Progressive?

[SpiderThug]

I keep hearing people call themselves calling themselves, "progressives". Now that every single state government and the federal government in Australia is now held by so called, "progressives", I have to question exactly what a 'progressive' is.

We see our 'progressive' state governments deliberately ignoring sad statistics of physical and sexual abuse amongst the Aboriginal communities where they have opted to live in a pro-Aboriginal apartheid where only they can be without applying for a visa or passport. Ignoring that their children as young as two years old have a growing rate of having STD's and I don't mean 2% of them either.

Imported doctors who are really causing deaths and major illness because the really don't know how to do their job, are being protected by these 'progressive' state governments. One even paying such a doctor 1st class airfares to America and, refuse to really bring him back to Australia to face court.

Now, our new 'progressive' Federal Government, is spending $2.6m on a museum to shout the wonders of the union and the Australian Labor Party('progressives') but at the same time, are ripping money away from the aged, the carers who look after the sick, and...have announced the quarantining of all welfare payment in five years time including the aged who have served at war.

For those who don't understand the term, "quarantining of welfare", this means removing 100% accessibility to cash where the government puts your money into rent, utilities and, won't even allow you to say how much you need to spend on food. Wow, what a way to treat the very people who put their lives on the line at war to protect ours.

'Progressive' - what the hell does this truly mean anyway?

I'm very glad that I am not a 'progressive'.

[BinCo]

I think here in the US we define progressives as a new version of Liberals. Except that I think we are overall socially liberal and fiscally conservative. At least that's how I define myself as a progressive. Right now our conservative party (Republicans, as I used to be) has been overwhelmed by people who want to push for more social conservatism and put fiscal responsibility on the back burner. Because we all know that allowing homosexuals to get legally married would bring about the end of mankind, while spending trillions of dollars on an endless war is great. :rolleyes: We are not true Democrats because we do not believe in a total welfare state, yet believe that a safety net should exist. We believe in a standing Army that is there to defend us and our friends, not invade other countries by hiding the evidence.

On another note, have these progressives in Australia led to the "huge inflation increase" that you have? According to our radio here, you guys are in a heck of a pickle with inflation driving up interest rates.

Funny. My prediction that the banking industries real goal is to have every human rent everything from cradle to grave is coming along well. I predict that in my lifetime I will see banks offering rentals on the properties that they foreclosed on with no intention of ever selling them. Permanent income.

[SpiderThug]

Inflation yes but it is not driven up by the average person. Inflation is up because of petroleum, increasing debt of business and the surge of the mining boom where China needs coal coal coal...yet the people losing out are those who are powerless to stop it.

All this will do is create unemployment by Labor yet again while those causing the inflation, will get richer off it.

So much for being progressive.

[SpiderThug]

I should note that am not a supporter of the Liberal Party(or in usa terms, Republicans) either. I don't support any political that we have as none are of what I want to vote for.

[Boreas]

You have asked a good question Spider. I have no clue how I would answer it, and if the term applies to me. What you have described as happening in Australia has been created by our conservative politicians under names like "Common Sense Revolution" and such. I think part of the problem you describe is due to operating under ideologies rather than some sense or whatever.

I still don't know what I would label myself, and whether a label is even necessary. I am a social worker by profession. I have seen the "on the ground" effects of some of the dumb policies that have been driven by dollars instead of sense. Our former Ontario premiere used to call advocates of social assistance or health care "special interest groups" and dismiss them. On the other hand, the "Bay Street Lawyers" who knocked on his door were not special interest groups. To me, they are also special interest groups. It is just whose interests interest you.

I would love to see it if we could work together to figure things out instead of name calling and slinging mud. I believe that it is possible to look after our weaker members of society and provide some sort of safety net, while at the same time, making it friendly for businesses as well. Perhaps I am naive.

I live in a community with a bunch of foreign trained, imported doctors. They are awesome and I appreciate them. Even the Aussie! (who is in a choir with me)

[Boreas]

All this will do is create unemployment by Labor yet again while those causing the inflation, will get richer off it.

That would be called neoliberalism. Not Labor, conservative, liberal or whatever.

[usmc1]

'Progressive' - what the hell does this truly mean anyway?

I'm very glad that I am not a 'progressive'.

You don't know what it is but you don't want to be one? Riiiight!

There's lot of ways to look at it, but, in my mind, a progressive is one who thinks tax dollars should be spent on Health, Education, Welfare and real, meaningful Defense. Or that we should be building libraries instead of jails. Or that economic growth that destroys the environment and contributes to climate change, or that keeps people in wage-slavery, or that relies on consumer spending ought not be the measurement of how well the economy is doing.

I think, on examination you will find progressives are those who are FOR things and can articulate them well. You will find conservatives are very bellicose in the things that they are AGAINST.

You'll also find that progressives are proud of the advances and progress that they've contributed to. Conservatives, you'll find, can't cite any accomplishments of their philosophy. That's because they're against change and progress and contribute nothing to the common good.

On their behalf, I do want to take a stand and say that there is no truth in the statement that there are vile flatulent flag-waving Conservative nut-balls who eat children as the puerile name caller site would like us to believe. I've yet to meet a conservative who eats children.

[Sanslines]

I live in a community with a bunch of foreign trained, imported doctors. They are awesome and I appreciate them. Even the Aussie! (who is in a choir with me)

I also live in an area where the majority of doctors are from India or Pakistan. Nothing wrong with that, but why does it seem that American doctors are a dying breed?

[Qikdraw]

I also live in an area where the majority of doctors are from India or Pakistan. Nothing wrong with that, but why does it seem that American doctors are a dying breed?

Cause American trained doctors are too expensive to hire?

Qikdraw

[Naturist Mark]

I keep hearing people call themselves calling themselves, "progressives". Now that every single state government and the federal government in Australia is now held by so called, "progressives", I have to question exactly what a 'progressive' is.

Putting on my old political science hat I'd point out that the root of progressive is progress. Progressivism evolved in the United States in the late 19th century as a response to the excesses of industrialization - in particular to the political, social and economic imbalances caused by unrestrained accretion of corporate power without responsibility - i.e. robber barons, trusts and monopolies. Although some progressives have advocated socialism as the cure, American progressivism was concerned with perfecting capitalism by reintroducing free market forces and social responsibility via anti-trust laws, environmental and worker safety regulations, support for labor, and other economic reforms like child labor laws and the 40 hour work week.

Equally important to the progressive movement was improving Democracy and making government more efficient, professional and corruption free. This led to suffrage reforms, direct election of Senators, the civil service, the city manager form of government, and the break-up of machine politics. Sometimes the 'professionalism' and 'democracy' goals have been at odds, but under the progressive ideal the policy level is the province of the political while the administration of it is left to the professionals.

