My state is filing a lawsuit!!

[slofstra]

It may seem ridiculous to you, but that is how our Constitution requires that it be done. We have managed to get by, somewhat successfully, for a couple hundred years with it.

Yeah sure, nothing better than how you do it now. Standing still is moving backward, Jack.
Ask a dinosaur what happens if you don't change things once in a while.

[JackC]

It may seem ridiculous to you, but that is how our Constitution requires that it be done. We have managed to get by, somewhat successfully, for a couple hundred years with it.

Yeah sure, nothing better than how you do it now. Standing still is moving backward, Jack.
Ask a dinosaur what happens if you don't change things once in a while.

I hardly think that we are going to amend the US Constitution because some layperson from Canada who doesn't know anything about the subject thinks that a particular aspect of it is "ridiculous."

Our Constitution can be and has been amended when the American people think that it is appropriate to do so.

The scope and nature of judicial review is part of how our entire system of government is set up. You can't change one part of it without altering how the entire system of checks and balances of our goverment is intended to work.

Why are you being so foolish to comment negatively on an area that you know absolutely nothing about.

[ravel30]

Dear friends,

I have several questions for you all. As a canadian I must say that there are a lot of things that I do not know about America. However, I try to learn as much as I can and I also try to keep in touch with as much as I can (not only for america but everywhere in the world. The BBC is a fantastic thing ). I do not have an opinion on the healthcare reform nor am I trying to get one. However, there are a few things that I don't understand.

1- The vote was won fair and square by people that were elected legally. I understand that most of you are not happy about the vote and its consequences but the truth is that you lost. Why can't you deal with it ?

2- More and more I keep reading people comparing Obama to a socialist, another Stalin, Hitler and he is even refered as a communist. Another CMG member even went as far as saying welcome to the USSA. I understand that you may not agree with him but isn't it exagerated to go as far as that ? Aren't these what we called exagerations ? Also, is it me or there a huge difference between the USA and any communist country ? I understand that by saying some of these things, you are more trying to say a state of mind than the truth but still, isn't it what we call having bad will ?

3- According to you, why is the reform so bad ? What are your main arguments ? Can you admit that the reform may not make much of a difference in your life but may very well make a different in other people's life ? Again, I am just trying to understand.

I enjoy talking with each and everyone of you and I just hope that my questions will turn me as an ennemy. Again, I am just trying to understand some things. I happilly admit that there are a lot of things that I do not understand and not trying to pass any kind of opinion on something that I don't know.

Matt.

[jbuck919]

Dear friends,

I have several questions for you all. As a canadian I must say that there are a lot of things that I do not know about America. However, I try to learn as much as I can and I also try to keep in touch with as much as I can (not only for america but everywhere in the world. The BBC is a fantastic thing ). I do not have an opinion on the healthcare reform nor am I trying to get one. However, there are a few things that I don't understand.

1- The vote was won fair and square by people that were elected legally. I understand that most of you are not happy about the vote and its consequences but the truth is that you lost. Why can't you deal with it ?

2- More and more I keep reading people comparing Obama to a socialist, another Stalin, Hitler and he is even refered as a communist. Another CMG member even went as far as saying welcome to the USSA. I understand that you may not agree with him but isn't it exagerated to go as far as that ? Aren't these what we called exagerations ? Also, is it me or there a huge difference between the USA and any communist country ? I understand that by saying some of these things, you are more trying to say a state of mind than the truth but still, isn't it what we call having bad will ?

3- According to you, why is the reform so bad ? What are your main arguments ? Can you admit that the reform may not make much of a difference in your life but may very well make a different in other people's life ? Again, I am just trying to understand.

I enjoy talking with each and everyone of you and I just hope that my questions will turn me as an ennemy. Again, I am just trying to understand some things. I happilly admit that there are a lot of things that I do not understand and not trying to pass any kind of opinion on something that I don't know.

Matt.

Gosh, Matt, those are exactly the questions I have.

[Corlyss_D]

3- According to you, why is the reform so bad ? What are your main arguments ?

If you haven't been following it closely, it can't be explained briefly, and I would imagine that not being directly involved it's not worth your time to become informed. As Moynihan once observed, if you don't have a life time to devote to public policy, don't get involved.

Can you admit that the reform may not make much of a difference in your life but may very well make a different in other people's life ?

John's disingenuous answer notwithstanding, no, we can't. Most of us expect it to make a big difference for a lot of reasons, none of them beneficial, and the notion that it won't make a big difference in the majority of citizens lives while it will "help a few" is the essence of Big Lie used to sell the welfare state, period. Confiscatory taxes are in our future. Lack of capital, which will now go for taxes, to pay for innovation will rob us of our scientific and technical leadership in the world. The entitlements programs will be used as an excuse to reduce the US military to a shadow of its former self, with the likely consequences. Insurance companies are now utilities until they are forced out of business, at which time the Government as the sole provide can rewrite the rules of insuring the now-dependent public. Unemployment will likely continue high as our consumer economy on which world prosperity depends is starved for cash to pay for the entitlements programs. There's nothing about these identifiable consequences to cheer.

[ravel30]

Gosh, Matt, those are exactly the questions I have.

Great. That must be the maths connexion.

[slofstra]

It may seem ridiculous to you, but that is how our Constitution requires that it be done. We have managed to get by, somewhat successfully, for a couple hundred years with it.

Yeah sure, nothing better than how you do it now. Standing still is moving backward, Jack.
Ask a dinosaur what happens if you don't change things once in a while.

I hardly think that we are going to amend the US Constitution because some layperson from Canada who doesn't know anything about the subject thinks that a particular aspect of it is "ridiculous."

Our Constitution can be and has been amended when the American people think that it is appropriate to do so.

The scope and nature of judicial review is part of how our entire system of government is set up. You can't change one part of it without altering how the entire system of checks and balances of our goverment is intended to work.

Why are you being so foolish to comment negatively on an area that you know absolutely nothing about.

Well, you know what they say Jack. From the mouths of babes.

Any fool including me can see the contradiction between spending months wrangling something through Congress and then finding out *whoops* we don't have jurisdiction. (Responsibility is the word we use here in Canada.)

I guess you need to be some kind of legal/constitutional expert to understand why it has to be that way, and you're absolutely right, I don't understand it, and I guess I'm not all that interested in the reasons anyway. One thing we say up here is that the less you know about how things like sausages and laws are made, the better.

[slofstra]

3- According to you, why is the reform so bad ? What are your main arguments ?

If you haven't been following it closely, it can't be explained briefly, and I would imagine that not being directly involved it's not worth your time to become informed. As Moynihan once observed, if you don't have a life time to devote to public policy, don't get involved.

Can you admit that the reform may not make much of a difference in your life but may very well make a different in other people's life ?

John's disingenuous answer notwithstanding, no, we can't. Most of us expect it to make a big difference for a lot of reasons, none of them beneficial, and the notion that it won't make a big difference in the majority of citizens lives while it will "help a few" is the essence of Big Lie used to sell the welfare state, period. Confiscatory taxes are in our future. Lack of capital, which will now go for taxes, to pay for innovation will rob us of our scientific and technical leadership in the world. The entitlements programs will be used as an excuse to reduce the US military to a shadow of its former self, with the likely consequences. Insurance companies are now utilities until they are forced out of business, at which time the Government as the sole provide can rewrite the rules of insuring the now-dependent public. Unemployment will likely continue high as our consumer economy on which world prosperity depends is starved for cash to pay for the entitlements programs. There's nothing about these identifiable consequences to cheer.

So why is this thing going to be so expensive if everyone is already well served by the private insurance they have now?

[ravel30]

3- According to you, why is the reform so bad ? What are your main arguments ?

If you haven't been following it closely, it can't be explained briefly, and I would imagine that not being directly involved it's not worth your time to become informed. As Moynihan once observed, if you don't have a life time to devote to public policy, don't get involved.

Can you admit that the reform may not make much of a difference in your life but may very well make a different in other people's life ?

