Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I stopped reading the article at "socialism".

God, spare me. I can't believe this sentiment is still alive and well...

 Samus_aran115 wrote:
I stopped reading the article at "socialism".

God, spare me. I can't believe this sentiment is still alive and well...

You're joking right?

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Samus_aran115 wrote:
I stopped reading the article at "socialism".

God, spare me. I can't believe this sentiment is still alive and well...

You're joking right?

Dunno. He's the guy who type like a 14 years old and who'se avatar is a pic of a gay erogame dude with dildos all over him. So... make his comment what you will...

There may be drawbacks to the left-wing health care policies, but I remain confident that the good outweighs the bad. However many things some may lose due to health care reform, is it really worse than some people not having health care at all?

 DOOMBREAD wrote:
There may be drawbacks to the left-wing health care policies, but I remain confident that the good outweighs the bad. However many things some may lose due to health care reform, is it really worse than some people not having health care at all?

Yes. You shouldn't take that as opposition to universal health care you should take that as opposition to the ACA. It does some good, but overwhelms it with the bad. Not the least of which is strengthening private insurance. True "left-wing" health care policies that force private insurance to compete with a single payer public system until they wither and die is the only way to reform healthcare.

Eventually my dark hidden secret convert will bear fruitation and slowly transform the ACA into a system that'll weed out the weak.....you all didn't know my side job was selling plots?

 AustonT wrote:

 DOOMBREAD wrote:
There may be drawbacks to the left-wing health care policies, but I remain confident that the good outweighs the bad. However many things some may lose due to health care reform, is it really worse than some people not having health care at all?

Yes. You shouldn't take that as opposition to universal health care you should take that as opposition to the ACA. It does some good, but overwhelms it with the bad. Not the least of which is strengthening private insurance. True "left-wing" health care policies that force private insurance to compete with a single payer public system until they wither and die is the only way to reform healthcare.

Or we do what Europe did, have every thing blown the feth up by Nazi's and decide, screw it, i we can afford this we can afford healthcare

PhantomViper wrote:

I hate to break it to you, but Canada's education system is ranked #3 in the world, the USA is ranked #22...

I had heard 5th, but this was a while ago. US was ranked higher at the time, as well.

Just shows that the US continues to slip in important things and splurge on useless stuff.

Give NASA the Pentagon's money and manpower for a year and see what they can do with it.

We choose to go to Mars this time?

djones520 wrote:
Really? My dad works in Canada, has about a 40% tax rate, comes to around $36,000 a year he pays in taxes. Ends up being roughly $8,000 more a year then what he'd pay back home, and about $3,000 more a year then what he'd pay for insurance for himself (actually, about $7800, since he's retired military). Then on top of that the 12% sales tax he has to pay for anything he purchases, then gas taxes of about $1.30 per gallon... It's not a wonder he's sick and tired of living there. Doesn't even make $100k a year, and ends up bringing home less then half of his pay after taxes.

Your numbers are just wrong. Absurdly wrong.

The absolute, top marginal rate you can pay in Canada is 29%, and that's only on income above $132,406.

If your dad is paying $36,000 in taxes, then that means his annual income is about $160,000, and his average tax rate is 23%.

In comparison, if he earned the same pay in the US (about $164,00 USD), and assuming he's married and filing singly, then he'd be paying $42,573 in tax.


Now that I've explained that your worldview is based on basic factual misunderstanding, I happily await your complete change of opinion on this subject.

If "socialized medicine" means I have to pay so much more in taxes for a system that his fiance still wanted private insurance for, then you can keep it.

Actually, Canada pays less per capita for its healthcare system than you guys.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadowseer_Kim wrote:
yay go us.

The point I was trying to make is that just like with Insurance companies running health, Government running all health will also equate to the prices constantly going up, becoming more and more of a burden on citizens.

Your claim here simply does not match reality.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AustonT wrote:
What I love is you have no idea what I'm talking about and post anyways. Twice in one night.

It makes you look like a fool.

I know exactly what you posted. It was a collection of emotionally charged political terms that all kind of vaguely has some emotional resonance to you, but actually read like gibberish to anyone who's looking at the actual meaning of those words.

Seb... what do you think of this?
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/09/18/what-can-you-do-with-79-million-man-hours/
The premise is this:

The amount of man-hours needed each year for the regulation added by the Affordable Care Act so far would be 398 times the total amount of man-hours our Space Shuttle program spent in space over its entire 30-year history. That’s each and every year, with it likely to get a lot worse when more of the regulation gets established by HHS.

 Frazzled wrote:
Well he did say the University of Chicago's ecnomics department was justa fringe group...

