So I know we're not supposed to talk politics - Presidential Election - Poll

Of course you can. Who the he'll doesn't think the grass is always greener on the other side lol. Change the system and those people will be begging for what the used to have.

 

Socialized medicine is very complicated and a lot of good doctors are not interested in having their income controlled by the government.

No Thanks for me. Logic by itself screams that it sucks.

 

Not much but Im not advocating Obamacare because I dont know about its intricacies, particularly on a state to state basis. Having said that I understand premiums went up for many people's coverage as well as deductibles. I also understand that a lot of people were able to get coverage where they would otherwise have been denied. Due to the higher deductibles this coverage seems to be more beneficial when it comes to high cost critical illness type of claims. Im not advocating Obamacare at all though. The Canadian system was brought up, and is often brought up with a sense of distain (to which I pose the same question you ask me to those who judge the Canadian system). I'm advocating a single payer system like Canada and most european countries. People LOVE to point to Canada and say hey look at the long wait times for certain things which is often the case with Ontario specifically is due to mismanagement and not the issue with the overall system. What gets ignored? Literally all of the good parts. Why? So an agenda can be pushed. Again our system is not perfect but Im sick of people, in general Canadian fashion, being all apologetic about it. The system works for the majority, for a majority of the time.

 

Mismanagement is going to be an issue with any single-payer system, because of the nature of the system. Also, I don't know if I'd say most European countries have a single-payer system. Germany does not, France does not, The Netherlands does not, and Switzerland does not. I believe Sweden was forced to partially privatize their system because the problems with rationing and wait times got so bad. These countries all have universal healthcare systems, but they are multi-payer, public-private hybrid systems, not single-payer.

 

The notion that single-payer is some panacea, that any other system is going to be a confusing mess and maze of government and different private companies that is very inefficient, and single-payer, by putting the government in charge of the whole thing, is going to massively simplify things and result in making the whole system run much better, is just the same old socialist lure that was believed about putting the government in charge of other industries in the 20th century. It never works that way because you have to have bureaucrats try to centrally manage and plan the system.

 

To say a single payer system doesn't work because there's issues with Canada is the equivalent of saying companies shouldnt get investment funding because some that do go bankrupt. Well, management and planning is a huge part of the success of the system whether its a company or a country's healthcare system. There's plenty of single payer systems that do not have the issues that Canada has. The whole notion of something being "socialist"...ohhh baaaddd wooorddd...and automatically being bad is a load of crap. You have a socialist system when it comes to emergency services, no one asks for a credit card number or insurance policy number when you call the police. Here the system does a pretty damn good job to ensure that someone who is critically ill gets treatment and doesnt have to worry about six figure medical bills. Some parts of the healthcare system are private like the US but thats generally stuff like dental, physiotherapy and medication which I think should also be single payer if it's critical/important, especially medication.

 

Emergency services are only socialist at the local level, not the federal government level. They vary locality to locality, paid for by the local taxpayers of the area.

Socialized medicine is very complicated and a lot of good doctors are not interested in having their income controlled by the government.

No Thanks for me. Logic by itself screams that it sucks.

 

You know it's not good when doctors on both sides of the political fence did not like it.

I don't know to be honest. You make a good point though about mutually beneficial relations; if that's what you meant originally, I misunderstood your post. I don't know if I agree that there was much propaganda/brainwashing on the American side regarding the Soviets/Russians though, as that was a pretty evil system.

 

The point of brainwashing is for the target to not be aware of it.

 

You'd be surprised to know, American propaganda against the former eastern block was far more aggressive than the other way around, and if you think there was less propaganda/brain washing going on on your side of the fence, you're either naive or the propaganda/brain washing was very effective . Soviets took a different approach, and portrayed Americans as victims of the system because they were oblivious to it, rather than evil.

 

Which is exactly why we should have nuked them back in 1957 when the window was open. I know, HOW COULD you say that ? Well... we not only could have we should have went and done it. Imagine a world without the communist menace and the tentacles that have far reaching impacts on the world today.

Nice one. Only problem in your little fantasy scenario is that there'd be no world left to imagine, because it leaves out a small but crucial detail: What if they fought back?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/12...ump-allies.html

Which is exactly why we should have nuked them back in 1957 when the window was open. I know, HOW COULD you say that ? Well... we not only could have we should have went and done it. Imagine a world without the communist menace and the tentacles that have far reaching impacts on the world today.