John's disingenuous answer notwithstanding, no, we can't. Most of us expect it to make a big difference for a lot of reasons, none of them beneficial, and the notion that it won't make a big difference in the majority of citizens lives while it will "help a few" is the essence of Big Lie used to sell the welfare state, period. Confiscatory taxes are in our future. Lack of capital, which will now go for taxes, to pay for innovation will rob us of our scientific and technical leadership in the world. The entitlements programs will be used as an excuse to reduce the US military to a shadow of its former self, with the likely consequences. Insurance companies are now utilities until they are forced out of business, at which time the Government as the sole provide can rewrite the rules of insuring the now-dependent public. Unemployment will likely continue high as our consumer economy on which world prosperity depends is starved for cash to pay for the entitlements programs. There's nothing about these identifiable consequences to cheer.

Corlyss_D,

How can you be so sure that this is what is going to happen ? We pay higher taxes in Canada and we are still innovative. So are other countries of the world. Taxes do not forbid people to have good ideas.

I don't understand how you can say that unemployment will continue high because of that program. Is it me or it is not the goverment's job to create jobs ?

Identifiable consequences ? Again, this is where you know things better than me so I trust your judment entirely.

Matt.

[JackC]

Dear friends,

I have several questions for you all. As a canadian I must say that there are a lot of things that I do not know about America. However, I try to learn as much as I can and I also try to keep in touch with as much as I can (not only for america but everywhere in the world. The BBC is a fantastic thing ). I do not have an opinion on the healthcare reform nor am I trying to get one. However, there are a few things that I don't understand.

1- The vote was won fair and square by people that were elected legally. I understand that most of you are not happy about the vote and its consequences but the truth is that you lost. Why can't you deal with it ?.

Well the procedure that was followed in this case is not certainly NOT how things are normally done by the congress. Usually, the house passes a bill and then senate pass a bill. To get through the house, you only need a majority, 51%, of the vote. To get through the senate, you need 60% of the senators to agree to close any debate and hold a vote. This enabled the minority to block certain bills through the use of a "filibuster." This was intended to give the minority in the senate more power. It made significant legislation harder to pass.

When the house and senate both pass different bills, they go to a "conference committee", made up of members of both parties, who try to reach a compromise on and come up with a new bill. The house and senate then go through the procedure again,.

In this case, the Democrats ignored this procedure. The house passed a bill and the senate passed a much different bill. The senate bill passed because the Democrats had 60 senators who were prepared to close debate and vote on the bill. They defeated an attempt to filibuster.

The problem came because after that, the citizens of Massachusetts held a special election to fill the senate seat of Ted Kennedy, who died. They elected a Republican who promised to by the person who would prevent the health care bill from becoming law.

(You have to know the US to understand how significant it is for a Republican to win a senate race in Massachusetts by campaigning on this issue. Massachusetts is the one of the most liberal states in the US. The fact that the health are bill is not supported there, shows that it is not supported in any state. More than anything it demonstrated how strongly the US people were against this bill.)

After the Mass election, Democrats no longer had the votes they need to overcome a filibuster in the senate and pass into law the single bill that would normally come out of conference committee and be voted on by both the house and the senate again.

So the Democrats has the house agree to adopt the senate bill with no changes. That way it was not necessary to go a vote in the senate again, because there were no differences that had to be worked out in a conference committee. The members of the house only agree to vote for the senate bill because the senate told the that that they would pass a new additional house bill that made some change to what has now become law through a process of "reconciliation" that is supposed to be limited to issues relating to the budget, and that only needs 51 votes in the senate. That process has never been use for a bill of this scope before and the republicans were furious that it is being jammed through like this. It's use for this bill that is opposed by most Americans, will likely do huge damage to the senate an institution.

Also, many people who did not support the bill on it merits had their votes purchased through political bribes and threats. Americans opposed to the bill found this disgusting.

Generally there has never been a major piece of social legislation in the US that was not supported by most Americans and that did not have some bipartisan support.

In this case a major piece of legislation that most Americans opposed and that was not supported by a single Republican was passed through unseemly bribes to Democrats and through thuggish tactics and in circumvention of the normal legislative process. That is part of the anger.

2- More and more I keep reading people comparing Obama to a socialist, another Stalin, Hitler and he is even refered as a communist. Another CMG member even went as far as saying welcome to the USSA. I understand that you may not agree with him but isn't it exagerated to go as far as that ? Aren't these what we called exagerations ? Also, is it me or there a huge difference between the USA and any communist country ? I understand that by saying some of these things, you are more trying to say a state of mind than the truth but still, isn't it what we call having bad will ??.

Of course Obama is not Hitler or Stalin and no serious people thinks he is. What people object to is the establishment of a huge new social welfare program. We are not the soviet union, but we are on a road to more and more government control over our economy and our lives. Lots of people don't like this and sometimes they make the point through angry exaggerations.

3- According to you, why is the reform so bad ? What are your main arguments ? Can you admit that the reform may not make much of a difference in your life but may very well make a different in other people's life ? Again, I am just trying to understand.

I enjoy talking with each and everyone of you and I just hope that my questions will turn me as an ennemy. Again, I am just trying to understand some things. I happilly admit that there are a lot of things that I do not understand and not trying to pass any kind of opinion on something that I don't know.

Matt.

We are a bankrupt nation, running huge, unsustainable deficits. The entitlement programs that we already have are all going broke and need to be changed. In that environment, instead of dealing with these problems, we have just added a huge new entitlement program that we cannot afford. Everyone know this is going to costs many times more than people are saying now,. They have seen it happen before, Social Security and Medicare were all argued to be easily affordable programs. Not they are going broke and are about to eat us alive economically.

Also, unlike in many other countries, many people in America have a fundamental distrust of government. America is all about individual freedom. Many people do not want government running their lives. They believe that handing over the health care system to the government, and this is just the first step in that direction, is a bad thing.
They see what is happening as another step in a direction they do not want the country to go.

[NancyElla]

Dear friends,

I have several questions for you all. As a canadian I must say that there are a lot of things that I do not know about America. However, I try to learn as much as I can and I also try to keep in touch with as much as I can (not only for america but everywhere in the world. The BBC is a fantastic thing ). I do not have an opinion on the healthcare reform nor am I trying to get one. However, there are a few things that I don't understand.

1- The vote was won fair and square by people that were elected legally. I understand that most of you are not happy about the vote and its consequences but the truth is that you lost. Why can't you deal with it ?

2- More and more I keep reading people comparing Obama to a socialist, another Stalin, Hitler and he is even refered as a communist. Another CMG member even went as far as saying welcome to the USSA. I understand that you may not agree with him but isn't it exagerated to go as far as that ? Aren't these what we called exagerations ? Also, is it me or there a huge difference between the USA and any communist country ? I understand that by saying some of these things, you are more trying to say a state of mind than the truth but still, isn't it what we call having bad will ?

3- According to you, why is the reform so bad ? What are your main arguments ? Can you admit that the reform may not make much of a difference in your life but may very well make a different in other people's life ? Again, I am just trying to understand.

I enjoy talking with each and everyone of you and I just hope that my questions will turn me as an ennemy. Again, I am just trying to understand some things. I happilly admit that there are a lot of things that I do not understand and not trying to pass any kind of opinion on something that I don't know.

Matt.

Hi Matt,

On your first question, I have to say that I'm not one of the people who is really upset that this bill passed, so I can't speak for them. However, I have in the past been very upset by other votes (the one authorizing President Bush to invade Iraq comes to mind), and I can attest that it is a tough thing to see your country going in a direction you are convinced is completely wrong and not be able to do anything to stop it.

On your second question, I'd say that the characterizations of President Obama as a socialist, a communist, another Stalin or another Hitler are inaccurate and uncalled for. They are designed to be inflammatory, and they succeed. Yes, I think statements like that demonstrate what I would call "bad faith". There have been factual misrepresentations during this debate that are even worse--the accusation that the democrats' plan would involve "death committees" that would decide when and how people would die, or that the government would use the plan to deny medical treatment to people. Unfortunately, many people believed these lies and are now very frightened about what will happen to them and their families.

On your third question, although this isn't really the plan I would have liked to see pass, there are some things I'm grateful are in it. The ban on insurance companies refusing to issue a policy to someone with a pre-existing condition is one of them. Extending coverage to more people and making it possible for people to afford health insurance even if their employeer doesn't offer it are two more things to like. How to pay for it is a concern. I would have preferred a universal, single-payer plan that would have covered everyone. I can actually see how cost savings might be achieved under a single-payer system--for one thing, the army of clerks who understand the complicated billing processes of the insurance companies could be put to more productive work! But with the insurance companies still in the game, with all their expenses and with their focus on profit for their stockholders rather than either good service or cost savings, I don't know. So, while I think this bill is a step in the right (and necessary) direction, I'm not dancing a victory dance either.

