Bush Vetos Child Health Insurance Expansion

[Mikey]

Boo-hoo, poor you. Ever the victim of vitriol and hate. I do not hate you - I would have to know you very well indeed to conceive that sort of feeling toward you. The point you choose to misread is simply this - I find it unsatisfying to debate with you in the field of politics.

As I'm sure you have seen or will see, I have no issue responding to some points you make in other areas of this forum - some I agree with, some I don't, but the idea is to derive some enjoyment from the debate itself. Yes, perhaps I reacted in kind when attacked, and for that I apologize, not just to you, but to all who have read this. I normally consider myself evolved enough to not respond to that sort of thing.

That being said, since you seem to consistently prefer to choose language which implies insult and derision when engaged in political debate, I feel that the most foolproof way for me to avoid reacting in kind is to avoid entering this arena with you. I am sorry if you feel that this forum is one in which a "victory" must be gained, because I think you are missing the most rewarding aspect of it, but - as Mr. Crowley said - "do as you will shall be the whole of the law."

[Captain Seafort]

DSG, kindly explain why it is a good thing to penalise people by denying them free health care simply because they have a high salary - that smacks of communism to me. Further, how does the fact that the Democrats are playing political games and managed to outmanouevre Bush change the fact that he refused to sign the bill, and therefore allowed the Act to lapse?

[DSG2k]

I am sorry if you feel that this forum is one in which a "victory" must be gained

But see, there you go again. When did I ever say I expected or desired "victory" here? By what criteria would that even be achieved? Why must this be a debate, to you, instead of a discussion and exchange of facts and ideas?

All I know of the term "victory" in this thread is that you've said it now in two posts, and you attribute the concept to me. But I've never said it or suggested it as a goal of mine, and thus I can only draw the conclusion that you're putting words in my mouth.

Nothing perceivably negative was directed toward anyone in this thread, including you, in my long fact posting. You could claim offense at the notion I shared that you guys had only heard the spin and were accepting it, but that's hardly an insult. You could claim offense at my statements regarding the American political left, but I am not aware of your being a politician.

Your response, which you say was "react{ing} in kind when attacked", was not a reaction to attack, but instead the initial attack of the thread. I responded in kind, because as much as I don't like spin about facts, I like spin about me even less. There's no "boo-hoo" about it.

In this forum, I am surrounded by people who break much farther left than I ever have or would. Some are seriously entrenched in their left-leaning positions. I have long since discarded the delusion that one can win over the entrenched, closed mind via logical argument.

All I'm doing is expressing my views, views which generally serve as counterpoint to the here-prevailing wisdom. That's part of the point of doing so, as I've learned that there's a certain value to subjecting one's ideas to trial-by-fire. In the end, it matters little to me if you agree, or even if any silent lurker reads what I said. Even the attempts to spin about me are irrelevant in the end. What is important to me is to resist political claims and philosophies which are invalid, within the small amount of time I have available to spend doing so.

[DSG2k]

DSG, kindly explain why it is a good thing to penalise people by denying them free health care simply because they have a high salary -

"Penalise" and "denying them free health care" are interesting phrasings, the reverse of what occurred.

First, there's no such thing as free health care. You can call it "automatic" or "government-provided", but it ain't free.

Second, government provision of health insurance for the poor is a form of welfare for the poor, like food stamps. Taking your question and applying it there, why 'penalise' higher-income people by refusing to buy their food or send them a welfare check and provide low-income housing? Couldn't we all use free food and rent assistance at all times? Of course we could.

But the answer to your question is "because they're not being penalized, obviously". Having a safety net at the bottom of the ladder is a polite, caring, and proper thing to do in the artificial construct of our society, but never should we cause people to be dependent on hand-outs. That's not what we're about.

Your question, then, assumes what it sought to prove . . . that government should be in the business of providing health care to its citizens.

that smacks of communism to me.

I have never seen the term "communism" employed in that fashion. That seems a complete reversal of the meaning of the term. Communism would be a term better suited to government taking over the health care industry, which is the very idea Bush was trying to stop.