Although closely allied (but not identical) to liberalism, the progressive movement has (American brand) conservative roots in the Republican party, most closely associated with President Theodore Roosevelt and his successor William Howard Taft, only later to be adopted by Democrats Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Liberalism is a much older political philosophy that holds as its basic values individual rights and equality. Classical Liberalism would today be considered conservative (and anti-progressive) with its emphasis on laissez-faire economics and opposition to the welfare state. Modern or Social Liberalism incorporates progressive ideals by emphasizing freedom from economic coercion as well as political coercion, and embraces more expansive positive rights such as universal suffrage, health care and education.

In 21st century America 'Progressive' is the new 'Liberal', since the old 'liberal' label has been debased by deliberate media misuse as little more than an expletive. Technically they are not the same - while a modern American conservative is anti-progressive, it is perfectly possible to be a middle of the road progressive. (What a conservative is these days is a whole other essay - suffice it to say that modern conservatives aren't conservative.)

Canada, Australia and New Zealand have notable progressive movements that are not necessarily the same as American progressivism, although they have their connections. As I understand the situation in Australia (which I admit is rather a shallow understanding), the term 'liberal' is used classically to mean laissez-faire economics, small government and few personal limits, while 'progressive' stands in for modern social liberalism without as great an emphasis on reform or social justice.

-Mark

[SpiderThug]

Or that we should be building libraries instead of jails.

Not something I would compare at all. We need libraries but we also need jails. With laws having become lenients and so many soft hearted judges letting the serious criminals such as pedophiles walking the streets after only a few months prison for raping children...a more serious approach is needed and yes, I support execution in these cases.


I think, on examination you will find progressives are those who are FOR things and can articulate them well. You will find conservatives are very bellicose in the things that they are AGAINST.

Now this sounds like chest beating to me. It's the old "I'm better than you are" tag lines. In Australia, welfare was introduced by the Conservative Party was the move to abolish the white Australia policy. When Australia allowed immigrants who weren't white skinnined residents of the UK, the progressives fought against it just they protested against ridding Aust' of the white Australia policy.


You'll also find that progressives are proud of the advances and progress that they've contributed to. Conservatives, you'll find, can't cite any accomplishments of their philosophy. That's because they're against change and progress and contribute nothing to the common good.



Growing up, I was told how wonderful the Labor Party, the only party who look after the working class. When I left school, I watched them so I had an idea before I got to vote. This Labor Party or progessives as they call themselves, bled the working class suburbs where I lived, dry of money for public transport and health...both falling apart. When the Conservatives were brought in, it was restored within a couple years. When Labor was returned, it's all gone to muck. They even say that spending money on infrastructure is a waste money.

I vote Liberal or National before Labor. I admit that but only because every time Labor is in, money is poured into minority lobby groups and unions but the schools, roads, hospitals, etc all fall apart like leprosy.

Personally, I am against globalism, I am against communism...but i waiver and accept bits of socialism and fascism when put in their true sense.

As for progressives, the only thing we're seeing progressed is the sell out to foreign multinationals from both sides. What infuriates me, is when you see all these socialist groups attack the Liberal's when in government for their policies yet, when Labor holds power with the very same policies, suddenly these policies are fantastic.

I cannot give these people any respect or credibilty for they have none.

[SpiderThug]

I also live in an area where the majority of doctors are from India or Pakistan. Nothing wrong with that, but why does it seem that American doctors are a dying breed?

The problem I meant here, is not that of their race or nationality, but of the poor training they have and their inability to actually speak english in an english speaking nation.

[Boreas]

I also live in an area where the majority of doctors are from India or Pakistan. Nothing wrong with that, but why does it seem that American doctors are a dying breed?

I don't know about American doctors. Canadian doctors are in short supply because of cuts in the 90's. Various policies by various governments ended up with major health cuts in the 90's. Spaces in medical schools were reduced. Now we are seeing the effects of those policies. Our medical schools are opening up spaces and expanding their programs, but it will be many years before we see positive effects. Also, we have many foreign trained doctors unable to prove themselves because of various rules and lack of spaces in residency programs. That to is changing. Most of the docs in this area are South African because of a strong recruitment campaign by our health authority.

[Boreas]

As for progressives, the only thing we're seeing progressed is the sell out to foreign multinationals from both sides. What infuriates me, is when you see all these socialist groups attack the Liberal's when in government for their policies yet, when Labor holds power with the very same policies, suddenly these policies are fantastic.

That would be the Conservative party, or the conservative streams in the Liberal Party here in Canada.

It seems that there are some different meanings to "progressives" according to country/culture.

[KirkOntario]

I don't know about American doctors. Canadian doctors are in short supply because of cuts in the 90's. Various policies by various governments ended up with major health cuts in the 90's. Spaces in medical schools were reduced. Now we are seeing the effects of those policies. Our medical schools are opening up spaces and expanding their programs, but it will be many years before we see positive effects. Also, we have many foreign trained doctors unable to prove themselves because of various rules and lack of spaces in residency programs. That to is changing. Most of the docs in this area are South African because of a strong recruitment campaign by our health authority.

Canada is short doctors and it's health care system is in decline because it is a government monopoly and the government has tried to control it's costs, the price of healthcare. Once you start with price controls you cause shortages and this is what Canadian governments have done creating shortages of doctors, and equipment.

Canadians are one of the few people in the world who have zero choice in healthcare. It's 'free' but they have no freedom of healthcare and they are free to die in a waiting room or on a guerney in a crowded hospital hallway waiting for a doctor. That's the freedom of 'free' healthcare that we are stuck with under socialism.

[Boreas]

Kirk, that is plain neoliberal balony.

[KirkOntario]

So I can buy my own private healthcare in Canada? Is my doctor allowed opt out of government healthcare? I no longer have to wait months to get basic diagnostic tests?

Why can my dog get an MRI next week but I have to wait for months?

http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/82-575-XIE/82-575-XIE2006002.htm

[Naturist Mark]

Why can my dog get an MRI next week but I have to wait for months?

You can get an MRI? YOU LUCKY DOG! My insurer won't allow me to get one at all unless it is necessary for a life threatening emergency - a situation where you as a Canadian would not only get your MRI immediately, but would even be sent across the border to a US facility on Canada's nickel if that were the fastest means of getting the test.

-Mark

[Boreas]

Kirk, you are still spewing malarky that is put out by the media spin doctors. I was recently in a position to need further diagnostic testing. I had an x-ray that suggested that a CT scan would reveal whether or not the anomoly was a tumour or just a freakish thing. I went to my doctor's office on the Monday and could have had a CT on the Friday of the same week had I not been in Vancouver. When I asked about the alledged wait list they told me they have spots open for urgent and emergency etc. Had I needed an MRI, I could have gotten one fairly promptly. As Mark has said, some insurers in the US would not even allow that. Is that what you prefer? I also recently had a minor day surgery. I did have to wait a few months for it, but frankly that was okay. It was not urgent. I would have had some choice. If I had not liked our local surgeon (we have only one in a town of about 20,000) I could have asked to go to the next town one hour away, or the next town in Alberta 2 hours away. I could have also waited for the new second surgeon to arrive. I did have choice. The regular surgeon was fine.