I am curious about your experiences of the Canadian health system and your opinion of how well it serves the people of your country. I expect you know that the two opposing sides of the U.S debate both used the Canadian system as an example--the dems used it as an example of how wonderful life could be, and the republicans as an example of what a catastrophe a national health service would be. I'm guessing that the truth lies somewhere between these two extremes. I'd be interested in your thoughts about it.

[Corlyss_D]

So why is this thing going to be so expensive if everyone is already well served by the private insurance they have now?

Henry, take a look at this http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Note especially the bottom line, i.e., the unfunded libabilities in Social Security, Medicare, and the Prescription Drug Benefit for the total of $107 TN. If I could figure out some way to get the entire visual in my signature, I would.

[living_stradivarius]

So why is this thing going to be so expensive if everyone is already well served by the private insurance they have now?

Henry, take a look at this http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Note especially the bottom line, i.e., the unfunded libabilities in Social Security, Medicare, and the Prescription Drug Benefit for the total of $107 TN. If I could figure out some way to get the entire visual in my signature, I would.

Hey now, we have a 3.8% Medicare tax and 5% hike on long term capital gains tax to pay for (some of) it! Say bye-bye to real jobs (not those IOU government jobs) though. Pity employment isn't a "universal right".

[Corlyss_D]

How can you be so sure that this is what is going to happen? We pay higher taxes in Canada and we are still innovative. So are other countries of the world.

No disrespect, Matt, but Canada has a population of about 33 Mil. We have a population 10 times that. Similarly, America, not Canada, has been the engine of world prosperity for 60 years. Only within the last 10 years, as globalization has kicked in, raising millions of around the world out of grinding poverty to greater prosperity, have other consumers begun to assume the burden of buying other nations' exports. Everywhere you look, nations that once had little hope of ever being anything but wards of international generosity have thrown off top-down managed economies for the prosperity that comes from bottom-up free markets and harnessing individual self-interest and imaginations.

Until very recently, European-style welfare states, which includes Canada, have had confiscatory taxes that eat up capital investment to pay for millions of non-producers. A few states, including Britain and Ireland, embraced a freer market capitalism and reduced taxes to allow for more capital formation and investment in their own countries. About 13 years ago, Canada began to reduce their income taxes which were near 60% and their corporate taxes to achieve the same results. Capital goes where it is treated best. In 2001, the Euro-zone had much higher corporate taxes than it does now to pay for the welfare state, and they spent a deal of energy trying to force the US to "harmonize" its tax policy with theirs to make investing in the US as unattractive, or more unattractive, than investing in their own countries. The US refused to be suckered into that ploy to increase European competitiveness at our expense, so the Europeans began lowering their corporate taxes rates so now they are below that of the US (which I think is around 34%). As a result, European goods became more competitive, but Europe still basically exports to other nations in the Euro-zone. Germany is heavily dependent on exports to the southern periphery, which is one reason it is even considering rescuing Greece. The other reason is German banks are principle owners of Greek bonds (debt).

Unfortunately, the Euro-zone resisted lowering its unemployment rates, which the nations use to control inflation, to deregulate their ossified labor market, or to deregulate their punishing business start-up regulations. The result is virtually stagnant economies except for Germany, which at the moment is the Golden State in Europe: higher savings, and lower spending, comparatively. Labor in Europe is so expensive, businesses rely heavily on temp workers (mostly immigrants), who have little or no protections against firing, to prevent having to assume crippling obligations to permanent workers (e.g., payment at full salary and benefits for a year after firing). Europe's need for immigrant labor to pay for the welfare state raises a whole nother issue I won't go into here. Similarly unfortunately, the financial meltdown required states to increase spending, and thus borrowing, which increased the requirements for taxes, which can't be raised in a recession. A real dilemma. Now, after a year of recession, comes Greece (aka a banana republic whose debt last year enjoyed a AAA rating, and this year revealed that its "off the books" debt was 100% of its published debt). It is a proxy for the profligate southern periphery of the Euro-zone, amusingly referred to as the P.I.I.G.S. for the nations - Portugal, Italy, Ireland (no offense, Seán - I didn't make it up), Greece, and Spain. Greece requires a bailout of at least some $80 BN dollars and appears to have violated most every fiscal rule imposed on members by the EU central bank. Welcome to the wonderful world of NGOs. The only people solvent enough to help Greece are the Germans, and they don't want to not only because Greece's profligacy and corruption are not Germany's fault and because the rest of the P.I.I.G.S. stand with their hands out for similar rescue. Of course Germany will eventually bail out the Greeks, over the howls of protest from the German voters, but then the EU is not known for its democratic conduct. Like I said, its all very complicated and likely to be our future.

Taxes do not forbid people to have good ideas.

Right you are! They do however prevent capital formation that would otherwise be free to invest in good ideas. No money=good ideas never get to production and market.

I don't understand how you can say that unemployment will continue high because of that program. Is it me or it is not the goverment's job to create jobs ?

See above. Expensive workers depress hiring. They are a negative incentive. Unemployment is used in welfare states to fight inflation. But I'm curious why you think creating jobs is the government's responsibility. Wherever did you get such an idea?

Identifiable consequences ? Again, this is where you know things better than me so I trust your judment entirely.

Well, I appreciate the vote of confidence, but don't. Don't take my word for it. I'm telling you things that you should look into on your own, you know, in your copious spare time, because your comments demonstrate that you have the liberal view down in it's most salient features, i.e., don't be mean, share bounty with the less fortunate, a little tax never hurt anyone, we have to take care of those who can't take care of themselves, etc.

I have listened to a lot of the arguments of both sides, honest I have, and that's what I have gleaned from years of reading, particularly about the Euro-zone in comparison to the US, free-market capitalism vs. state-controlled managed economies, what makes the conditions for prosperity and what makes the conditions for poverty. You probably have guessed, I'm strongly opinionated on the matter, partly because the law of unintended consequences stalks every political decision. The more major and comprehensive the decision, the greater the unintended consequences. People like me have been fighting with the left in this country for 40 years about a variety of issues and one thing I've learned from it all is that the left always has great sounding ideas (save the poor, share and share alike, don't be greedy, take care of the children, college for everyone, insurance for everyone, level the playing field, corporations and rich people can pay for everything, take care of old people, etc.) that often turn out to be highly destructive, and yet they always avoid responsibility for consequences by invoking their good intentions. There's an old principle in tax policy. Psychologists understand it very well: what you reward, you get more of; what you tax, you get less of. The welfare state rewards non-producers with the benefits of producers' work. There's no incentive for people to work when the state pays them not to do so. The more non-producers are rewarded, the more of them there will be. Small businesses in this country account for 66% of employment. Tax them heavily, make start-ups more difficult, double or triple core costs like energy (pending cap-and-trade legislation), and you will have fewer entities that actually create jobs, further depressing employment.

Franklin Roosevelt identified within a few months or years after Social Security that it was a fiscal disaster in the making if it wasn't fixed soon. But it never was fixed, and now it's an even worse disaster that has been joined by 3 other fiscal disasters, including health care. We can see the numbers now at usdebtclock.org. It's literally the bottom line, i.e., the unfunded libaility our grandchildren will have to face. My share at the moment is approximately $350,000. I can't afford that now. How are two generations away going to pay for their share?

[living_stradivarius]

How can you be so sure that this is what is going to happen ? We pay higher taxes in Canada and we are still innovative. So are other countries of the world. Taxes do not forbid people to have good ideas.

"Still Innovative"?

Canada's innovation gap
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-o ... le1203108/

Just for fun -- How much is an idea worth?
http://www.berberian.com/berberians_blo ... s_an_.html

[keaggy220]

How can you be so sure that this is what is going to happen ? We pay higher taxes in Canada and we are still innovative. So are other countries of the world. Taxes do not forbid people to have good ideas.

"Still Innovative"?

