have one the rest of you better get some excedrin ready.

Healthcare is not a right, its not something the government is required to provide for anyone. I have friends and relatives who can't afford to go to a hospital, do you know what they do when they break and arm or get sick? They suck it up and go to work, I've seen my dad stitch up deep wounds with my moms sewing kit. no one in my family has seen a doctor in a few years. When native americans felt death drawing near they didn't ask the chief to collect shells from everyone in the tribe to get universal shamans, they wandered off to die. I've also heard some pretty nasty horror stories from people waiting up to 24 hours in British hospitals, oh and if you try to leave before you see a doctor the police haul you off to jail. Its not just Obama thats being a -Plantella- its everyone that complains about not affording healthcare, people get sick people die its how the world works, no healthcare system is going to change that. Go to the store buy some Campbell's Chicken Noodle Soup, Dayquil, and Sprite if you still fell sick wander off into the woods and die like a real native american.

Suck it up or die already? Really? Hm. I'll just respond to this as if it's cogent then.

No, healthcare isn't a right that the government must ensure. I agree. The rhetoric that argues that the government is only protecting a right is false. Now that we've moved over that little hurdle, we should ask whether government-subsidized healthcare is worthwhile.

Part of me is inclined to say yes, if only because I see no better way of protecting the spirit of the Hippocratic oath, which seeks to keep the body from harm. Instead, in the case of indigent patients, we first ask who will pay for their care. Insurance? The hospital? The state government? The federal government? A for-profit system will be reluctant to take the burden of charity, except as carefully doled out and calculated previously, and the amount would not be enough to meet demand. Only the gov't can meet the cost and guarantee that everyone gets a basic amount of care, if we decide we should.

Part of me is inclined to say no though. First, we ought to be watching our costs these next budget years. There's a very short political career for the first politicians that propose cuts to Medicare, cuts to Social Security, or significant cuts to many other agencies. So instead they propose this measure for making sure all Americans are insured, whose costs may or may not be covered, and which does not save any money. We humans show an overwhelming inclination to use whatever is offered to us without seeing whether the practice is sustainable in the longer term. Before I fall fully in line with any plan, I want to see its sustainability, just as I would look to environmental sustainability.

Second, I wonder whether we do see doctors for too many things, get treatments recommended to us that are beyond our capacity to pay for them collectively, etc.. The tricky thing about preventative medicine is that it encourages a hypochondriac's relation to the body, constantly watching for that first sign that something is wrong, and reporting every little bump, even in cases (like some prostate cancers) where the benefit of early detection is minimal. We are using what we have access to, without (again) asking whether it is sustainable. But I see no way to reverse this particular trend. Telling people to suck it up won't do a thing, especially since so many people do have legitimate medical problems, and we have this idea we can take care of it.

[Werefrog]

Second, I wonder whether we do see doctors for too many things, get treatments recommended to us that are beyond our capacity to pay for them collectively, etc.. The tricky thing about preventative medicine is that it encourages a hypochondriac's relation to the body, constantly watching for that first sign that something is wrong, and reporting every little bump, even in cases (like some prostate cancers) where the benefit of early detection is minimal. We are using what we have access to, without (again) asking whether it is sustainable. But I see no way to reverse this particular trend. Telling people to suck it up won't do a thing, especially since so many people do have legitimate medical problems, and we have this idea we can take care of it.

This is an interesting point. If I'm hearing you right, the main concern is a increase in consumption of medical service for people who have good health insurance. I heard in my comparative political science class that there was a study done to address this issue and it should that there was not an increase in consumption, and in the long run there was less need for medical care. I would cite an article, but it's been a long time since my political science course. I'll try to find the article, but it's going to be a while because I'm spending the day away from my computer.

Also, when you say sustainable, I can't help but think of the environmental aspect since that's the new environmental buzzword. Is this what you meant? I've never really thought about the environmental impact of health care.

Part of what I meant by preventative care, includes things that you and I probably take for granted, like an annual check up. That's not hard to provide to everyone, and it can save a lot of trouble down the road.

[exigence]

I'd like to see that article, personally if that much of my income was used for medical care i would be in the hospital all the time. who wouldn't if its free and why not.

[Kizyr]

I'd like to see that article, personally if that much of my income was used for medical care i would be in the hospital all the time. who wouldn't if its free and why not.

Heh. You obviously don't pay for or manage your own insurance.

It's not free. There's still a deductible and copayments to make. This applies to universal health coverage, too, which is designed to make healthcare affordable, not free.

This is an interesting point. If I'm hearing you right, the main concern is a increase in consumption of medical service for people who have good health insurance. I heard in my comparative political science class that there was a study done to address this issue and it should that there was not an increase in consumption, and in the long run there was less need for medical care. I would cite an article, but it's been a long time since my political science course. I'll try to find the article, but it's going to be a while because I'm spending the day away from my computer.

Also, when you say sustainable, I can't help but think of the environmental aspect since that's the new environmental buzzword. Is this what you meant? I've never really thought about the environmental impact of health care.

Part of what I meant by preventative care, includes things that you and I probably take for granted, like an annual check up. That's not hard to provide to everyone, and it can save a lot of trouble down the road.

Regarding 'sustainable', I don't like its buzzword status since there is a specific definition for it. Namely, it means if something can be sustained in the long-run without needing to reduce its use (so, sustainable farming doesn't deplete nutrients in the soil faster than they can be restored, sustainable health care wouldn't use up the budget faster than it can be replenished, etc.).