You can still nuke them you know.

In regards to healthcare, it´s really an easy question to ask.

At some point a society has to decide wether it wants to redistribute some of it´s wealth to those who are sick, to the elderly and the less fortunate ones.

 

I personally don´t know of any hard working, selfmade man/woman who would think twice about the answer.

I have made the experience that most of the time those who were the luckiest in life are crying the most and those who worked the hardest have no fear of sharing.

Last year I had to pay about 30% of my income to social security and that hurts. However, loooking at my grandfather who has cancer I wouldn´t want it any other way here in europe.

Not only for his sake but for all peoples sake.

In regards to healthcare, it´s really an easy question to ask.

At some point a society has to decide wether it wants to redistribute some of it´s wealth to those who are sick, to the elderly and the less fortunate ones.

 

I personally don´t know of any hard working, selfmade man/woman who would think twice about the answer.

I have made the experience that most of the time those who were the luckiest in life are crying the most and those who worked the hardest have no fear of sharing.

Last year I had to pay about 30% of my income to social security and that hurts. However, loooking at my grandfather who has cancer I wouldn´t want it any other way here in europe.

Not only for his sake but for all peoples sake.

 

I am sorry to say but your idealistic views are wrong on so many levels, sharing without sustainability is financial suicide, you are assuming your extra 30% went towards your grandfather's healthcare ( I am terribly sorry to gear your grandfather has cancer), you are also assuming that the people whom you are giving your money to know what they are doing with it.

 

Any self made person here will tell you the same, the system has to be surviving as a stand along organism without sponging of another one, this is not about sharing or lack of empathy this is purely about smart sustainable business and I can tell you any self made person is a master at that because that's the reason why they are where they are.

 

 

 

The point of brainwashing is for the target to not be aware of it.

 

You'd be surprised to know, American propaganda against the former eastern block was far more aggressive than the other way around, and if you think there was less propaganda/brain washing going on on your side of the fence, you're either naive or the propaganda/brain washing was very effective . Soviets took a different approach, and portrayed Americans as victims of the system because they were oblivious to it, rather than evil.

 

Did the American propaganda portrayed the average Soviet citizens as evil? I know the Soviet Empire (the government) was portrayed as evil, but I don't know how the citizens were portrayed. Not sure why you would call the criticisms of the Soviet Union on the American side as propaganda as most all of that was just fact. And the Soviets didn't help the matter with the Berlin Wall, Hungary and (then) Czechoslovakia, putting missiles in Cuba, and their constant acts of aggression and increasing their military.

 

I would be very interested if you could elaborate more though on what was actual propaganda on the American side about the Soviets.

I am sorry to say but your idealistic views are wrong on so many levels, sharing without sustainability is financial suicide, you are assuming your extra 30% went towards your grandfather's healthcare ( I am terribly sorry to gear your grandfather has cancer), you are also assuming that the people whom you are giving your money to know what they are doing with it.

 

Any self made person here will tell you the same, the system has to be surviving as a stand along organism without sponging of another one, this is not about sharing or lack of empathy this is purely about smart sustainable business and I can tell you any self made person is a master at that because that's the reason why they are where they are.

 

:iamwithstupid:

 

Agree 1000%

I don't get the last few replies here, you are arguing that the "free" healthcare systems does not work and are not sustainable.

But they do work and are sustainable, they have been like this for decades in many countries.

 

When you're in an accident or get sick and end up with debt or are unable to get the right treatment because you didn't have the right insurance or the money needed, the system has failed.

Mismanagement is going to be an issue with any single-payer system, because of the nature of the system. Also, I don't know if I'd say most European countries have a single-payer system. Germany does not, France does not, The Netherlands does not, and Switzerland does not. I believe Sweden was forced to partially privatize their system because the problems with rationing and wait times got so bad. These countries all have universal healthcare systems, but they are multi-payer, public-private hybrid systems, not single-payer.

 

The notion that single-payer is some panacea, that any other system is going to be a confusing mess and maze of government and different private companies that is very inefficient, and single-payer, by putting the government in charge of the whole thing, is going to massively simplify things and result in making the whole system run much better, is just the same old socialist lure that was believed about putting the government in charge of other industries in the 20th century. It never works that way because you have to have bureaucrats try to centrally manage and plan the system.