Don't get me wrong, here . . . I'm not averse to a certain level of automatic health care for citizens. While not a utilitarian, I recognize that there would be a certain utility to the idea. A healthy workforce is a productive, happier workforce, and I can see a few basic needs being met, like certain accidental off-the-job injuries and other such non-elective procedures, yearly check-ups (in support of one seeking preventative care), and other reasonable ideas.

It's worth considering. However, there is a certain bit of slippery slope to it, because having gone that far it becomes too easy for the government to go that much further. Then we end up with state-run healthcare, with all the inefficiencies, life micromanagement, denials of service, and myriad other problems that such a thing entails.

Further, how does the fact that the Democrats are playing political games and managed to outmanouevre Bush change the fact that he refused to sign the bill, and therefore allowed the Act to lapse?

Again you insert your conclusions in the wording of your question. Congressional Democrats knowingly and willfully allowed the act to lapse. They knew months in advance that Bush would reject a bill like the one they sent, therefore they knew they were wasting time furthering it and sending it to him at the last minute.

With the warning, the ball was in their court. It was their choice to send the unsignable bill. It was their choice to wait until the last moment. And per the quotes of them given, they knew exactly what they were doing.

Even if they believed there was an outside chance Bush's hand would be forced into signing the bill since they had held the program's continuance hostage, the fact remains that they used poor children as pawns and hostages in a gamble, instead of behaving reasonably.

To paraphrase a line someone said to me, if you're going to find someone to defend, must it be people like those?

[Captain Seafort]

"Penalise" and "denying them free health care" are interesting phrasings, the reverse of what occurred.

First, there's no such thing as free health care. You can call it "automatic" or "government-provided", but it ain't free.

Second, government provision of health insurance for the poor is a form of welfare for the poor, like food stamps. Taking your question and applying it there, why 'penalise' higher-income people by refusing to buy their food or send them a welfare check and provide low-income housing? Couldn't we all use free food and rent assistance at all times? Of course we could.

But the answer to your question is "because they're not being penalized, obviously". Having a safety net at the bottom of the ladder is a polite, caring, and proper thing to do in the artificial construct of our society, but never should we cause people to be dependent on hand-outs. That's not what we're about.

Your question, then, assumes what it sought to prove . . . that government should be in the business of providing health care to its citizens.

My reference to "free" was with regard to the individual recieving that health care, or "free at the point of delivery". Health care is a different matter matter to food or housing, since the cost of the former is trivial in comparison, and the latter is sufficiently scarce that some method of who is to recieve it must be devised. Then again, you state that I assume that governments should be in the business of providing health care to its citizens. To turn that around on you, why should they not be in that business.

I have never seen the term "communism" employed in that fashion. That seems a complete reversal of the meaning of the term. Communism would be a term better suited to government taking over the health care industry, which is the very idea Bush was trying to stop.

Don't get me wrong, here . . . I'm not averse to a certain level of automatic health care for citizens. While not a utilitarian, I recognize that there would be a certain utility to the idea. A healthy workforce is a productive, happier workforce, and I can see a few basic needs being met, like certain accidental off-the-job injuries and other such non-elective procedures, yearly check-ups (in support of one seeking preventative care), and other reasonable ideas.

It's worth considering. However, there is a certain bit of slippery slope to it, because having gone that far it becomes too easy for the government to go that much further. Then we end up with state-run healthcare, with all the inefficiencies, life micromanagement, denials of service, and myriad other problems that such a thing entails.

Government health care, free at the point of delivery, is an example of socialism, not communism. The communist ideal of reducing all individuals to the same level, in other words penalising the sucessful, is what strikes me as similar to the method of health care supplied by the US Government.

As for your complaints about state-run health care, you cite inefficiencies, life micro-management and denials of service. The first is an issue, certainly, but one that is more than made up for by the removal of the requirement for private health insurance by each individual, the removal of varying standards from one location to another, and the guarantee that the required standard health care will be supplied across the whole nation, rather than being limited to those areas where it is economically viable. Life micro-management - what are you talking about? How does state-run health care = micro management. Denial of service - sure it happens, in which case you can either go private or dip out. It's certainly a problem, but given the limited money available, it's a price that must be paid for the advantages outlined above.