Our lovely conservative thinking politicians such as Mike Harris, Paul Martin, Gord Campbell and the like, have slashed budgets to such an extent that we have many problems that are uneccesary. Campbell made a concerted effort to break unions with minimal success. There has been an effort to create a two-tiered system in Canada for at least twenty years. That way, big corporations can make big money.

So, I know you are male, and a lawyer. I am also guessing you are white. You are exactly the demographic that this nonsense is aimed at. You, by your demographic are already closer to the finish line than someone who grew up on a reserve in northern BC. Of course someone who is First Nations from a poor reserve in Northern BC can make it to Bay Street as a fat lawyer, it will likely just take them longer.

So, what choices would you like? Whether you can get chemo or not? You may have to pay for it because your insurance has decided it is not necessary. Would you like the choice of waiting for healthcare, or going to a clinic that is usually provided to third world countries. The US is about 37th on the list of quality for healthcare. Is that what you would like?

The idea of choice is a shell game. We could easily tweak our system so more people would have access. The two small procedures I had in the past year or so were prompt. I did not have to worry about paying or not. If you moved to this town, you would have a choice of family doctors from which to chose. I know that is not necessarily the norm, but it is fact. Perhaps other medical practices should look at what is happening here and emulate it.

I frankly think that we are bloody lucky to have the healthcare we have in Canada. I do not know what I would do if I lived in the US and worked in private practice as I do here. I have to pay $90 per month for my husband and I for good medical coverage. I doubt that medical coverage would be so cheap in the US. I am also thankful that I did not have to worry about cost when I had my minor medical decisions to make.

[KirkOntario]

The real story is told by paramedics, front line workers who deliver the sick, injured and dying to Toronto hospitals only to watch them suffer and sometimes die waiting for a doctor...This is socialized healthcare in action!

http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20080207/paramedics_frustrated_080207/20080207?hub=TorontoHome


"Toronto's paramedics union is painting a bleak picture of the situation in city emergency rooms.

They say overcrowding is so common they sometimes wait hours with patients before they are admitted, so much that in a few instances, patients are dying before even seeing a doctor.

Earlier this week, the unit ambulance chairman for Toronto Paramedic Local 416 told reporters that three people died between Monday and Tuesday at the Etobicoke General Hospital."

In England they have a rule that patients admitted to hospital emergeny departments must see a doctor within 4 hours. What happens? Ambulances sit in the parking lot so they comply with the rule in a practice known as 'stacking.' This of course prevents those ambulances from responding to emergency calls.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/18/nhealth218.xml

"Seriously ill patients are left for hours in ambulances instead of being immediately admitted to accident and emergency departments to meet a Government target on treatment times, it was claimed yesterday.

The practice of "patient stacking" has left some waiting for up to five hours because A&E units have refused to admit them until they can be treated within the four-hour time limit.

Unison, the public sector union, said the practice poses a danger to other patients because ambulances detained as "waiting rooms" cannot answer new 999 calls."




Don't believe the socialists who are willing to watch a system crumble and kill patients purely because they hate the idea that corporations might make money off providing a needed service (of course they want to tax those corporations to death to pay for all their beloved infective social programs)...

[Naturist Mark]

I do not know what I would do if I lived in the US and worked in private practice as I do here. I have to pay $90 per month for my husband and I for good medical coverage. I doubt that medical coverage would be so cheap in the US. I am also thankful that I did not have to worry about cost when I had my minor medical decisions to make.

Holy Cow! $90 a month for full medical coverage for two people?

My insurance costs 3 times that just for me, and only pays part of the cost. As some of you know I've had major medical costs in the last 6 months caused by a careless driver. Even though I was not at fault, and we both had insurance, I am now being threatened with lawsuits over the medical bills.

Tomorrow I am going to a fundraiser for a 3 year old child who faces several more surgeries, but who's medical coverage has ended. I find it intensely shameful that any family in a nation as rich as America should have to beg for the life of their child.

America's system of funding health care is inefficient, immoral, and ought to be illegal.

-Mark

[KirkOntario]

The two small procedures I had in the past year or so were prompt. I did not have to worry about paying or not. If you moved to this town, you would have a choice of family doctors from which to chose. I know that is not necessarily the norm, but it is fact. Perhaps other medical practices should look at what is happening here and emulate it.
.

Anedotal evidence is disproved by the facts on the ground. You are lucky to get a doctor. "Many Canadians cannot get a family physician. Even our ''beloved' socialist CBC can't hide the problem any longer...

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2005/02/15/doctors-survey050215.html

Doctors in British Columbia, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island say they're concerned about access to long-term care beds for their patients.
This is among the leading concerns expressed in a survey of more than 21,000 physicians conducted by four physician groups. Doctors also say they are frustrated over how the country's tight supply of aging doctors is harming access to care and waiting times for treatment.

Dr. Alain Pavilanis, president of the College of Family Physicians, said the federal government claims to be committed to universal access to care as enshrined in the Canada Health Act. In fact, access to care is not universal, he said.

In P.E.I., only nine per cent of family doctors are accepting new patients, compared with 13 per cent in Ontario and half in Saskatchewan."

It is sad that hatred and envy of business is causing such suffering amongst Canadians.

[nacktman]

Boreas, $90.00 a month for two!
Full medical insurance for my wife alone is $1300.00 a month.

While I can afford it, it galls me to no end that, that so called "Full" insurance has astronomical out-of-pocket expenses before it kicks in and then only to "cover" a percentage of any medial need - nothing is 'paid-in-full' by the insurance ... and what they determine to be elective or cosmetic is hysterical and they will not cover a penny of anything they deem elective or cosmetic.

Many cannot afford to pay a fraction of what I pay and those like your fellow countryman bellowing herein want to keep it that way.

[Boreas]

And to think people like Kirk admire the US system and want to drive us in that direction.

I have worked in the healthcare system for 20+ years. I did some of that work in Ontario, including Toronto, and in BC. I am not just a "socialist who is afraid of big buisness". I am a concerned healthcare professional who is absolutely sick and tired of the BS that folks like Kirk create and then spin.

[KirkOntario]

Instead of trying to personalize the argument try to refute it.

There is ample evidence that our system isn't working that wait times are too high that 'free' healthcare is not free and that we don't have freedom of choice in healthcare. I never commented on the US system which btw Liberal politicians like billionaire Belinda Stronach flew off the get services from as soon as she was diagnosed with breast cancer. She obviously didn't want to wait.

[Sanslines]

America's system of funding health care is inefficient, immoral, and ought to be illegal.

-Mark

America's system of funding will only change when enough people demand that it changes. Unless this age of apathy ends soon, it will business as usual as more and more people live without any form of health coverage or insurance due to high cost.