There are many articles regarding the other subject you mentioned. The general idea among public health experts is that, ideally, more access to healthcare would mean more preventative care, which, in turn, means less total money needing to be spent on healthcare. This is based on two pretty simple and straightforward concepts: that taking care of a problem early is a lot cheaper than taking care of it when it's late (it's cheaper to get a filling than a root canal, e.g.), and that if you don't have any coverage, you're unlikely to come in for a checkup until there's a problem so severe you can't ignore it. KF

[exigence]

I don't go to hospitals, last time i went i think it was a $25 copay and the insurance picked up the rest. it wasn't a hassle or anything, that was a few years ago but i couldn't imagine it being much more difficult today. But i was under the impression that in europe you just check into a hospital and see a doctor, i guess it might work a little differently for citizens than it does tourists but, either way i heard it wasn't the best hospital experience. But if our supposed healthcare will work like you say it will i just don't see a whole lot of improvement over current system. I mean you go to a hospital you either have insurance or money to cover the cost or you don't, if you don't have money so what you dont get care

[Kizyr]

Oh believe me, it's painfully obvious that you have no idea how the healthcare system actually works in other countries that do have measures for universal coverage. It's also apparent that you don't have an understanding of how the healthcare system in this country works, either.

I mean you go to a hospital you either have insurance or money to cover the cost or you don't, if you don't have money so what you dont get care

No, you go to a hospital and insurance will cover X% of your costs. Depending on your plan, there's a certain amount you have to pay (this is called a "deductible"), and, also depending on your plan, you may have to pay certain percentage of the costs after that. There's usually a cap on that amount as well.

Bottom line: it's not an all-or-nothing thing. If you have insurance, you normally have to pay a small amount. If you don't have insurance, you'll end up having to pay an extremely large amount. The small amount for people who are insured is usually affordable. The large amount for people who are uninsured can cause you to go bankrupt.

Now, it's more complicated than this, but I think we should stop here for now. KF

[Werefrog]

Now, it's more complicated than this, but I think we should stop here for now. KF

I agree completely. I'll just say one final thing. In my comparative poli sci class we read an article that said we would never get a universal health care system in the US. Why? The exact same reason that things are failing right now: our system is too fragmented (represented by the struggle with the blue dog Democrats) and the lobbyists are two powerful (which can be seen in the current astroturfing).

I always doubted the validity of political science's ability to predict things, but boy, this guy was right.

[Kizyr]

Now, it's more complicated than this, but I think we should stop here for now. KF

I agree completely. I'll just say one final thing. In my comparative poli sci class we read an article that said we would never get a universal health care system in the US. Why? The exact same reason that things are failing right now: our system is too fragmented (represented by the struggle with the blue dog Democrats) and the lobbyists are two powerful (which can be seen in the current astroturfing).

I always doubted the validity of political science's ability to predict things, but boy, this guy was right.

Oh, I just meant I'm going to stop trying to explain how healthcare and insurance function to exigence. If I were to go on, it'd be like explaining multivariable calculus to someone who hasn't yet grasped geometry.

The funny thing is, I'd probably be considered a blue dog Democrat. I don't think that universal coverage is feasible in the US--not for the fragmented reasons, but for a variety of other ones. I wanted to let the ridiculous arguments simmer down first, though, before offering my own. KF

[Aquaignis]

I just wish that the Dems, specifically President Obama, would quit referring to the national debt as something that they "inherited", as he does in this video: http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-dont-want ... f-talking/ They're just trying to up their PR by playing the blame game. As I recall, America has been building up debt since after President Jackson left the White House, known as the "Jacksonian Era."

Edit: http://www.business.auburn.edu/~whittdo ... 201835.htm

[Nobiyuki77]

I just wish that the Dems, specifically President Obama, would quit referring to the national debt as something that they "inherited", as he does in this video: http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-dont-want ... f-talking/ They're just trying to up their PR by playing the blame game. As I recall, America has been building up debt since after President Jackson left the White House, known as the "Jacksonian Era."

Edit: http://www.business.auburn.edu/~whittdo ... 201835.htm

Except it's true though. It's not right for people to forget that it was 8 years of Bush that brought us to this point.

To forget that is, frankly, unfair.

[exigence]

Oh believe me, it's painfully obvious that you have no idea how the healthcare system actually works in other countries that do have measures for universal coverage. It's also apparent that you don't have an understanding of how the healthcare system in this country works, either.

I mean you go to a hospital you either have insurance or money to cover the cost or you don't, if you don't have money so what you dont get care

No, you go to a hospital and insurance will cover X% of your costs. Depending on your plan, there's a certain amount you have to pay (this is called a "deductible"), and, also depending on your plan, you may have to pay certain percentage of the costs after that. There's usually a cap on that amount as well.

Bottom line: it's not an all-or-nothing thing. If you have insurance, you normally have to pay a small amount. If you don't have insurance, you'll end up having to pay an extremely large amount. The small amount for people who are insured is usually affordable. The large amount for people who are uninsured can cause you to go bankrupt.

Now, it's more complicated than this, but I think we should stop here for now. KF

I'm just trying to point out that if you can't afford to have healthcare then you better learn to live with out it. If you honestly want to share the cost of healthcare with other americans go out and donate some money to a charity or something, personally I'd rather worry about my own health and so far my system seems to work pretty well, lets see last year i purchased one bottle of cough syrup, one bottle of ibuprofen, one bottle of excedrin, and one box of benadryl. if whisky counts as medicine it might make the grand total a little bit more expensive but thats it, thats all i spent on keeping my self healthy. I didn't go to the hospital for anything no flu shots nothin, was i sick yeah a few times but so what.

[Werefrog]

If you can't afford health insurance, you better learn to die without it.

[exigence]

well you could put it that way, but people managed to get by just fine before there were hospitals and health insurance, If you play your cards right there really isn't much need for doctors.