Again you insert your conclusions in the wording of your question. Congressional Democrats knowingly and willfully allowed the act to lapse. They knew months in advance that Bush would reject a bill like the one they sent, therefore they knew they were wasting time furthering it and sending it to him at the last minute.

With the warning, the ball was in their court. It was their choice to send the unsignable bill. It was their choice to wait until the last moment. And per the quotes of them given, they knew exactly what they were doing.

Even if they believed there was an outside chance Bush's hand would be forced into signing the bill since they had held the program's continuance hostage, the fact remains that they used poor children as pawns and hostages in a gamble, instead of behaving reasonably.

To paraphrase a line someone said to me, if you're going to find someone to defend, must it be people like those?

Exactly - the Democrats outmanouevred Bush in order to gain a political advantage. You can go on and on about the claim that "he said he was going to veto the bill", but that doesn't change the fact that it was Bush that vetoed it, not the Democrats. They forced him to chose between passing the bill and acting in line with his own political opinions on public health care. Rather than admit that he'd been outmanoeuvred he exercised his veto.

[DSG2k]

Then again, you state that I assume that governments should be in the business of providing health care to its citizens. To turn that around on you, why should they not be in that business.

You're turning around on me what you still assume . . . you're not answering the basic idea of why the government should control health care.

In other words, you're like "I think X", I'm asking "why", and you're asking "why not?" Not much of a conversation, there.

I would argue that the default position is that the US government should be involved in as few things as possible, and allow market forces and private companies to handle the rest. The argument could be made that the current state of health care in the United States is based on the fact that the government is too involved, as opposed to being not-involved-enough.

The communist ideal of reducing all individuals to the same level, in other words penalising the sucessful, is what strikes me as similar to the method of health care supplied by the US Government.

Providing a safety net at the bottom may be less-than-capitalist, but it is not communist. Calling it penalization of the rich that the safety net is only at the bottom is a most peculiar mental reversal of what is actually occurring.

Your concept of penalizing the successful could be successfully applied to the present US tax code, for instance, where the more you make the higher the percentage of your money the government forces from you and into its coffers. I could roll with you on that one.

By your standard, if a guy gives money to the poor he's a communist for not giving the same amount to everyone, including those richer than he is. To do otherwise is to punish the rich. That's a most interesting take on the matter, to say the least.

As for your complaints about state-run health care, you cite inefficiencies, life micro-management and denials of service. The first is an issue, certainly, but one that is more than made up for by the removal of the requirement for private health insurance by each individual, the removal of varying standards from one location to another, and the guarantee that the required standard health care will be supplied across the whole nation, rather than being limited to those areas where it is economically viable.

I'm not aware of insurance being regional, other than in the case of state-by-state issues. There are varying standards of care in the country, though, that's true. A large urban hospital may be able to afford the latest technology that the smaller, more rural hospital may not. But how would that be significantly different in nationalized health care? Canada's health care system costs less per capita, but a higher standard of care is available in the United States because we invest in the latest technologies.

Hospitals are already required to provide emergency service whether or not the patient can pay, which is why areas of high illegal immigration have more hospitals with more financial trouble.

Life micro-management - what are you talking about? How does state-run health care = micro management.

Vices, less-than-vices, and general life choices can be used as excuses to deny coverage and services.

Denial of service - sure it happens, in which case you can either go private or dip out.

You make it sound so easy and painless. But if the government is controlling health care and health insurance, the money you've put in via taxes is no longer available to you . . . how precisely do you intend to get that operation you require which your governmental overlords have decreed is unnecessary to the common good?

Exactly - the Democrats outmanouevred Bush in order to gain a political advantage.

And did so at the expense of poor children. You don't find that despicable?

You can go on and on about the claim that "he said he was going to veto the bill", but that doesn't change the fact that it was Bush that vetoed it, not the Democrats.

If you know X is going to happen if you do Y, but X happening works to your advantage so you do Y, then how is the executor of X at fault?

To put it another way:

You work to put food on your child's plate. But your boss tells you that if you don't get that report in on time and in the correct format, you won't receive a paycheck that week. If you're grandstanding for your fellow employees and turn in an unacceptably-formatted report intentionally and at the last minute, thereby losing your paycheck, how is it the boss's fault that your kid gets crumbs that week?