[Boreas]

Instead of trying to personalize the argument try to refute it.

There is ample evidence that our system isn't working that wait times are too high that 'free' healthcare is not free and that we don't have freedom of choice in healthcare. I never commented on the US system which btw Liberal politicians like billionaire Belinda Stronach flew off the get services from as soon as she was diagnosed with breast cancer. She obviously didn't want to wait.

Okay Kirk, so be it. I would ask the same of you.

Doctors in British Columbia, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island say they're concerned about access to long-term care beds for their patients.

Nurses in BC are also concerned about this and about home care services to the elderly or others who need home care. The Campbell goverment has slashed these beds. He has promised new beds, while at the same time in actuality has cut beds. Some areas are growing, such as the BC Peace and Kelowna. Funding has not kept up. In addition, a Riverview (provincial psych hospital in Vancouver area) patient was brought to Fort St. John and placed in the care home there. This is a home that is severely understaffed and the staff that are there tend to be underqualified because there is not funding or interest in proper staffing. Ultimately this psych patient assaulted a frail patient who had alzheimers. From this perspective, this is not because of Canada's flawed healthcare system. It is because of the politicians' concerted efforts to cut the programs to the bare bones, privatize services so that staff are paid very low wages, and then complain that our system is falling apart. It is not falling apart. It is being destroyed by political will and ideology. It would make sense to place a psych patient in such a facility as long as the staff was properly trained, and there was adequate staff and a proper facility.

So, now after much lobbying, and due to a looming election in the next couple of years, Fort St. John has received funding to build a new hospital and apparently this will include new long term care beds.

There are many ways to improve the system. Private health care is not the only answer. Any privatization that has happened, has been at the expense of the lowest folks on the totem pole. Now housekeeping staff is being replaced by private contractors. Instead of making a reasonable wage, not a big $30 per hour wage as has been reported, they are making $10 per hour. Frankly, if I were in a position to make $10 per hour it would be serving coffee at Tim Hortons, not cleaning hospitals. The folks who promote contracting out of services such as cleaning hospitals would tell you it is comparable to cleaning hotels. Think about the issues in hospitals vs hotels for two minutes, and you will realize that cleaning a hospital is much more critical and requires specific skills, such as infection control.

Like I have said previously, I have worked in healthcare for 20+ years. I have seen political will destroy a good system. It is still good and still salvagable. I have no problem with creating policies that support business. We of course need good business for our economy. I have a HUGE problem with profit at all cost. Health care is not just measured in dollars and cents. There are also somewhat non-tangable measures such as health.shocked

Here are some alternatives to what you have no doubt been reading. Please do not dismiss them as "liberal rants". A lot of good research has gone into them.

http://www.canadians.org/healthcare/index.html

http://www.policyalternatives.ca/

[Boreas]

America's system of funding will only change when enough people demand that it changes. Unless this age of apathy ends soon, it will business as usual as more and more people live without any form of health coverage or insurance due to high cost.

People also need to stop listening to the scare stories that tell of Canada's "socialized" medicine. Americans (and most likely Canadians) need to use their critical thinking skills more often.

[Bicycler]

America's system of funding will only change when enough people demand that it changes. Unless this age of apathy ends soon, it will business as usual as more and more people live without any form of health coverage or insurance due to high cost.

I've read most of the posts here and it seems to be the unanimous belief that health care costs are way out of line. What I haven't read is the answer to a simple question:

Who is supposed to make up the difference between what the people can afford and what it costs to pay the doctors, the nurses, the staff, amortize and maintain the equipment and all of the other costs that go into your health care bill.

Is there some secret source of money that I don't know about about? Is the government supposed to make up the difference? If so, why don't they just leave enough money in our wallets to let us pay for the medical care that we need.

Come on guys. There is no free lunch no matter what Hillary and Obama are telling you.

[Boreas]

Bicycler, your private health care system costs more per capita than Canada's universal system. Perhaps you can explain that? Many countries do manage to provide universal health care. But then they also spend much less on military pursuits too.

[nacktman]

People also need to stop listening to the scare stories that tell of Canada's "socialized" medicine. Americans (and most likely Canadians) need to use their critical thinking skills more often.

Boreas, shame on you, now you know that is asking too damned much of some people.:rolleyes::laugh:

[Emphasis added to citation]

[NudeTopher]

Instead of trying to personalize the argument try to refute it. .

Why would anyone even want to interact with you? You have previously been banned from most major nudist website forums and have a history of sneaking back in under multiple names. You have some gall trying to engage people to play your games after you have been tossed out of so many playgrounds.

[nacktman]

I've read most of the posts here and it seems to be the unanimous belief that health care costs are way out of line. What I haven't read is the answer to a simple question:

Who is supposed to make up the difference between what the people can afford and what it costs to pay the doctors, the nurses, the staff, amortize and maintain the equipment and all of the other costs that go into your health care bill.

Is there some secret source of money that I don't know about about? Is the government supposed to make up the difference? If so, why don't they just leave enough money in our wallets to let us pay for the medical care that we need.

Come on guys. There is no free lunch no matter what Hillary and Obama are telling you.

Bicycler, the answer to your question has been posted before on several threads by NaturistMark, myself and several others, however it seems some are not comprehending what is being said.

The short of it is ...

There is more than enough money already in the system for cradle to grave universal health care and will remain so as the years pass because of existing statutes and regulations.
The big secret to it all is putting the money where it is needed and not into a few select hands as is done now.

No new taxes or increases in taxes are necessary.

You are correct there is no free lunch the money is there we've already paid for it and I for one am damned tired of paying for something twice - I pay taxes into the system and I pay insurance and I pay out-of-pocket, hell that's three times for the same thing.

As said that is the abridged version. While the mechanics are more involved the equation is simple ... Current laws and current taxes equal universal health care just as 1+1=2 in the math I learned. But, the math the insurers and corporations use the equation reads 1+1=0. It is high time we changed that.

[KirkOntario]

Why would anyone even want to interact with you?

You seem to want to. There is an 'ignore' button. Feel free to use it.

[nacktman]

In reference to KirkOntario: Why would anyone even want to interact with you? You have previously been banned from most major nudist website forums and have a history of sneaking back in under multiple names. You have some gall trying to engage people to play your games after you have been tossed out of so many playgrounds.

Hear, Hear! :applause:

The count is now 11 different members saying the same thing.
Kinda, sorta makes you think there is something to what they are saying, doesn't it?

[NudeTopher]

You seem to want to. There is an 'ignore' button. Feel free to use it.

I have told you many times over the years, you are not welcome to PM me! Your continual PM's are being viewed as harassment.

Your continual projection of your anti-social neurosis onto me is laughable. I recall the last time you were tossed out of here. You went insane and posted, what was it 80 or 85 lunatic posts in one night? You posted ad homian attacks against all of the regular members of the forum.