And now Frazzled missed the differences between a school of of economic thought, and an actual, literal school.

As if everyone belonging to the Chicago School of Economic thought is actually in Chicago. What's next, you gonna tell me everyone Austrian School person has to be from Austria? Or every Keynesian has to be from Milton Keynes?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Monster Rain wrote:
Equally goofy to the bootstrap talk is the naivete that leads people to believe that there's no potential downside to this.

With that said, I'm for Universal Healthcare, though I'd rather have a single-payer option.

There's plenty of potential downside, and I've love for their to be an informed, intelligent discussion about the ACA and other possible healthcare reforms. The problem is that we don't get that debate, because people shouting 'freedom' drown out everything else.

It's why i think sensible people need to reach an end point with the nutters, and basically laugh them out of the conversation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Valued Added Tax. Its like a sales tax thats applied all the way up the manufacturing chain. The cumulative tax is quite high.

There is no cumulative effect to the Value Added Tax. That's what Value Added means - the tax is only applied on the Value Added part made by that point in the supply chain.

ie John buy a piece of wood for $10, and chips it, then sells those chips to Dave for $15. John only pays VAT on the added value, $15 - $10 = $5.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
I think it's feasible to have a Canadian model... and on top of that a private service/insurance model (that's illegal in Canada) for those who can afford it.

Best of both worlds .

Such models are in existance in places such as Germany and Australia. There's a basic level of care for everyone, with limited copays for doctor's visits and things like that (though dentistry is largely uncovered once you're past school age). But then if you want nicer hospital beds, a greater choice of doctor, shorter waits for elective surgery and the like, then you can get your own private insurance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Seb... what do you think of this?
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/09/18/what-can-you-do-with-79-million-man-hours/
The premise is this:

The amount of man-hours needed each year for the regulation added by the Affordable Care Act so far would be 398 times the total amount of man-hours our Space Shuttle program spent in space over its entire 30-year history. That’s each and every year, with it likely to get a lot worse when more of the regulation gets established by HHS.

Interesting read, thanks for that. Not the article running with the 79 million man hours stuff, that was just a guy showing he doesn't understand the difference between national level administration and single high profile projects.

But it did include a link to the original IRS report, and that guy made a good point. Real time tax subsidy processed through the exchanges seems a pretty bad idea. Seems to make more sense to have people pay the exchanges up front and then claim their deduction through the IRS as the fellow requests.

It was interesting to see the CBO projects 9 million people will take the exchange option in the first year.

 Jihadin wrote:
You need the Ranger Candy....thats 800mg Motrin (same thing)

Its treatment for swelling, not pain. The pain in my knee never goes away, but without the ibuprofen I have trouble walking due to inflammation physically blocking the already limited mobility (goes from ~15 degree loss to ~25 degree loss) of my leg.

Ouch, that suck bro

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Samus_aran115 wrote:
I stopped reading the article at "socialism".

God, spare me. I can't believe this sentiment is still alive and well...

You're joking right?

Dunno. He's the guy who type like a 14 years old and who'se avatar is a pic of a gay erogame dude with dildos all over him. So... make his comment what you will...

If you don't like what I have to say, or how I write, that's fine, but don't make it a personal matter. I'm free to have my opinions, no matter how naive or inane they may be.

The word socialism is a scare word. It means nothing, and most people who hear it offhand think it's some evil thing. There's nothing wrong with socialism.

Ack that internal. They pump the joint yet with steroids? Not a cure all but it helps. To many years in the 82nd wear and tear on my knees. Its not the jumping that gets us its the running we do.

 sebster wrote:

There's plenty of potential downside, and I've love for their to be an informed, intelligent discussion about the ACA and other possible healthcare reforms. The problem is that we don't get that debate, because people shouting 'freedom' drown out everything else.

It's why i think sensible people need to reach an end point with the nutters, and basically laugh them out of the conversation.

From personal experience I can say that what you describe does happen, it just doesn't happen everywhere all the time. Any policy analyst will tell you that there are two side of ever political campaign: the external side and the internal side. The external side is for everyone doing the voting and funding, the internal side is for everyone doing the actual work.

On the internal side nutters never even get in (so much innuendo), on the external side they need to be dealt with because they are people that you need to win the election.

On the plus side, I have seen a change in the way people think politically. There has been a much stronger moderate (for lack of a better word) voice than I've seen in a long time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
Ack that internal. They pump the joint yet with steroids? Not a cure all but it helps. To many years in the 82nd wear and tear on my knees. Its not the jumping that gets us its the running we do.

A bone spur between my kneecap and the other bones involved. To fix it I either need a knee replacement, or a type of surgery that would have the same effect on my life quality. I'm waiting until I can't run a mile, I like running.