Canada's innovation gap
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-o ... le1203108/

Just for fun -- How much is an idea worth?
http://www.berberian.com/berberians_blo ... s_an_.html

The Blackberry was pretty cool until the iPhone came along.

[DavidRoss]

Thank you JackC & Corlyss for the clear and succinct responses you offered to Matt's sincere questions.

NancyElla--comparing Obama to Hitler or Stalin is clearly over the top. Calling him a socialist, however, is right on the money. He and those who agree with him regarding the role of government take as their models the social welfare systems of northern Europe. In many respects these systems work quite well to serve their nations' interests. By many measures the quality of life enjoyed by Danes, Swedes, and Norwegians is admirable. We must not judge such things in a vacuum, however, and must bear in mind that conditions for those relatively small nations with homogeneous populations and no global responsibilities differ significantly from conditions in the U.S.

And like you, I would like to hear Matt's opinions regarding his experiences with health care in Canada.

[slofstra]

So why is this thing going to be so expensive if everyone is already well served by the private insurance they have now?

Henry, take a look at this http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Note especially the bottom line, i.e., the unfunded libabilities in Social Security, Medicare, and the Prescription Drug Benefit for the total of $107 TN. If I could figure out some way to get the entire visual in my signature, I would.

Love it. That is cool. Hey, a new baby was born while I watched.

I think the threat of bankrupting the treasury is real, but I blame 8 years of Republicanism, government mismanagement, unnecessary wars, an inequitable tax system, and greed on Wall Street more than I blame the cost of unearned entitlements.

[slofstra]

How can you be so sure that this is what is going to happen ? We pay higher taxes in Canada and we are still innovative. So are other countries of the world. Taxes do not forbid people to have good ideas.

"Still Innovative"?

Canada's innovation gap
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-o ... le1203108/

Just for fun -- How much is an idea worth?
http://www.berberian.com/berberians_blo ... s_an_.html

We actually share that problem with the USA. Our economies are very much interlinked, and we've let Asia and to a lesser extent Europe take the lead by not funding primary research, and by not keeping essential manufacturing processes running here.

[slofstra]

So why is this thing going to be so expensive if everyone is already well served by the private insurance they have now?

Henry, take a look at this http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Note especially the bottom line, i.e., the unfunded libabilities in Social Security, Medicare, and the Prescription Drug Benefit for the total of $107 TN. If I could figure out some way to get the entire visual in my signature, I would.

Hey now, we have a 3.8% Medicare tax and 5% hike on long term capital gains tax to pay for (some of) it! Say bye-bye to real jobs (not those IOU government jobs) though. Pity employment isn't a "universal right".

Government jobs are just as real as any other jobs, and I think it's important to understand the real issue. The real issue is jobs that do not add value, or that are wasteful. The difference can be subtle but the concept is simple. For example, if the government runs a nuclear plant or the hydro system then those jobs clearly add value to people's lives. More government employees is not the problem, per se. What you need to do is figure out how to prevent waste in government spending and government enterprise, not willy nilly prevent government employment.

[slofstra]

Dear friends,

I have several questions for you all. As a canadian I must say that there are a lot of things that I do not know about America. However, I try to learn as much as I can and I also try to keep in touch with as much as I can (not only for america but everywhere in the world. The BBC is a fantastic thing ). I do not have an opinion on the healthcare reform nor am I trying to get one. However, there are a few things that I don't understand.

1- The vote was won fair and square by people that were elected legally. I understand that most of you are not happy about the vote and its consequences but the truth is that you lost. Why can't you deal with it ?

2- More and more I keep reading people comparing Obama to a socialist, another Stalin, Hitler and he is even refered as a communist. Another CMG member even went as far as saying welcome to the USSA. I understand that you may not agree with him but isn't it exagerated to go as far as that ? Aren't these what we called exagerations ? Also, is it me or there a huge difference between the USA and any communist country ? I understand that by saying some of these things, you are more trying to say a state of mind than the truth but still, isn't it what we call having bad will ?

3- According to you, why is the reform so bad ? What are your main arguments ? Can you admit that the reform may not make much of a difference in your life but may very well make a different in other people's life ? Again, I am just trying to understand.

I enjoy talking with each and everyone of you and I just hope that my questions will turn me as an ennemy. Again, I am just trying to understand some things. I happilly admit that there are a lot of things that I do not understand and not trying to pass any kind of opinion on something that I don't know.

Matt.

Hi Matt,

On your first question, I have to say that I'm not one of the people who is really upset that this bill passed, so I can't speak for them. However, I have in the past been very upset by other votes (the one authorizing President Bush to invade Iraq comes to mind), and I can attest that it is a tough thing to see your country going in a direction you are convinced is completely wrong and not be able to do anything to stop it.

On your second question, I'd say that the characterizations of President Obama as a socialist, a communist, another Stalin or another Hitler are inaccurate and uncalled for. They are designed to be inflammatory, and they succeed. Yes, I think statements like that demonstrate what I would call "bad faith". There have been factual misrepresentations during this debate that are even worse--the accusation that the democrats' plan would involve "death committees" that would decide when and how people would die, or that the government would use the plan to deny medical treatment to people. Unfortunately, many people believed these lies and are now very frightened about what will happen to them and their families.

On your third question, although this isn't really the plan I would have liked to see pass, there are some things I'm grateful are in it. The ban on insurance companies refusing to issue a policy to someone with a pre-existing condition is one of them. Extending coverage to more people and making it possible for people to afford health insurance even if their employeer doesn't offer it are two more things to like. How to pay for it is a concern. I would have preferred a universal, single-payer plan that would have covered everyone. I can actually see how cost savings might be achieved under a single-payer system--for one thing, the army of clerks who understand the complicated billing processes of the insurance companies could be put to more productive work! But with the insurance companies still in the game, with all their expenses and with their focus on profit for their stockholders rather than either good service or cost savings, I don't know. So, while I think this bill is a step in the right (and necessary) direction, I'm not dancing a victory dance either.

I am curious about your experiences of the Canadian health system and your opinion of how well it serves the people of your country. I expect you know that the two opposing sides of the U.S debate both used the Canadian system as an example--the dems used it as an example of how wonderful life could be, and the republicans as an example of what a catastrophe a national health service would be. I'm guessing that the truth lies somewhere between these two extremes. I'd be interested in your thoughts about it.

No Canadian understands the objection and resistance to US health care that is coming from some quarters. Sure, we understand the problems you are going to have in implementing your system. But they're not show stoppers.
There is no one anywhere in the political spectrum in Canada who objects on principle to the idea of a government-run health care system. We do have some serious issues with health care here, but the locus of the discussion is always "within the system" and what needs to be done given the current framework.
In spite of the issues, people are quite happy with the state of medical care here. Ambulances come quickly when you have a heart attack or accident; hospitals provide state of the art care in spite of emergency room waiting times; and there is an increasing emphasis on life style and preventive aspects of care in order to keep taxes and budgets down.

[ravel30]

Thank you JackC & Corlyss for the clear and succinct responses you offered to Matt's sincere questions.

NancyElla--comparing Obama to Hitler or Stalin is clearly over the top. Calling him a socialist, however, is right on the money. He and those who agree with him regarding the role of government take as their models the social welfare systems of northern Europe. In many respects these systems work quite well to serve their nations' interests. By many measures the quality of life enjoyed by Danes, Swedes, and Norwegians is admirable. We must not judge such things in a vacuum, however, and must bear in mind that conditions for those relatively small nations with homogeneous populations and no global responsibilities differ significantly from conditions in the U.S.

And like you, I would like to hear Matt's opinions regarding his experiences with health care in Canada.

DavidRoss,

I find your comment to be very interesting. Over here in Canada when we look at the Obama administration and in the past the Clinton administration, we considered them center right. Center at best. Very far from socialists if you ask me. Trust me the role of the goverment in the US is still very far from the importance than it has in any of the countries that you have quoted. Even little compare to the goverment in Canada.

I am so glad to read your comments about Danmark, Sweden, Norway because you kinda answer a question that I asked you a while ago but that you didn't really answered for some reasons. I would agree with you that these are small nations and that it is different than the USA but I don't see why the homogenity of the nation makes it easier for them. Canada is not an homegenous nation (historically and currently) but overall I think that things are working quite well. Thst being said, i understand what you were trying to say.

Matt.