You are quite sad. Imagine the force the drives you to sneak back into places that have requested your absence. Shall I remind you of your experience at NetNude? Shall I remind you of your experiences here?

[Boreas]

I am also getting PM's. NudeTopher thanks for revealing I am not alone.

[KirkOntario]

I am also getting PM's. NudeTopher thanks for revealing I am not alone.

I got one from you too. What a coincidence.

[nacktman]

I am also getting PM's. NudeTopher thanks for revealing I am not alone.

You are not alone.
Granted the PM's I am getting are from other posters letting me know what they think of that poster.
They are not complimentary of that poster, either.

The count now stands at 11 members who have posted their thoughts on that poster.
The count who I have received communications privately from is 48.
Only two are cross over communications.

[NudeTopher]

I am also getting PM's. NudeTopher thanks for revealing I am not alone.

I'm sorry the sociopath is bothering you too. But, I'm willing to bet it's not just us.

[Boreas]

I got one from you too. What a coincidence.

Seriously? When?

[Boreas]

I'm sorry the sociopath is bothering you too. But, I'm willing to bet it's not just us.

I would agree. I can deal with it though.

[Naturist Mark]

Who is supposed to make up the difference between what the people can afford and what it costs to pay the doctors, the nurses, the staff, amortize and maintain the equipment and all of the other costs that go into your health care bill.

Is there some secret source of money that I don't know about about? Is the government supposed to make up the difference? If so, why don't they just leave enough money in our wallets to let us pay for the medical care that we need.

Come on guys. There is no free lunch no matter what Hillary and Obama are telling you.

Oh man, I've written about this so many times - do a search on my name and 'health care per capita'.

Short version: no nation on Earth spends as much per capita on health care as the US does. No nation on Earth spends as many tax dollars per capita on health care as the US does.

EVERY OTHER industrialized country has managed to provide universal health care for its citizens for far less money than our government already spends per person. And that doesn't even count the money that individuals, private insurers, and employers pay; that is only counting the tax dollars we already pay.

How do we pay for national health care? By slashing what we already pay.

-Mark

[usmc1]

Kirk, that is plain neoliberal balony.

Word that!

[Bicycler]

...
Short version: no nation on Earth spends as much per capita on health care as the US does. No nation on Earth spends as many tax dollars per capita on health care as the US does.

...
-Mark

A couple of things. One, your link doesn't work at least for me. And yes we are probably the biggest spender per capita of any nation on earth. But that is not the heart of the problem. I think the real problem is that many if not most people in this country have come to believe that someone else should be paying the bill for their health coverage. And we also come to believe as a society that everyone is entitled to basic health care. The second of these beliefs, up to a point, is rational - we can make that decision and it seems humane to do so. OTOH, the first belief, and it is widespread, needs to have a stake driven through it's heart.
<p>Now you address the issue of the efficiency of the system. It is indeed broken and I believe that this is due in large part to fact that we have too many people involved in health care that shouldn't be. Your employer (or one time employer if you are retired) for example. Companies don't pay for health care, the employees do by accepting lower wages and salaries in trade for health insurance. That is a bad trade, IMHO.
<p>I would strongly recommend that everyone read a little of what Professor Victor Fuchs of Stanford has to say on the subject of health care. He an economist not a health care professional. So he looks at the problem based on the economics and to some extent the politics of health care.
<p>Below is something that I picked up in an article entitled Who Really Cares for Health Care by Fuchs and Ezekiel J. Emanuel who is an MD. Unless you are a JAMA subscriber you can't read the whole article but I found this summary of the key points of the article:

*******

The author(s) makes the following points:

* It is a misperception that employers and the government pay for health care. Employees are given health care in lieu of increases in gross and net wages. This is clear from economic data over the last 30 years where adjusted for inflation health care costs have gone up 300%, corporate profits have gone up 150% and employee wages have gone up 4%. Essentially, employees have received more health care at the expense of real in-the-pocket compensation.

* In respect to Medicare and Medicaid, it is imporant to remember their funding is either tax receipts or borrowing. Presently, health care, on the average, is 32% of state budgets and growing. Medicaid alone accounts for 22% of state spending. Between 2000 and 2004 SCHIP and Medicaid state spending increased by 44%!

* There is a myth and it is called "shared responsibility." Workers are lead to believe they are getting something for nothing from the their employers and government when, in actual fact, they are paying for it in other ways.

********
You could also read an article just published by the New York Times titled: A CONVERSATION WITH: VICTOR FUCHS; An Economist's View Of Health Care Reform

Here is the link: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9805E7DA1239F931A35756C0A9669C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

[Qikdraw]

Well here are some links for you. I hope these work...

Part 1 (http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/mythbusting-canadian-health-care-part-i)

Part 2 (http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/mythbusting-canadian-healthcare-part-ii-debunking-free-marketeers)

Why an economist is for spending more on healthcare for companies and people, and thinks this is good, is beyond me. If a company doe not have to put forth any money to carry health insurance for its workers, they have more money to invest in more employees, expansion, or bigger CEO salaries. If people don't have to spend multiple hundreds of dollars per person in their family for health insurance, they are more likely to go out and buy something, thereby helping the economy.

I'm not an economist, but sometimes they say the stupidest things. WHich is why you can find one that says one thing, and then another that says the exact opposite.

Qikdraw

[Bicycler]

Why an economist is for spending more on healthcare for companies and people, and thinks this is good, is beyond me.
Qikdraw
On the contrary, he believes that employers should get out of the business of supplying health care for employees.

What he does believe is that there is some level of health care that should be government sponsored but not government run. Give people vouchers for the minimum coverage to insure that the poorest have some level of health care and let everyone pay their own way for the rest. We are going to pay it anyway and paying a doctor is better (IMHO) than paying a government or an insurance company.

Right now there are too many players in the health care business who don't have anything to do with medical care: employers, government and insurance companies to name a few. You need to get rid of that burden on the system if you are going to improve the efficiency of health care in this country.

[Boreas]

Right now there are too many players in the health care business who don't have anything to do with medical care: employers, government and insurance companies to name a few. You need to get rid of that burden on the system if you are going to improve the efficiency of health care in this country.

Very true. You also have a great fear campaign to make Americans fear "socialized medicine". There are people who are making great profits in your system, at the expense of many who need care. That is wrong. I think it is possible to take small steps towards a much better system.

The Sunday Edition on CBC radio (Canada) had a good program that addressed some of this issue this morning. http://www.cbc.ca/thesundayedition/ I believe there should be a podcast available if you'd care to listen to it.

I am starting to think that as a Canadian, I can NEVER understand why Americans are so afraid of a universal healthcare system.

[Qikdraw]

I am starting to think that as a Canadian, I can NEVER understand why Americans are so afraid of a universal healthcare system.

I've come to understand it.

GREED.

Its a great motivator.

Qikdraw

[Boreas]

I've come to understand it.