They knew what precious things they had to guard.
For me, I will not spare the tyrants one harsh word.

[Aaron]

Then again, you state that I assume that governments should be in the business of providing health care to its citizens. To turn that around on you, why should they not be in that business.

You're turning around on me what you still assume . . . you're not answering the basic idea of why the government should control health care.

In other words, you're like "I think X", I'm asking "why", and you're asking "why not?" Not much of a conversation, there.

I would argue that the default position is that the US government should be involved in as few things as possible, and allow market forces and private companies to handle the rest. The argument could be made that the current state of health care in the United States is based on the fact that the government is too involved, as opposed to being not-involved-enough.

Then how do you deal with the fact that every other nation in the first world has a national heath care program and even some second tier nations such as Cuba have them and that the infant mortality rate of the United States ranks below all of them? In fact the state of health care in the rest of the first world is excellent where as in the United States upwards of 20 million citizens don't even go to the doctor for regular check-ups because they can't afford it. The national health care schemes are the result of more government involvement and in your example: the US where there is minimal involvement the health care stinks. Unless your rich or middle class, even then getting cancer could end you up in the poor house.

This libertarian wank fest has no basis in reality as do most of your social or political views.

[Captain Seafort]

Re: Bush using his veto. You blame the Democrats for continuing to push for an expansion of the bill despite Bush's veto threat. Do you not grasp the point that Bush is at fault for being the individual who actually vetoed the bill? The Democrats outmanoeuvered him by giving him a simple choice between his political beliefs and renewing the bill. He chose to place his political beliefs above the welfare of US citizens. Your 'example' refering to an employer and an employee is utterly irrelevent. Congressmen and women do not work for the President, they work for their constitutents. The President is employed and chosen by the electorate of the United States to represent their interests, not to throw their interests (as expressed by elected representatives of the electorate) out rather than sign a document he personally disagrees with.

Re: State health care. A purely private health care system is dependant on the economic viability of each individual company providing that care, be that a hospital or a GP's surgery. If an individual company ceases to be economically viable it either shuts down or increases prices, with the result that the availability of health care is reduced. The technology, expertise and drugs available to any given patient are dependant on the wealth of the individual company. Finally, the primary objective of the company, as with any company is to make a profit - its loyalty is to its shareholders, not its patients. Nationalised health care is not perfect, but it's better than that.

[DSG2k]

Then how do you deal with the fact that every other nation in the first world has a national heath care program and

"Deal with the fact"? I needn't "deal with the fact". Nations differ. Even in Canada, often pointed to as an example for the United States' ponderings on the matter, the initial government-run health care has now become a mix of private and public, in part due to circumstances where the public system fails.

Now, if you're simply asking why there's a difference between assorted nations on the matter, there are plenty of opinions. Some suggest that we were too busy with the Cold War in the 60's when many other nations nationalized their health care systems. Given the problems that many such countries have experienced (e.g. Japan, Canada, et al.), the general opinion might've been that we dodged the bullet. Others might argue that our medical community, used to handsome rewards for service, might've disliked the idea and lobbied to prevent it. For a time, too, we were the undisputed champions of healthcare advances, so having folks from the world over come to us for advanced medical treatments might've produced an ego regarding our system, one not necessarily properly placed (and which is now deflating a bit as medical advances occur everywhere). Alternately, it might simply be that we read more Orwell.

Opinions differ, and the truth is probably a mix of many such options.

even some second tier nations such as Cuba have them

Cuba's communist. Of course it would have more overlords and no privatization.

and that the infant mortality rate of the United States ranks below all of them?

Infant mortality rates are useful in broad strokes, but depend mightily on the criteria employed. Many former Soviet bloc countries, for example, still use a recording methodology that deflates their numbers by some 20%. Some European countries, such as Germany, Switzerland, and Austria, would refuse to count as live births similar at-risk births that occurred in the United States.

Indeed, the US is probably the most self-deprecating reporter worldwide, since (1) almost all our births are recorded at a hospital thanks to medical access, (2) any evidence of life causes a live birth to be recorded, possibly contrary to stillbirth definitions used elsewhere (see WHO 1959, and the US confusion on the matter), and (3) greater access to high-tech methods that could save some, but not all, at-risk pregnancies that might otherwise result in simple stillbirth/miscarriage as would be reported elsewhere.