[DavidRoss]

So why is this thing going to be so expensive if everyone is already well served by the private insurance they have now?

Note especially the bottom line, i.e., the unfunded libabilities in Social Security, Medicare, and the Prescription Drug Benefit for the total of $107 TN.

I think the threat of bankrupting the treasury is real, but I blame 8 years of Republicanism, government mismanagement, unnecessary wars, an inequitable tax system, and greed on Wall Street more than I blame the cost of unearned entitlements.

Here in pdf form is the Government Accounting Office's Citizen's Guide to the 2008 Financial Report of the U.S. Government, published in 2009. See especially, starting on page 7, the section titled "An Unsustainable Path"--an excerpt follows:

The projected growth in entitlement spending under current law – chiefly for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid – will ultimately affect every citizen in the nation. Continued growth in health care costs is expected to cause government spending for its major health programs to grow faster than both the economy and Federal revenues over the next 75 years. Similarly, population aging is expected to cause the Government’s Social Security and health program costs and expenditures to increase as a share of GDP over that period. Consequently, total Government expenditures are projected to exceed total assumed revenue throughout the projection period, with the fiscal imbalance – between spending and revenue – growing larger each year into the future.

Here is a chart illustrating that unsustainable path of growing liabilities, taken from the previous Citizen's Guide published in 2007, before the TARPs, the "Stimulus" bill, and the Health Care "Reform" Bill added to the burden of debt:




Here is a chart from the Congressional Budget Office depicting Federal budget deficits and surpluses for the past 30 years, plus the deficits estimated under Obama's projected budgets. Note that this predates the health care bill that just passed, which--if it works exactly as the Democrats say it will--is expected to reduce Obama's $9-trillion-plus projected deficits by $138 billion:




Finally, here is a succinct primer on the U.S. Federal government's financial condition: http://www.pgpf.org/resources/PGPF_Citi ... e_2009.pdf The data is all taken from official figures provided by the Office of Management and Budget, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Government Accounting Office. Note, before passage of this health care bill, current liabilities and unfunded promises already totaled $483,000 for each American household.

[ravel30]

First of all, many thanks to Corlyss_D, NancyElla and JackC for your enlightning answers. Your answers were all different and very interesting.

I am glad that sflostra answered the question about the canadian healtcare system before me. I actually agree with pretty much everything he wrote. I think that overall, canadians are quite happy with the universal healthcare system.

Everyone would say that it is not perfect though. When you go to an hospital and your problem is not juge to be 'serious' then you may have to wait several hours because they prioritize the cases. Also, there are period of the year where the hospitals are full beyond capacity and it creates a lot of problems. They tend to keep people in hospitals for less than then they should too just to create space. There are shortage of doctors and family doctors too and doctors and nurses often complain about the horrible working hours and also about their salaries.

When you live in big cities, more specialists, doctors and services are available to you compare to if you live in less populated areas.

As far as I know, most countries with universal healthcare systems face similar problems and the costs are increasing exponentially and the system is becoming less efficient. The authorities are now thinking of ways to improve the system and lowering the costs but as you may realized, this is not an easy task.

That is it for the negative sides I guess.

On the plus side, I think most canadian are really happy and proud of their universal system. Personnally, I am happy to pay taxes and I would be happy to pay more if it was guaranteed that it would improve the system. I think that it would be hard for most canadians to imagine their life without universal healthcare and having to fight, argue and deal with insurrance companies anytime you have health issues. More importantly, having to pay for it. That is a concept that is aliened to anyone I know around here.

Provinces of Canada (because each provinces in canada is in charge of its own healthcare system and not the federal goverment) are all investing in new ways to deal with problems. For exemple, more medicine students are now accepted in universities. The goal is that more family doctors become available so that better prevention could be done.

The waiting times are not as long as some of you think. My sister had a surgery 2 weeks after that they discovered skin cancer on her leg. They caught it on time and now she is doing great again. If it wasn't from the universal healthcare system, she probably would have had to get a loan just to pay for her surgery.

Months ago, my dad had one of his shoulder seriously damaged after he slided on ice. He needed a surgery for that. He could have go to a private practice and get his surgery within a month for $5000 (careful here, the province of Quebec is the only place in Canada where people can go to private practice and where private practice are allowed because of a recent judgement by the provincial court. This is not necessarly the case in the rest of Canada). Instead, he decided to wait 2 months and got it for free. Sure, he had to wait longer but it got done and now he is fine.

I think a lot of canadians would complain about parts of the system but the truth is that when you really need it, the system is there for you.

When I was younger, it was my dream to become an academic. Throughout my studies, I was told that the market in Canada was fairly small and the USA was much bigger (and some would say interesting). Over time though, I realized that it was likely not going to happen for me there because of family issues and probably a lack of talent too (realistically) but inside of me, there is still a little boy who dream of it sometimes. I guess that is why I like a lot of things about America (specially some of its people ) and that is why I am interested in a lot about what is going on in the states. I know several people that studied in the USA and are now back to Canada and they never want to live there again.

Matt.

[BWV 1080]

The elephant in the room is rethinking US foreign policy including the size of the military and the number of overseas commitments that are really in the national security interest. The US spends more than the rest of the world combined on defense and about double the percentage of GDP of other developed countries.

[slofstra]

The elephant in the room is rethinking US foreign policy including the size of the military and the number of overseas commitments that are really in the national security interest. The US spends more than the rest of the world combined on defense and about double the percentage of GDP of other developed countries.

Although that analysis is based on a 'zero sum' equation. In other words, you're assuming that given existing revenue the government cannot afford to do both. However, if taxes are increased and you also receive a commensurate level of increase in the health of the population you will actually come out ahead. A healthier population should lead to increased productivity. In other words, there is no reason that your great nation does not have the will or the resources to look after its military commitments (and foreign economic interests, which is what we are really talking about) and also the health of the general population.

[slofstra]

First of all, many thanks to Corlyss_D, NancyElla and JackC for your enlightning answers. Your answers were all different and very interesting.

I am glad that sflostra answered the question about the canadian healtcare system before me. I actually agree with pretty much everything he wrote. I think that overall, canadians are quite happy with the universal healthcare system.

No, I left that for you Matt, and you did a fine job of it too.

[Barry]

The elephant in the room is rethinking US foreign policy including the size of the military and the number of overseas commitments that are really in the national security interest. The US spends more than the rest of the world combined on defense and about double the percentage of GDP of other developed countries.

Although that analysis is based on a 'zero sum' equation. In other words, you're assuming that given existing revenue the government cannot afford to do both. However, if taxes are increased and you also receive a commensurate level of increase in the health of the population you will actually come out ahead. A healthier population should lead to increased productivity. In other words, there is no reason that your great nation does not have the will or the resources to look after its military commitments (and foreign economic interests, which is what we are really talking about) and also the health of the general population.

I'm afraid that while Steve and I conclude differently on what our priorities as a country should be, I agree with him that there simply isn't enough, nor will there be in the future, to maintain a European-style welfare state and also the kind of military that can essentially ensure a relatively stable international system (as Britain did before us and we've essentially done since WWII). Just look at the countries that have maintained that type of system. As I've pointed out before, the Western European countries that take so much pride in their welfare states haven't had to spend big-time money on defense for generations now precisely because they've relied on the U.S. to essentially provide their defense for them. Had we not done so, those countries would have either had to have spent much more on defense, with that much less left for their entitlements, or have simply succombed to the Soviets and stopped being free countries.

That's one of the reasons I strongly opposed the health care package. It's not that this package in and off itself will eventually force us to somewhat significantly reduce our military and international commitments. It's simply another log on an ever-growing fire. We're already reducing our number of carrier groups to the point where we can't cover the globe like we have in recent decades.
Corlyss thinks that forcing us down a peg in terms of being a world power is the purpose of making us a European-style welfare state. I am not convinced that liberals are pushing this domestic agenda for the express reason, but regardless, whether it's intended or not, that's what will happen. And further, the results of that happening are going to spell a roll-back of freedom (and likely much loss of life, although there is no way we can anticipate specific scenarios; but if there is no major democratic force to deter the world's autocracies and dictatorships, the results won't be pretty).

[jbuck919]

I'm afraid that while Steve and I conclude differently on what our priorities as a country should be, I agree with him that there simply isn't enough, nor will there be in the future, to maintain a European-style welfare state.