GREED.

Its a great motivator.

Qikdraw

Yes, and you also live down there. You are surrounded! :sneaky:

And greed is the only thing I do understand about it.

You might be interested in Michael Enright's show (Sunday Edition) today. The speaker had a book which might be interesting. Interesting enough to buy???? I am not sure. Who knows what I might do.

[usmc1]

I've come to understand it.

GREED.

Its a great motivator.

Qikdraw

Some of it is just sheer intransigent ignorance and parroting of bumper sticker slogans repeated so often and for so long that some people accept them as truth. These people are the unwitting, and probably not truly malicious, tools of the greedy.

[Qikdraw]

Yes, and you also live down there. You are surrounded! :sneaky:

Well to that I'll give you the stock answer when I am ganged up on by my neighbours, or co-workers, for being Canadian. Depending on what the odds are stacked up against me I'll say, 'Seven to one odds? Yeah that makes us about even." :D

You might be interested in Michael Enright's show (Sunday Edition) today. The speaker had a book which might be interesting. Interesting enough to buy???? I am not sure. Who knows what I might do.

Let me know what the book is and I'll see if I can find it where I am.

Qikdraw

[Qikdraw]

Some of it is just sheer intransigent ignorance and parroting of bumper sticker slogans repeated so often and for so long that some people accept them as truth. These people are the unwitting, and probably not truly malicious, tools of the greedy.

Well exactly, they are just unwitting tools of the greedy. But it started with the greedy.

We may be getting to a point that the insurance, hmo, and pharmaceutical lobbys may be at their weakest. (In terms of believability, not money.) So I think that in the next 10 years we may see a greater wish, and ability, for a national healthcare system to be put in place.

Qikdraw

[Skinview]

Nurses in BC are also concerned about this and about home care services to the elderly or others who need home care. The Campbell goverment has slashed these beds. He has promised new beds, while at the same time in actuality has cut beds. Some areas are growing, such as the BC Peace and Kelowna. Funding has not kept up. In addition, a Riverview (provincial psych hospital in Vancouver area) patient was brought to Fort St. John and placed in the care home there. This is a home that is severely understaffed and the staff that are there tend to be underqualified because there is not funding or interest/b] in proper staffing. Ultimately this psych patient assaulted a frail patient who had alzheimers. From this perspective, this is not because of Canada's flawed healthcare system. It is because of the [b]politicians' concerted efforts to cut the programs to the bare bones, privatize services so that staff are paid very low wages, and then complain that our system is falling apart. It is not falling apart. It is being destroyed by political will and ideology.

So, now after much lobbying, and due to a looming election in the next couple of years, Fort St. John has received funding to build a new hospital and apparently this will include new long term care beds.

Like I have said previously, I have worked in healthcare for 20+ years. I have seen political will destroy a good system.

I think you have spelled out much of what we are worried about down here about what happens when the government takes over something. Funding isn't based on what consumers are willing to pay for, and the provider's need to compete, but on what the politicians decide for you, what priorties the politicians have, and how they choose to allocate the money they have taken from you. A politicain may decide to cut your health care so he can spend the money on some pork barrel project in his district. An area of healthcare that has a small constituancy might not get the funding it should because those who need it have no political clout.
I have no objection to providing money to people who don't have enough to pay for their own health care. But having the government take it over so that we are all at its mercy is a bad solution to the problem. The Soviet Union should have taught us all that government can not provide goods and services as well as the free market.

I have to pay $90 per month for my husband and I for good medical coverage.You think so? Do you pay taxes? You pay for all of your medical expenses, whether your money goes through an insurance company or your government.

[Qikdraw]

I think you have spelled out much of what we are worried about down here about what happens when the government takes over something. Funding isn't based on what consumers are willing to pay for, and the provider's need to compete, but on what the politicians decide for you, what priorties the politicians have, and how they choose to allocate the money they have taken from you. A politicain may decide to cut your health care so he can spend the money on some pork barrel project in his district. An area of healthcare that has a small constituancy might not get the funding it should because those who need it have no political clout.

So instead what we have to deal with here is that even though you have insurance, you may be denied coverage. Insurance companies, in violation of law, have tied bonuses to the amount of claims denied. Sure they've been caught, but they keep doing it again and again because its profitable to deny coverage.

The whole government ruins everything it touches is just a right wing excuse to get rid of programs it doesn't like. While more money can always go into Cdn healthcare, it is far more efficient, costs far less, and covers everybody.

I have no objection to providing money to people who don't have enough to pay for their own health care. But having the government take it over so that we are all at its mercy is a bad solution to the problem. The Soviet Union should have taught us all that government can not provide goods and services as well as the free market.

Right now we are at the mercy of insurance companies that care more about profit than your health. Please get off the old 'Soviet Union' load of crap. The majority of countries have a nationalised healthcare system that have some problems, but not near the problems the US system has, and at least it covers everybody.

You think so? Do you pay taxes? You pay for all of your medical expenses, whether your money goes through an insurance company or your government.

But guess what? EVERYBODY is covered. The US already pays more per person in healthcare than any other country, and yet doesn't have healthcare for everyone. The GAO did a study that said that money already spent on Medicare and Medicaid could be used to cover everybody. So NO NEW TAXES.

But maybe the US should go completely free market... Lets let the fire departments and police departments become private. Then when someone breaks into your house, while the private police force looks on because you could not afford police insuance, well then you only have yourself to blame. And when your house goes up in flames, because of of said burgler, and the private fire department shows up, but only so that the houses on either side of yours, who paid insurance, don't go up in flames because you can't afford to pay for fire insurance, you only have yourself to blame. Then when you go to the hospital to get treatment for burns suffered in the fire you get turned away because you could not afford health care insurance, and the hospital knows you cannot pay for it yourself, and they know by now you do not have a home to reposess if you cannot pay for your bills.

Yes this sounds like a great idea. Free market capitalism and personal responsibility. But hey if you cannot afford the insurance you better go get your 4th service industry job to pay for it.

Qikdraw

[Boreas]

I agree with Qikdraw! Good response to Skinview.

Skinview, you are concerned about the government taking your money, but not the insurance companies? Insurance companies want to make a profit. They also hire people to figure out how to deny or delay claims. That is not something to be proud of.

[usmc1]

I agree with Qikdraw! Good response to Skinview.

Skinview, you are concerned about the government taking your money, but not the insurance companies? Insurance companies want to make a profit. They also hire people to figure out how to deny or delay claims. That is not something to be proud of.

Word.

Word Qikdraw too.

If I had half a decent reputation, I'd give you each reputation.;)

[Bicycler]

I agree with Qikdraw! Good response to Skinview.

Skinview, you are concerned about the government taking your money, but not the insurance companies? Insurance companies want to make a profit. They also hire people to figure out how to deny or delay claims. That is not something to be proud of.