The real issue is that I've had it since I was 14, so it has also caused chronic pain every joint on that entire side of my body, as well as scoliosis due to the effective shortening of one leg. Swelling and knots allover, which is why I love a girl that can give a good massage.

 dogma wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
You need the Ranger Candy....thats 800mg Motrin (same thing)

Its treatment for swelling, not pain. The pain in my knee never goes away, but without the ibuprofen I have trouble walking due to inflammation physically blocking the already limited mobility (goes from ~15 degree loss to ~25 degree loss) of my leg.

Dude... ow...

Did you get a knee replacement?
EDIT: nevermind... just read your last post.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:

Would there be “death panels?” You betcha. The horror show that is the ACA has them, and Medicare has it now. However, it’s a tradeoff. As technology expands the cost expands as well.

In the sense that you're using the absurd inflammatory troll term "death panels", every private insurance provider has death panels too. Only they deny a lot higher percentage of people care, because they need to save money for profit.

Its not absurd when you're on the bad end of one of these decisions. I know people on Medicare who already are.

I call it what it is, but also said as technology/cost expands these sorts of decisions come into play. They have here, in Canada, and the UK. Its the fundamental law of economics.

Yes and no. At some point yes, you have to have discussions between patients, doctors, and families about whether or not continuing extraordinary levels of care is appropriate and worthwhile. Often times the most expensive care is that experimental 100-to-1-chance-to-slow-that-cancer-and-live-another-year-but-in-awful-suffering kind of care. Patients and doctors should discuss what they agree is appropriate. It shouldn't be the default expectation that we preserve life at any cost, even when the patients themselves no longer wish for a state of constant suffering to be prolonged. The fact that people choose to characterize those kind of very important and momentous discussions as "death panels" for political gain is sickening and offensive. I hope Sarah Palin (for one prominent example) one day reads some books and wises up and feels shame for the things she's said and done.

I think it's particularly galling in light of the fact that rationing happens every day, and far more often, in private insurance. Only instead of being done because of an honest discussion with the patient about what's worthwhile, very often it's done purely on the basis of saving money for profit. Denying coverage for a pre-existing condition or looking for another reason to reduce outlay on patients, even if it's for care the genuinely need. One of the nice parts of the ACA which recently went into effect is a requirement that insurance companies spend at least 80% of the insurance premiums they take in on actual patient care, as opposed to administrative overhead. Thousands of people have already gotten rebate checks, from insurers who spent less than that on care. Medicare operates with what, 2% overhead? That kind of efficiency's not just unheard of in private insurance, it's impossible, due to their need for marketing and profit.

 Frazzled wrote:
If you're going to respond harshly to everyone who wants to discuss it, even those I'm sure you essentially agree with, you should probably step back and not, er respond. You're too ready for a fight.

If you slap me in the face enough times enough times while I'm trying to talk, you should expect me to fight back at some point. I appreciate the levity you try to bring to discussions, but in my perception I get a real, thoughtful comment from you in a political thread maybe 5% of the time. The rest of the time it's jokes, trolling, or plain refusal to engage honestly.

 dogma wrote:
From personal experience I can say that what you describe does happen, it just doesn't happen everywhere all the time. Any policy analyst will tell you that there are two side of ever political campaign: the external side and the internal side. The external side is for everyone doing the voting and funding, the internal side is for everyone doing the actual work.

On the internal side nutters never even get in (so much innuendo), on the external side they need to be dealt with because they are people that you need to win the election.

On the plus side, I have seen a change in the way people think politically. There has been a much stronger moderate (for lack of a better word) voice than I've seen in a long time.

Absolutely.

The problem comes when the outside rhetoric effectively shuts down otherwise interesting observations and proposals from the outside. I mean, I know we're not expecting anything inciteful from the genius hanging an empty chair on his lawn, but there are plenty of industry experts and academics with strong insight into policy. Having a really emotive, fact free political debate excludes them from public contribution.

The other problem comes when, through running all that external noise, a political party comes to box itself into a corner. A classic example here is the ACA, where Republican rhetoric was so strong they ended up in a position where they couldn't even negotiate to a bill that gave them everything they wanted.

There's also the problem that the more removed the reality of the political process is from the theatre, the less people are actually voting based on what their politicians are doing.

AustonT wrote:Canadian clustering near the border has less to do with us and more to do with the lay of the land. I prefer not to go North of Calgary unless I have to.

Nobody goes North of Calgary unless they have to. It's called "Edmonton", and it is a terrible wasteland where everyone urinates on everything once the sun goes down.


And I dunno who asked about VAT, but the consumer doesn't typically pay that in Canada.