 

 

 

Emergency services are only socialist at the local level, not the federal government level. They vary locality to locality, paid for by the local taxpayers of the area.

Technicalities and semantics for the most part. Single payer or universal healthcare, the point is someone who gets sick doesnt get stuck with 150k bill. If it helps Ill call it UHC but the point is that though they may have a bill for smaller items but it won't ruin them financially. To have at least a universal system for major issues is what ensures that a freak accident doesnt turn the American dream into the american nightmare. Whether something is socialist at the municipal, state, or federal level doesn't change anything in principle.

 

I don't get the last few replies here, you are arguing that the "free" healthcare systems does not work and are not sustainable.

But they do work and are sustainable, they have been like this for decades in many countries.

 

When you're in an accident or get sick and end up with debt or are unable to get the right treatment because you didn't have the right insurance or the money needed, the system has failed.

 

Whether they are sustainable is highly debatable. If you look at Medicare in the United States, for example, it is not sustainable in its current form. With regards to the systems of other countries, part of the reason why they can pay for them is because their defense is subsidized by the United States. If they had to pay for defense the way the U.S. has for decades, it would have been far harder for them to pay for their healthcare systems.

Technicalities and semantics for the most part. Single payer or universal healthcare, the point is someone who gets sick doesnt get stuck with 150k bill. If it helps Ill call it UHC but the point is that though they may have a bill for smaller items but it won't ruin them financially. To have at least a universal system for major issues is what ensures that a freak accident doesnt turn the American dream into the american nightmare.

 

I do support the creation of a universal healthcare system, but not a single-payer system. Unfortunately, the Democrats here are bent on single-payer while the Republicans seem to have their heads up their rearends with regards to trying to create a viable healthcare plan. Also your last sentence there IMO would be great for a politician to market their idea for UHC. Universal insurance for catastrophic things I think is a good idea. Not sure how to pay for it though.

 

Whether something is socialist at the municipal, state, or federal level doesn't change anything in principle.

 

But at least it is a local government as opposed to the big federal bureaucracy you are dealing with.

 

With regards to the systems of other countries, part of the reason why they can pay for them is because their defense is subsidized by the United States. If they had to pay for defense the way the U.S. has for decades, it would have been far harder for them to pay for their healthcare systems.

Care to back up those claims? What country is putting money into healthcare because they are a member of e.g. NATO? Would said country have problems if they had to increase their military budget?

I guess it was "kiss the ring day" at the Whitehouse.

 

 

 

 

Next up, Trump fires Mueller.

I guess it was "kiss the ring day" at the Whitehouse.

 

 

 

 

Next up, Trump fires Mueller.

 

 

That really looked like a SNL skit. We are in some sort of bizarro parallel universe. There are people actually defending and encouraging Trump to fire Mueller. Wtf?

Care to back up those claims? What country is putting money into healthcare because they are a member of e.g. NATO? Would said country have problems if they had to increase their military budget?

 

It's the old classic guns and butter problem. After World War II, the U.S. took over for the defense of the Western world, in terms of ensuring naval supremacy to keep the sea lanes open and maintaining forces around the world to keep the communists at bay, including a large force in Europe. As a result, the other nations did not have to worry about spending so much on defense. That is why today the U.S., aside from the U.K., is the only nation with any real power projection capability (and the U.K.'s has become much more limited as of late due to the severe hallowing out of the Royal Navy). Look at France for example. They are, by global standards, a pretty big spender on defense. Yet, when they wanted to airlift their troops into Mali, they had to call the U.S. to provide the capability.

 

I'm not saying these countries couldn't increase their defense spending, just that if they had had to spend on defense at the level the U.S. has for years, they would have been much more constrained in their social welfare programs.

My first question would be, why do we need to spend so much on the military? We spend about 10 times more than Russia does.

I would be very interested if you could elaborate more though on what was actual propaganda on the American side about the Soviets.

 

This would be a long and complex discussion and completely off topic. Very easy to educate yourself these days.