Well I'm in the Skinview camp but my position is that there is no reason in the world to have insurance companies involved in the health business. Where is the value added?

The basic problem here is that we have come to equate health care with health insurance. But insurance has always been to cover the costs of catastrophic events like the loss of a house or severe damage to your car or yourself in an accident. Why would we ever consider using a system like this for normal health coverage? The answer is that we have come to believe in the fairy tale that if we have health insurance then somebody else is actually paying our medical bills. It is a fairy tale, just a tragic one.

If insuring health is a good idea why don't we insure housing and food (note that I left out clothing.) They are the real necessities of life. The answer is that we should insure none of these things. Insuring health was a bad idea in the first place and it is time to kill it. It's time has passed. We simply cannot afford it any longer.

For those who want a safety net of health coverage for everyone a much simpler scheme would be for the Federal Government to give out vouchers or credits to lower income people that could be used for any legitimate medical use and then get out of the way and let the market determine the cost of medical care. Without the Government or the Insurance Companies or HMOs breathing down their neck the medical industry could focus on health care instead of paperwork.

[Naturist Mark]

There aren't any serious plans for the US to adopt a British Health Service type of system where the government employs the doctors and runs the hospitals, nor even a Canadian system where doctors are independent operators but the Hospitals are run by Government .

In the US there are various plans, ranging from those that require the availability and, where necessary, subsidize health insurance to those that adopt a single payer system where government takes over the role of insurer. No serious plans in the US have the government employing doctors or running hospitals.

Under the various US plans there will not be government rationing of what services are available - the market will continue to determine that. There will be rationing on the basis of what the coverage will pay for - but that is no different from how private insurers operate, except that there will not be the incentive to cheat the insured.

-Mark

[Boreas]

I have a few comments to make and only time for about one. Hospitals in Canada are not actually run by the governments. They are funded by the government and run by health authorities or boards or whatever. There is an arm's length between government and the hospital. Also, there is generally funding from the federal government or transfer payments which go to the province. The the province is the one who actually funds the hospitals. Each province operates things slightly differently with guidance from the Canada Health Act.

[Bicycler]

There aren't any serious plans for the US to adopt a British Health Service type of system ...
-Mark

Mark: Have you or anybody following this thread had time to review what Obama and Hillary are proposing health-care-wise?

I have to admit that I haven't, but I would be interested in hearing some opinions on what their thinking is. Whatever it is we are likely to see one or the other on our doorstep if either Hillary or Obama gets the nod in November.

[Skinview]

The GAO did a study that said that money already spent on Medicare and Medicaid could be used to cover everybody. So NO NEW TAXES.
I can't believe that. How could the government take on the vast amount of payments made by private insurance companies and not have to raise taxes??! Its not possible.

But maybe the US should go completely free market... Lets let the fire departments and police departments become private. Then when someone breaks into your house, while the private police force looks on because you could not afford police insuance, well then you only have yourself to blame. And when your house goes up in flames, because of of said burgler, and the private fire department shows up, but only so that the houses on either side of yours, who paid insurance, don't go up in flames because you can't afford to pay for fire insurance, you only have yourself to blame. Then when you go to the hospital to get treatment for burns suffered in the fire you get turned away because you could not afford health care insurance, and the hospital knows you cannot pay for it yourself, and they know by now you do not have a home to reposess if you cannot pay for your bills.You are not reading my post before you write:

I have no objection to providing money to people who don't have enough to pay for their own health care.

[Skinview]

Skinview, you are concerned about the government taking your money, but not the insurance companies?No no no. I think it would be a good idea if state governments taxed us and gave health insurance vouchers to poor people who could not afford their own health insurance. It might be an even better idea to scrap welfare, unemployment insurance, and some other social welfare programs and replace them with Milton Friedman's negative income tax. The poor could use the cash to buy insurance, food, and whatever they decide that they need with it. If fully half the payments were fraudulent, it would still cost less than the current government monstrosity. My fear is that the government will take over health care, and decide for us what we can get, how much will be spent on it, and take choices out of my hands.

Insurance companies want to make a profit.GOOD!!!! They won't waste money!!

They also hire people to figure out how to deny or delay claims. That is not something to be proud of.A Chinese leader who came after Mao once said as he opened up free markets in China: "It doesn't matter if a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice."
Insurance companies provide a very valuable function by reducing unnecessary procedures and tests. They hold down costs on what hospitals charge for what they do, and they look out for fraud. This saves us money. If they won't pay for something you want, you are still free to pay for it yourself (don't forget that YOU pay for ALL your health care under ANY system). The government doesn't tell you that you can't have it, as was the case with Soviet health care (which actually functioned with cash payments under the table).
Now I am not defending the current system. One problem is that the tax structure has been set up so that we get insurance through our employers, rather than directly. (Yes, our well meaning government screwed it up, per usual.) It takes choice away from individuals. There is a proposal in to change that. It will be better when we are free to choose the insurance company that provides what we want it to. If it gets a bad reputation by mistreating its customers, it won't last long. If the government controls everything and does a crappy job, where do you go then?

[Qikdraw]

I can't believe that. How could the government take on the vast amount of payments made by private insurance companies and not have to raise taxes??! Its not possible.

Sure it is. With the amount of different poilicies and different insurance companies having different codes for the same problems, it creates a massive bureaucracy which costs a crap of money. When its a single payer system you don't have to deal with that. You also don't have to have the bereaucracy to deny coverage. Trim all the waste that private insurance companies have and you can save massive amounts of mney.

You are not reading my post before you write:

Sure I did, and I asnwered the part where you said, 'I have no objection to providing money to people who don't have enough to pay for their own health care. But having the government take it over so that we are all at its mercy is a bad solution to the problem. The Soviet Union should have taught us all that government can not provide goods and services as well as the free market.'

My statement about going completely free market was in response to this:

You think so? Do you pay taxes? You pay for all of your medical expenses, whether your money goes through an insurance company or your government.

Qikdraw

[Boreas]

A Chinese leader who came after Mao once said as he opened up free markets in China: "It doesn't matter if a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice."

That would be true if the "mice" caught were actually fraudulent. Many of the claims denied or delayed are actually valid claims from legitimately sick people.

...replace them with Milton Friedman's negative income tax. The poor could use the cash to buy insurance, food, and whatever they decide that they need with it. If fully half the payments were fraudulent, it would still cost less than the current government monstrosity. My fear is that the government will take over health care, and decide for us what we can get, how much will be spent on it, and take choices out of my hands.

Friedman's policies and the "Chicago School" have already proven disasterous in many areas such as south and central America, Russia and other places. It requires dictatorships of a different kind to push through these evil ideas. Friedman was an extremist whose ideas should be ditched.