 Mr Hyena wrote:
Now if only the NHS had decent doctors and not-gak nurses...

They do though, they just have their budgets spent by GPs now

 sebster wrote:
I mean, I know we're not expecting anything inciteful from the genius hanging an empty chair on his lawn, but there are plenty of industry experts and academics with strong insight into policy. Having a really emotive, fact free political debate excludes them from public contribution.

Its really the other way around. When the public debate is highly emotive the public is excluded from the real debate because people that are emotionally engaged with an idea are very easy to manipulate. Industry experts and most academics* always have a voice within the real debate. In fact, its often useful to look at the public as a force rather than a collection of individuals, because that tends to be how it operates with respect to policy.


*The claim that originality is required for publication is utter nonsense, especially in social science. There are over 9000 permutations of realism in international politics and all of them are functionally identical.

 sebster wrote:

The other problem comes when, through running all that external noise, a political party comes to box itself into a corner. A classic example here is the ACA, where Republican rhetoric was so strong they ended up in a position where they couldn't even negotiate to a bill that gave them everything they wanted.

That's true. American politics, especially on the Republican side, haven't really caught up with the way people now engage with media. I said this in the Romney 47% thread as well but it bears reiterating: no politician should ever assume that his audience is a controllable variable.

That said, things are changing. In many ways this cycle is a passing of the guard on the conservative side.

 Frazzled wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
There are two answers to be given one is to the question you posed in the thread title, the other is in response to the article.

Universal healthcare, and by which I mean real universal healthcare not the ACA, will absolutely not kill our freedom unless it is somehow co-opted like the patriot act was.

The article is ridiculous. Let's not delude ourselves into thinking either social security or Medicare are resounding successes. These are the real problems in government spending, but Medicare is especially responsible for the current climate of entitlement on the part of the healthcare industry. In short Medicare is the reason healthcare reform is necessary. Social Security is unrelated to the topic of the thread but as it was in the article I would argue it has either failed or run its useful course and now or back in 2009 is hardly something Id use as an example of the success of government programs.

No a universal system would not IF
It didn’t give the nanny state the excuse to start telling me what to do. Although I am a supporter of a Canadian/Swiss style I fear this will inevitably happen. And by inevitably I mean almost immediately.

Would there be “death panels?” You betcha. The horror show that is the ACA has them, and Medicare has it now. However, it’s a tradeoff. As technology expands the cost expands as well.

Intriguing. The ACA and Medicare both have Death Panels now in a system that is bass-ackwards socialized... and I have not heard anything about Death Panels at all in systems that are FULLY socialized.

Perhaps you are fearing the wrong thing?

Or did I miss the part where Canada, the UK, Germany, Sweeden, Norway, Finland, etc. etc. etc. are executing thousands of grandparents a year as 'too expensive to save' ?

dogma wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
You need the Ranger Candy....thats 800mg Motrin (same thing)

Its treatment for swelling, not pain. The pain in my knee never goes away, but without the ibuprofen I have trouble walking due to inflammation physically blocking the already limited mobility (goes from ~15 degree loss to ~25 degree loss) of my leg.

I think he's referring to what seems to be a policy in the Army healthcare system to prescribe Motrin and 2 quarts of water to cure everything from a mild sprang to cancer.

Jihadin wrote:Ack that internal. They pump the joint yet with steroids? Not a cure all but it helps. To many years in the 82nd wear and tear on my knees. Its not the jumping that gets us its the running we do.

The running wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't so epically slow, BN "fun runs" carrying the colors is fething awful when 4 miles takes 90 minutes. I thanked Jesus when we got a BC that demanded BN runs be finished under the Abn standard time, still slow but better than the truffle shuffle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vulcan wrote:


Intriguing. The ACA and Medicare both have Death Panels now in a system that is bass-ackwards socialized... and I have not heard anything about Death Panels at all in systems that are FULLY socialized.

Perhaps you are fearing the wrong thing?

Or did I miss the part where Canada, the UK, Germany, Sweeden, Norway, Finland, etc. etc. etc. are executing thousands of grandparents a year as 'too expensive to save' ?

There was some kind of hubbub about elderly patients being ushered early into death with the Norfolk Care Plan in the UK. Death Panels are a myth but I'm sure somewhere there is a cost benefit analysis that is and should be done, Whic I suppose is where the mythical beast arose from.

 sebster wrote:
The problem is that we don't get that debate, because people shouting 'freedom' drown out everything else.

Have you read any of American Empire by Harry Turtledove? The American Nazi party equivalent is called the "Freedom Party" and all they do is chant "FREEDOM" whilst beating anyone who disagrees with them.