How fortunate then, that that is not what we are going to have--not even close.

[karlhenning]

I'm afraid that while Steve and I conclude differently on what our priorities as a country should be, I agree with him that there simply isn't enough, nor will there be in the future, to maintain a European-style welfare state.

How fortunate then, that that is not what we are going to have--not even close.

Surgically done, John.

Cheers,
~Karl

[Barry]

I'm afraid that while Steve and I conclude differently on what our priorities as a country should be, I agree with him that there simply isn't enough, nor will there be in the future, to maintain a European-style welfare state.

How fortunate then, that that is not what we are going to have--not even close.

All of the details don't need to be the same to accomplish the damage I described. We're going more than far enough in that direction to get that done.

I think the evidence that I alluded to is pretty clear that you can't both maintain a system of entitlements the likes of which we're continuing to grow and also remain a military superpower at the level we've been for decade after decade. I'm not saying we're going to just flop overnight, of course. But it will be slow and steady. As we recede, when each successive power vacuum opens up, some autocracy or dictatorship will fill it, and more people will suffer and die as a result, either directly or, through a series of events, indirectly.

And as usual, liberals will go on insisting there is no connection between A & B and that these things happen in a void. It's all Reagan's fault anyway.

[karlhenning]

. . . a new Harris poll reveals Republican attitudes about Obama: Two-thirds think he's a socialist, 57 percent a Muslim—and 24 percent say "he may be the Antichrist."

[Barry]

I'm an Independent, but 100 percent of Republicans could believe those nutty things, and that still wouldn't have any impact on the problems we've been discussing on here that have nothing to do with Obama personally.

EDIT: Actually, the "socialist" claim isn't totally nuts; depending on what each individual means. The word "socialist" covers a wide amount of ground. He's closer to a Western European-style socialist or Labor type than I'd like, but he's obviously nothing like the dictatorial and autocratic Marxists who have murdered so many millions over the years.

[RebLem]

* Virginia to file lawsuit after Obama signs bill into law

* AG: Congress lacks power to force insurance purchases

NEW YORK, March 22 (Reuters) - Virginia's attorney general said he plans to sue the federal government over the healthcare reform legislation, saying Congress lacks authority to force people to buy health insurance.

Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli, a Republican, said on Monday that Congress lacks authority under its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce to force people to buy insurance. He said the bill also conflicts with a state law that says Virginians cannot be required to buy insurance.

"If a person decides not to buy health insurance, that person by definition is not engaging in commerce," Cuccinelli said in recorded comments. "If you are not engaging in commerce, how can the federal government regulate you?"

Cuccinelli said he plans to file his lawsuit in federal court in Richmond, Virginia, after President Barack Obama signs the bill into law, which he is expected to do.

The bill requires most Americans to have health coverage, and provides subsidies to help lower-income workers afford it.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2219276420100322

keaggy, I urge you to think more carefully about whether you really think this is a good idea. We DEMS went with the no public option idea in the hope of getting some Republicant and Blue Dog DEM support. If we are now to be skewered for that, and the lawsuit is successful, single payer will be the only option, because no one doubts the right of the government to tax, and we have been doing that for medicare for 40+ years. See how many insurance company campaign contributions Republicants will get if THAT comes to pass. And we'll be able to blame YOU for it.

I hope you win.

[JackC]

* Virginia to file lawsuit after Obama signs bill into law

* AG: Congress lacks power to force insurance purchases

NEW YORK, March 22 (Reuters) - Virginia's attorney general said he plans to sue the federal government over the healthcare reform legislation, saying Congress lacks authority to force people to buy health insurance.

Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli, a Republican, said on Monday that Congress lacks authority under its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce to force people to buy insurance. He said the bill also conflicts with a state law that says Virginians cannot be required to buy insurance.

"If a person decides not to buy health insurance, that person by definition is not engaging in commerce," Cuccinelli said in recorded comments. "If you are not engaging in commerce, how can the federal government regulate you?"

Cuccinelli said he plans to file his lawsuit in federal court in Richmond, Virginia, after President Barack Obama signs the bill into law, which he is expected to do.

The bill requires most Americans to have health coverage, and provides subsidies to help lower-income workers afford it.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2219276420100322

keaggy, I urge you to think more carefully about whether you really think this is a good idea. We DEMS went with the no public option idea in the hope of getting some Republicant and Blue Dog DEM support. If we are now to be skewered for that, and the lawsuit is successful, single payer will be the only option, because no one doubts the right of the government to tax, and we have been doing that for medicare for 40+ years. See how many insurance company campaign contributions Republicants will get if THAT comes to pass. And we'll be able to blame YOU for it.

I hope you win.

Single payer the only option????

Given what we have been through and are going to continue to go through, I would have thought that it is now pretty clear that Americans simply do not and will not support government run health care. The Dems have already taken themselves over a cliff just to pass some laws that do little else than to expand coverage. If this package destroys the existing healthcare system, and it might, they are going to forever be the party that screwed up the healtcare system , and no one is going to trust them to "fix" it by letting the government do away away with private insurance and take over the whole thing.

[DavidRoss]

[The Dems have already taken themselves over a cliff just to pass some laws that do little else than to expand coverage. If this package destroys the existing healthcare system, and it might, they are going to forever be the party that screwed up the healtcare system , and no one is going to trust them to "fix" it by letting the government do away away with private insurance and take over the whole thing.

Uh, Jack? The Dems have already screwed up almost everything they've touched, with failed programs that not only don't solve the problems but have unintended consequences that make things worse--and yet there are millions of people who still trust them because they like what they say and can't be bothered to examine the results of what they do.

[RebLem]

* Virginia to file lawsuit after Obama signs bill into law

* AG: Congress lacks power to force insurance purchases

NEW YORK, March 22 (Reuters) - Virginia's attorney general said he plans to sue the federal government over the healthcare reform legislation, saying Congress lacks authority to force people to buy health insurance.

Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli, a Republican, said on Monday that Congress lacks authority under its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce to force people to buy insurance. He said the bill also conflicts with a state law that says Virginians cannot be required to buy insurance.

"If a person decides not to buy health insurance, that person by definition is not engaging in commerce," Cuccinelli said in recorded comments. "If you are not engaging in commerce, how can the federal government regulate you?"

Cuccinelli said he plans to file his lawsuit in federal court in Richmond, Virginia, after President Barack Obama signs the bill into law, which he is expected to do.

The bill requires most Americans to have health coverage, and provides subsidies to help lower-income workers afford it.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2219276420100322

keaggy, I urge you to think more carefully about whether you really think this is a good idea. We DEMS went with the no public option idea in the hope of getting some Republicant and Blue Dog DEM support. If we are now to be skewered for that, and the lawsuit is successful, single payer will be the only option, because no one doubts the right of the government to tax, and we have been doing that for medicare for 40+ years. See how many insurance company campaign contributions Republicants will get if THAT comes to pass. And we'll be able to blame YOU for it.

I hope you win.

Single payer the only option????

Given what we have been through and are going to continue to go through, I would have thought that it is now pretty clear that Americans simply do not and will not support government run health care. The Dems have already taken themselves over a cliff just to pass some laws that do little else than to expand coverage. If this package destroys the existing healthcare system, and it might, they are going to forever be the party that screwed up the healtcare system , and no one is going to trust them to "fix" it by letting the government do away away with private insurance and take over the whole thing.

First of all, we're not talking about "government-run" health care. YOu need to take more care in the use of words. The VA and the Indian Health Service as well as health care in the military itself are government-run. Many people who have private insurance through an employer but who are eligible for VA medical care go to the VA because they prefer the care they get there. Did you know that? Your generalizations are unwarranted. Lots of Americans love "government run health care."

But we're not talking about "government run" health care. We're talking, essentially, about medicare for everyone with a liberal prescription drug benefit. But doctors would still be in private practice, people would still choose their own doctors--in fact, the number of people who could choose their own doctors would expand, because people would no longer necessarily be stuck to an employer plan where choice of doctors might be limited. People who get medicare generally like it, except they wish it covered prescriptions without the doughnut hole, which the new plan takes care of. Americans aren't going to go for it? They already have, in massive numbers. Don't be silly. Kids sometimes have imaginary friends, Jack, but you and some other RWers have invented a whole imaginary country.