Again, you are afraid of the government telling you what you can and cannot do and not the insurance companies? I have more freedom to chose what healthcare I receive here, than if I were in the US. As for the poor deciding. Well, in many cases policies such as Friedman's further disempower "the poor" and create more poverty. It is a fallicy to suggest that they would get more choice. The way to empower "the poor" is to help them access true resources and allow grassroots actions to have some power. Anything that smacks of Chicago School does not do that.

[Bicycler]

Friedman's policies and the "Chicago School" have already proven disasterous in many areas such as south and central America, Russia and other places.

That's a surprise to me. Got any good examples?

[Skinview]

Friedman's policies and the "Chicago School" have already proven disasterous in many areas such as south and central America, Russia and other places. It requires dictatorships of a different kind to push through these evil ideas.
Last I checked, Russia had made it through its partial transition, and its economy is booming. Thats why Putin is far more popular than he should be. China went (partly) free market, and its economy is booming, and Central America is a collection of Banana republics and I have not heard a thing about what their economies have been doing. Bananas are being wiped out by a blight, so it doesn't look good for them.
I defy you to show an example of free markets performing below socialism. Hong Kong and Singapore have economies far more powerful than their neighbors. North Korea is starving while the South Koreans are far more prosperous. And the US has always had free markets and we never had a dictatorship. Socialism is the evil system that is forced on the people by dictators.

[Skinview]

Sure it is. With the amount of different poilicies and different insurance companies having different codes for the same problems, it creates a massive bureaucracy which costs a crap of money.
Trim all the waste that private insurance companies have and you can save massive amounts of mney.Private companies have more bureaucracy and waste than the government?? lol!!!! There is undoubtedly some duplication, but government doesn't have the drive to be efficient that the private sector has. They have to compete with each other, and they want to make more money. Government doesn't. It just raises taxes and borrows money to support its bloat.

You also don't have to have the bereaucracy to deny coverage.There will either be a bureaucracy to deny claims, or there will be a massive hemorage of money to fraud. I expect both.

[Qikdraw]

Skinview

You really need to read up on what a single payer system is before you make these comments. Cause what your saying just sounds of the talking points of people who are against a single payer system, which really has no basis in facts.

Qikdraw

[Boreas]

Skinview

You really need to read up on what a single payer system is before you make these comments. Cause what your saying just sounds of the talking points of people who are against a single payer system, which really has no basis in facts.

Qikdraw

Excellent point!

[usmc1]

Private companies have more bureaucracy and waste than the government?? lol!!!! There is undoubtedly some duplication, but government doesn't have the drive to be efficient that the private sector has. They have to compete with each other, and they want to make more money. Government doesn't. It just raises taxes and borrows money to support its bloat.

There will either be a bureaucracy to deny claims, or there will be a massive hemorage of money to fraud. I expect both.

Er, Skinview, Medicare is one of the largest and one the most cost efficient bureaucracies on the planet. Last I checked, it still is run by the Federal government.

Please take issue with that so I can pummel you and bludgeon you with facts and figures and comparisons.

C'mon, big boy, I double dog dare yah!

[Boreas]

but government doesn't have the drive to be efficient that the private sector has. They have to compete with each other, and they want to make more money. Government doesn't. It just raises taxes and borrows money to support its bloat.

Government is under more and more pressure to be more efficient. They cannot blindly raise taxes without a great hue and cry (or is that hew?:)) from the electorate. Todays voters, while still less than informed, are more informed and can smell a tax hike a mile away. If not, the media will tell them. If you want to get an electorate fired up, suggest a tax hike!

Competition while good, is not the be all and end all. Also, in the days of Walmart and lile-minded businesses, the way to "compete" is to slash salaries to stupidly low levels. That is not the way to go at all.

[nacktman]

It is HEW, Boreas.:laugh:

[Boreas]

It is HEW, Boreas.:laugh:

Thank you nacktman. I will try to remember that.....it is not something I write often. :)

[Skinview]

Skinview

You really need to read up on what a single payer system is before you make these comments. Cause what your saying just sounds of the talking points of people who are against a single payer system, which really has no basis in facts.
Excellent point!
He made a point? What was it???

[Skinview]

Er, Skinview, Medicare is one of the largest and one the most cost efficient bureaucracies on the planet. Last I checked, it still is run by the Federal government.

Please take issue with that so I can pummel you and bludgeon you with facts and figures and comparisons.

C'mon, big boy, I double dog dare yah!I don't have any figures at hand, but if you would like to compare Medicare to Blue Cross, go right ahead - don't let me hold you back!

[Qikdraw]

He made a point? What was it???

That you need to understand what a single payer system is
and how it works before you make comments on it.

Respectfully, do a bit of research, and not just the negative press on it, look at the positive. Most of the negative stuff against a single payer system is easily debunked by facts. Most negative stuff I have seen mentions one or two cases to say the whole system is broken.

Here are two quick links for you.

Link 1 (http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/mythbusting-canadian-health-care-part-i)

Link 2 (http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/mythbusting-canadian-healthcare-part-ii-debunking-free-marketeers)

These links have been put up a few times. I guess you have missed them.

Qikdraw

[nacktman]

That you need to understand what a single payer system is
and how it works before you make comments on it.

Respectfully, do a bit of research, and not just the negative press on it, look at the positive. Most of the negative stuff against a single payer system is easily debunked by facts. Most negative stuff I have seen mentions one or two cases to say the whole system is broken.

Here are two quick links for you.

Link 1 (http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/mythbusting-canadian-health-care-part-i)

Link 2 (http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/mythbusting-canadian-healthcare-part-ii-debunking-free-marketeers)

These links have been put up a few times. I guess you have missed them.

Qikdraw

Afraid, it is a waste of time, Qikdraw, unbiased sources or sources contrary to the preformed and inserted dogma are not within the scope of their keen.

Interesting links all the same.

[usmc1]

I don't have any figures at hand, but if you would like to compare Medicare to Blue Cross, go right ahead - don't let me hold you back!

Maybe Blue Cross has such a specific study. I don't. But, here are several different studies, reports and analyses from a variety of sources, which make the comparison of Medicare to private health insurance. In each it is obvious that the governmental burearacracy resonsible for Medicare operates with greater efficiency, less adminstrative overhead, and higher user (consumer) satsifaction than do the for-profit private insurers.

There's a really neat, soul-searching, article by a Johns Hopkins physician whose own research persuaded him of the failings of the for-profit insurance compared to Medicare.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/hlthaff.w2.311v1/DC1 (http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/hlthaff.w2.311v1/DC1)

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/about/Crossroads/06_13_03.html (http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/about/Crossroads/06_13_03.html)
<O:p
http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/CAHIMedicareTechnicalPaper.pdf (http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/CAHIMedicareTechnicalPaper.pdf)
<O:p
http://www.emaxhealth.com/72/11787.html (http://www.emaxhealth.com/72/11787.html)

Medicare, like Social Security are monuments to effective governance, and how things should be. That is partly because, up until this mad man's administration, politicians persued a hands-off policy.
<O:p