 

It's the old classic guns and butter problem. After World War II, the U.S. took over for the defense of the Western world, in terms of ensuring naval supremacy to keep the sea lanes open and maintaining forces around the world to keep the communists at bay, including a large force in Europe. As a result, the other nations did not have to worry about spending so much on defense. That is why today the U.S., aside from the U.K., is the only nation with any real power projection capability (and the U.K.'s has become much more limited as of late due to the severe hallowing out of the Royal Navy). Look at France for example. They are, by global standards, a pretty big spender on defense. Yet, when they wanted to airlift their troops into Mali, they had to call the U.S. to provide the capability.

 

I'm not saying these countries couldn't increase their defense spending, just that if they had had to spend on defense at the level the U.S. has for years, they would have been much more constrained in their social welfare programs.

 

The reason Eu countries spend on healthcare is not because they don't spend on military it's because they tax their citizens more. Military spending could easily be made up but they never saw a need since the US traded military protection for influence during the post ww2 era. ANd that has been far more to the US's advantage than you care to admit.

 

US GDP/tax ratio is somewhere around 25% fed+states, average EU is 40% of gdp collected as taxes. Average healthcare spending in EU is around 9% of GDP. Do the math, in order for the US to have healthcare that would mean a 33% increase in tax collection to maintain current spending on other stuff. It would be quite a shock for everyone if that happened. If Americans also want free university education add another 3-4% percentage points of gdp, and you'd all end up with a 50% increase in all taxes you pay. You'll be starting a new revolution if it ever gets to that.

 

What I don't get is that healthcare costs in the US despite not having socialized healthcare are twice as high as in other developed countries. You'd say they'd be lower, it's quite counter intuitive, which is why I don't understand this phenomenon.

My first question would be, why do we need to spend so much on the military? We spend about 10 times more than Russia does.

I think its because the US needs to have a military stranglehold over the rest of the world. No other country needs to even stand a chance. I actually don't disagree with them doing this. But I think their objectives will probably be met whether they spend 600billion or 650 billion on their military. I mean come on, there's diminishing returns. To cut meals on wheels to then give the money to the military just seems...wrong? Having a strong military is essential for being the world leader but when the leaders simultaneously turn around and say climate change is a Chinese hoax, you go from strong world leader that promotes democracy, capitalism, competition, environmental protection, civil rights and equality to being the nutjob with the biggest guns.

What I don't get is that healthcare costs in the US despite not having socialized healthcare are twice as high as in other developed countries. You'd say they'd be lower, it's quite counter intuitive, which is why I don't understand this phenomenon.

I think you bring up a really good point. I think part of this has to do with the overall health of Americans from a couple of perspectives 1) diet and physical activity and 2) environmental factors.

 

Everyone wants to bash environmental protection initiatives...having restrictions on emissions for instance...but in the long term there's a positive affect for the economy and of course people in general. To illustrate my point imagine what healthcare costs would be like today if emissions requirements were never enacted and cars polluted the way they did in the 60s, 70s or even 80s. Cities would be unrecognizable. Here in Toronto we get a couple of smog days each year and to assume that would be the case without the regulations that have been put in place over the years would be naive, especially given the massive population growth. As a result we would probably being seeing much greater rates of lung disease(for instance) and overall healthcare costs. Its a matter of paying for something today or paying for it later, perhaps in perpetuity.

 

The same goes for lifestyles and diets. This isn't something the government can do much about asides from requiring adequate safety and sanitary conditions as well and maybe calorie counts on foods, but peoples lifestyle choices will cost both them and the economy in the long run. Being overweight, sedentary, and having a bad diet affects basically every organ and joint, and for the US to be paying so much for healthcare while having such a significant portion of overweight, sedentary individuals almost makes sense actually. Healthcare issues, especially ones which are lifestyle induced, will be chronic and the costs to address them will be paid over and over and over. The treatment isn't a one time deal.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles...e-u-s-elections

Being overweight, sedentary, and having a bad diet affects basically every organ and joint, and for the US to be paying so much for healthcare while having such a significant portion of overweight, sedentary individuals almost makes sense actually. Healthcare issues, especially ones which are lifestyle induced, will be chronic and the costs to address them will be paid over and over and over. The treatment isn't a one time deal.

 

And that folks, is the biggest driver on why health care is so expensive.

 

The medical and pharmaceutical companies are making a killing (no pun intended) on keeping those who insist on trashing their bodies somewhat healthy.