[NancyElla]

First of all, many thanks to Corlyss_D, NancyElla and JackC for your enlightning answers. Your answers were all different and very interesting.

I am glad that sflostra answered the question about the canadian healtcare system before me. I actually agree with pretty much everything he wrote. I think that overall, canadians are quite happy with the universal healthcare system.

Everyone would say that it is not perfect though. When you go to an hospital and your problem is not juge to be 'serious' then you may have to wait several hours because they prioritize the cases. Also, there are period of the year where the hospitals are full beyond capacity and it creates a lot of problems. They tend to keep people in hospitals for less than then they should too just to create space. There are shortage of doctors and family doctors too and doctors and nurses often complain about the horrible working hours and also about their salaries.

When you live in big cities, more specialists, doctors and services are available to you compare to if you live in less populated areas.

As far as I know, most countries with universal healthcare systems face similar problems and the costs are increasing exponentially and the system is becoming less efficient. The authorities are now thinking of ways to improve the system and lowering the costs but as you may realized, this is not an easy task.

That is it for the negative sides I guess.

On the plus side, I think most canadian are really happy and proud of their universal system. Personnally, I am happy to pay taxes and I would be happy to pay more if it was guaranteed that it would improve the system. I think that it would be hard for most canadians to imagine their life without universal healthcare and having to fight, argue and deal with insurrance companies anytime you have health issues. More importantly, having to pay for it. That is a concept that is aliened to anyone I know around here.

Provinces of Canada (because each provinces in canada is in charge of its own healthcare system and not the federal goverment) are all investing in new ways to deal with problems. For exemple, more medicine students are now accepted in universities. The goal is that more family doctors become available so that better prevention could be done.

The waiting times are not as long as some of you think. My sister had a surgery 2 weeks after that they discovered skin cancer on her leg. They caught it on time and now she is doing great again. If it wasn't from the universal healthcare system, she probably would have had to get a loan just to pay for her surgery.

Months ago, my dad had one of his shoulder seriously damaged after he slided on ice. He needed a surgery for that. He could have go to a private practice and get his surgery within a month for $5000 (careful here, the province of Quebec is the only place in Canada where people can go to private practice and where private practice are allowed because of a recent judgement by the provincial court. This is not necessarly the case in the rest of Canada). Instead, he decided to wait 2 months and got it for free. Sure, he had to wait longer but it got done and now he is fine.

I think a lot of canadians would complain about parts of the system but the truth is that when you really need it, the system is there for you.

When I was younger, it was my dream to become an academic. Throughout my studies, I was told that the market in Canada was fairly small and the USA was much bigger (and some would say interesting). Over time though, I realized that it was likely not going to happen for me there because of family issues and probably a lack of talent too (realistically) but inside of me, there is still a little boy who dream of it sometimes. I guess that is why I like a lot of things about America (specially some of its people ) and that is why I am interested in a lot about what is going on in the states. I know several people that studied in the USA and are now back to Canada and they never want to live there again.

Matt.

Matt, thanks for the detailed description of Canada's healthcare system. The problems that you describe in Canada also exist in the US, so I can't see that our system has any real advantages over yours. Speaking for myself only (and knowing I'll probably be flamed by others for saying this), it would be worth a lot to me to live in a society where everyone was guaranteed health care. I'd be willing to pay more in taxes, even significantly more, to achieve that. Of course, I understand that not everyone feels the same way.

[Teresa B]

Everyone would say that it is not perfect though. When you go to an hospital and your problem is not juge to be 'serious' then you may have to wait several hours because they prioritize the cases. Also, there are period of the year where the hospitals are full beyond capacity and it creates a lot of problems. They tend to keep people in hospitals for less than then they should too just to create space. There are shortage of doctors and family doctors too and doctors and nurses often complain about the horrible working hours and also about their salaries.

Just to chime in here...I can't say it any better than NancyElla, but of course this scenario is also true here, just for different reasons. We have many people going to ER's with illnesses that would better be treated in an office or clinic setting, but those patients have no insurance coverage--so they must be triaged in the ER according to the seriousness of the complaint. Several hours' wait in Tampa General's ER is the norm even with a potentially serious condition. As for discharging people prematurely from the hospital, it is done all the time here because of health care plans refusing to pay beyond a certain point. We have a shortage of family doctors especially in rural areas due to the large income differential between specialists (especially those who do procedures) and primary care docs. Now that we will have expanded the pool of patients with coverage, we absolutely must give serious incentives (read: $$$) to new physicians to provide primary care in these settings.

Teresa

[DavidRoss]

As the country braces for the biggest transformation of health care in a generation, few have bothered to ask the U.S. physician community what they think of all this change. Is their ability to offer quality care going to be improved or hampered? Is the business of practicing medicine getting any easier – or is it getting harder? To get answers and to take the pulse of physicians, athenahealth has partnered with Sermo, the world’s largest online community for physicians, to conduct a first-of-its-kind Physician Sentiment Index (PSI).

In this first annual index, 1,000 physicians – representing a full range of specialties, regions, and practice sizes – responded to questions revealing pain points and frustrations with the business of medicine, reimbursement protocols, government’s hand in health care, EHRs and other variables that could either make or break the delivery of quality care in the U.S.

Survey results presented here: http://www.sermo.com/sites/www.sermo.co ... _Sermo.pdf

[Ralph]

Like many of us on this board I can discuss the details of the new health care law as well as other approaches. The bottom line for me is simply that it is obscene that with the most advanced technology in the world, cutting edge research and genuine foundational wealth, people actually die because they can not get the care they need. By the time many people come to the E.R. conditions that could have been either prevented or treated effectively aren't as the flood of patients overwhelms many hospitals, especially in major cities.

And there is chronic malaise in the medical profession. I have so many law students from families where one or both parents are doctors and they tell me, one after the other, that their parents dissuaded them from going into medicine. Yes, bureaucracy is an issue but I sense that for many doctors the practice of medicine lacks a soul, a sense of moral mission these days (the same can be said for law too, I hasten to add but that's in a different way).

The extreme negative reaction to the passage of the new law is disheartening because it projects the reality that polarization has taken us to the outer perimeter of political discourse. That should not happen when the issue is nothing less than ways to deal with preventing and curing illness and saving lives.

[DavidRoss]

Like many of us on this board I can discuss the details of the new health care law as well as other approaches. The bottom line for me is simply that it is obscene that with the most advanced technology in the world, cutting edge research and genuine foundational wealth, people actually die because they can not get the care they need. By the time many people come to the E.R. conditions that could have been either prevented or treated effectively aren't as the flood of patients overwhelms many hospitals, especially in major cities.

And there is chronic malaise in the medical profession. I have so many law students from families where one or both parents are doctors and they tell me, one after the other, that their parents dissuaded them from going into medicine. Yes, bureaucracy is an issue but I sense that for many doctors the practice of medicine lacks a soul, a sense of moral mission these days (the same can be said for law too, I hasten to add but that's in a different way).

The extreme negative reaction to the passage of the new law is disheartening because it projects the reality that polarization has taken us to the outer perimeter of political discourse. That should not happen when the issue is nothing less than ways to deal with preventing and curing illness and saving lives.

The issue of contention--at least as I see it on this board--is not whether something ought be done, but rather what ought to be done--and whether the bill just passed will actually improve much of anything and, if so, whether other consequences of the bill may prove so destructive as to outweigh whatever good it does.

[Teresa B]

Like many of us on this board I can discuss the details of the new health care law as well as other approaches. The bottom line for me is simply that it is obscene that with the most advanced technology in the world, cutting edge research and genuine foundational wealth, people actually die because they can not get the care they need. By the time many people come to the E.R. conditions that could have been either prevented or treated effectively aren't as the flood of patients overwhelms many hospitals, especially in major cities.

And there is chronic malaise in the medical profession. I have so many law students from families where one or both parents are doctors and they tell me, one after the other, that their parents dissuaded them from going into medicine. Yes, bureaucracy is an issue but I sense that for many doctors the practice of medicine lacks a soul, a sense of moral mission these days (the same can be said for law too, I hasten to add but that's in a different way).

The extreme negative reaction to the passage of the new law is disheartening because it projects the reality that polarization has taken us to the outer perimeter of political discourse. That should not happen when the issue is nothing less than ways to deal with preventing and curing illness and saving lives.

I'm with you, Ralph. As for the practice of medicine, there are a few doctors around who still feel a sense of moral mission, but increasingly it seems more a treadmill that we're trying to keep pace with until we can thankfully retire. For all those who decry "government" health care plans, I can attest to feeling frustrated by the control insurance companies have over us, and the ever-dwindling returns I see despite more hours spent by my staff and me resubmitting faxes for prescriptions, authorizations for minor surgeries, claims for payments, etc etc. Insurance companies try to trick me into receiving a smaller percentage of Medicare allowables every time they renew my contract. My vendors are constantly slipping additional costs into my contracts annually, forcing me to look at alternate vendors, or spend time negotiating sh*t when I should be treating patients.

Many docs have gone over to a lot of cosmetic stuff, which if you have an affluent baby boomer population, can be remunerative without insurance company involvement at all. However, if you think about how much moral mission there is in that case...

Truly, fulfilment in a career such as medicine comes from the "thanks" you hear from a patient who has gotten better due to your treatment. But you have to have some compensation, and you can't resort to seeing 100 patients a day without losing your sense of mission.

Teresa

[bluemando]

* Virginia to file lawsuit after Obama signs bill into law

Congress lacks power to force insurance purchases
The bill requires most Americans to have health coverage

[/url]

Similarly, should requiring that drivers have auto insurance be something
to be contested via filing a lawsuit? How does that differ from requiring
health insurance? Apples and oranges? Explain.

Thanks
JC

[Prometheus]

* Virginia to file lawsuit after Obama signs bill into law

Congress lacks power to force insurance purchases
The bill requires most Americans to have health coverage

[/url]

Similarly, should requiring that drivers have auto insurance be something
to be contested via filing a lawsuit? How does that differ from requiring
health insurance? Apples and oranges? Explain.

Thanks
JC

Greetings, bluemando! Welcome to CMG!

I think the distinction is because you only have to pay for auto insurance if you choose to own or operate a vehicle. However you will have to pay for health care just for being alive. If any have other input it is welcome.

[RebLem]

Like many of us on this board I can discuss the details of the new health care law as well as other approaches. The bottom line for me is simply that it is obscene that with the most advanced technology in the world, cutting edge research and genuine foundational wealth, people actually die because they can not get the care they need. By the time many people come to the E.R. conditions that could have been either prevented or treated effectively aren't as the flood of patients overwhelms many hospitals, especially in major cities.

And there is chronic malaise in the medical profession. I have so many law students from families where one or both parents are doctors and they tell me, one after the other, that their parents dissuaded them from going into medicine. Yes, bureaucracy is an issue but I sense that for many doctors the practice of medicine lacks a soul, a sense of moral mission these days (the same can be said for law too, I hasten to add but that's in a different way).

The extreme negative reaction to the passage of the new law is disheartening because it projects the reality that polarization has taken us to the outer perimeter of political discourse. That should not happen when the issue is nothing less than ways to deal with preventing and curing illness and saving lives.

I'm with you, Ralph. As for the practice of medicine, there are a few doctors around who still feel a sense of moral mission, but increasingly it seems more a treadmill that we're trying to keep pace with until we can thankfully retire. For all those who decry "government" health care plans, I can attest to feeling frustrated by the control insurance companies have over us, and the ever-dwindling returns I see despite more hours spent by my staff and me resubmitting faxes for prescriptions, authorizations for minor surgeries, claims for payments, etc etc. Insurance companies try to trick me into receiving a smaller percentage of Medicare allowables every time they renew my contract. My vendors are constantly slipping additional costs into my contracts annually, forcing me to look at alternate vendors, or spend time negotiating sh*t when I should be treating patients.

Many docs have gone over to a lot of cosmetic stuff, which if you have an affluent baby boomer population, can be remunerative without insurance company involvement at all. However, if you think about how much moral mission there is in that case...

Truly, fulfilment in a career such as medicine comes from the "thanks" you hear from a patient who has gotten better due to your treatment. But you have to have some compensation, and you can't resort to seeing 100 patients a day without losing your sense of mission. Teresa

Another strategy for doctors, especially specialists, is to join a large group practice where they get salaries, and all the dirty work of screening out patients who can't pay, contracting with vendors, and billing insurance companies and Medicare is done by others. My endocrinologist is a kiwi who got his MD from the University of Auckland, but he practices at Lovelace Medical Center, one of the largest, perhaps THE largest group practice in Albuquerque.

[Teresa B]

Another strategy for doctors, especially specialists, is to join a large group practice where they get salaries, and all the dirty work of screening out patients who can't pay, contracting with vendors, and billing insurance companies and Medicare is done by others. My endocrinologist is a kiwi who got his MD from the University of Auckland, but he practices at Lovelace Medical Center, one of the largest, perhaps THE largest group practice in Albuquerque.

Yeah, that can be a reasonable way to keep one's passion for medicine going, IF the group is managed well. We have such multi-specialty groups here, of course. The down side (not to be pessimistic, but of course there is one!) is, as an individual practitioner you must often toe the line for the interests of the group, which can become self-interest at your expense depending on who owns it, or if doctor-owned, who think they are "more equal" than others.

It seems the hefty responsibilities that are on the shoulders of physicians coupled with a lack of control over their own work situation is the thing that crushes enthusiasm, and actually causes depression and burnout. (This is true of any human being, not just doctors of course.) We can attempt to make our own beds in a variety of ways, including the large groups you mention; owning your own practice, as I do, lets you escape being told what hours you will work, how many patients you will see, etc, in exchange for having to manage the headaches I mentioned before. I also went into academic medicine for two years, which I thought would let me focus on teaching and treating patients--however, the bureaucracy in the med school was worse than any insurance hassles!

Teresa

[Ralph]

* Virginia to file lawsuit after Obama signs bill into law

Congress lacks power to force insurance purchases
The bill requires most Americans to have health coverage

[/url]

Similarly, should requiring that drivers have auto insurance be something
to be contested via filing a lawsuit? How does that differ from requiring
health insurance? Apples and oranges? Explain.

Thanks
JC

Greetings, bluemando! Welcome to CMG!

I think the distinction is because you only have to pay for auto insurance if you choose to own or operate a vehicle. However you will have to pay for health care just for being alive. If any have other input it is welcome.

*****

Correct. And certain businesses must have liability insurance and vaccination is mandatory for all unless they have a religious objection.

But how much free choice really exists for most Americans with regard to car ownership? Aside from those, like Barry, who live downtown in a major city, there really isn't a chocie. Without a car I couldn't work. Period. Many millions can say the same thing.

[Prometheus]

Correct. And certain businesses must have liability insurance and vaccination is mandatory for all unless they have a religious objection.

But how much free choice really exists for most Americans with regard to car ownership? Aside from those, like Barry, who live downtown in a major city, there really isn't a chocie. Without a car I couldn't work. Period. Many millions can say the same thing.

Evening, Ralph!

You are definitely correct. I as well could not accomplish my job without my car. I would much rather walk or bicycle everywhere, but that is currently not feasible.

As an aside, if we all were able to walk or bike more often than we drive we would most likely be healthier.

[bluemando]

Similarly, should requiring that drivers have auto insurance be something
to be contested via filing a lawsuit? How does that differ from requiring
health insurance? Apples and oranges? Explain.

Thanks
JC

Greetings, bluemando! Welcome to CMG!

I think the distinction is because you only have to pay for auto insurance if you choose to own or operate a vehicle. However you will have to pay for health care just for being alive. If any have other input it is welcome.

In my previous post I didn't acknowledge your welcoming me to CMG. I'd like to right that by thanking you now for your welcome. I intend to post now and then. I'm not "big" into politics but I do have some interest in social reforms that I think might lend itself to the betterment of society. Anyway, good point about auto insurance vs. health insurance. What are your thoughts regarding education? Should only the ones who want schooling go to school, and they alone pay for it? It's generally thought that society benefits as a whole when its citizens are educated. Some nations have extended this idea of public education to public health care. Taxing people is the way public schools are funded.. Should we rely on private schools and educate only those who want it.... and can pay for it?