In fact the state of health care in the rest of the first world is excellent where as in the United States upwards of 20 million citizens don't even go to the doctor for regular check-ups because they can't afford it.

I wouldn't go that far. Frankly, most Americans are stupid . . . myself included . . . and only go to the doctor if something's obviously wrong. Other than work physicals where required, seemingly-healthy people might not see a doctor for years . . . and yet if you peer into their homes you'll find computers with spiffy onboard extras, big TVs, VHS and DVD players, closets full of spiffy clothing, and assorted other toys. The cost of a checkup, even uninsured, might be equal to a particular toy, but if given the choice I'd wager most Americans would get the toy rather than the checkup. (Even the insured might not go despite the checkup being covered, since it usually isn't required to maintain coverage.) This is only going to be more true as time goes on, in my opinion.

Take, for instance, some of the recent poster children for the Democrat healthcare maneuvers. The Democrats have been using Graeme Frost, 12, from Baltimore and his family to try to underscore the need for a nationalized health care program in the United States, and specifically to give Bush crap over their forced SCHIP veto:

Bonnie Frost works for a medical publishing firm; her husband, Halsey, is a woodworker. They are raising their four children on combined income of about $45,000 a year. Neither gets health insurance through work.

Having priced private insurance that would cost more than their mortgage - about $1,200 a month - they continue to rely on the government program. In Maryland, families that earn less than 300 percent of the federal poverty level - about $60,000 for a family of four - are eligible.

The Senate staffers wrote the script for Graeme.

"My parents work hard and always make sure my sister and I have everything we need, but the hospital bills were huge," he says in the address. "We got the help we needed because we had health insurance for us through the CHIP program. But there are millions of kids out there who don't have CHIP, and they wouldn't get the care that my sister and I did if they got hurt."

Except this is all crap. The family which supposedly only brings in $45,000 (the "woodworker" dad actually owns a design and construction firm and the property it sits on) lives in a Baltimore historic district (i.e. expensive), and sends two of their children to a private school *simultaneously* at $20,000/yr each, and he has hundreds of thousands wrapped up in business holdings and the house mortgage. More at this link and this link.

A big house in a historic district, and private school for the kids . . . yet we're supposed to accept that their only choice for healthcare is a public program?

I feel for the folks, I really do . . . but you can't tell me they couldn't find a cheaper place to live and make use of public education to make up the difference.

We want our cake and to eat it, too . . . we want the standard of living of someone who has our income to spend on the 'necessities', but fail to account for other details. This is why most Americans have almost nothing saved up, and instead live in debt. This is why we're going to be screwed in the coming century . . . we're getting soft. But that's a discussion for another time.

This libertarian wank fest has no basis in reality as do most of your social or political views.

I'm glad you think most of my social and political views have a basis in reality . . . thank you for noticing.

As for me, I'm undecided on the health care thing. There are certain arenas in which collective action (via the government) is the best way to do things . . . NASA in the 60's, the military, et cetera.

However, there are many areas where the government's involvement is more an impediment than an asset. And when it comes to controlling who gets medical treatment and who doesn't, the concept of government involvement scares the hell out of me. It takes three hours to get a frickin' driver's license, for crying out loud. The current medical industry at least features competition, so you know if it's gonna take hours and hours just to see anybody you can drive on elsewhere. A government bureaucracy in its stead just seems a bad idea. Ever see "Critical Care"[VOY]? Just ponder that on a grander scale.

That said, I'm not immediately opposed to a limited collective effort on healthcare . . . even if it's just reform of the current system. On the one hand I like the idea of government-assisted emergency services, screenings and checkups. But I'm still concerned about the prospect of a slippery slope.

[DSG2k]

Do you not grasp the point that Bush is at fault for being the individual who actually vetoed the bill?

No, I do not, and I don't believe you've thought the matter through. I've given one example already. Another would be this . . . if I were to tell you that I had the power to ban you if your next message did not conform to an in-between opinion, and if your banning would hurt some third party were it to happen within the next week, why would you then decide to continue to argue your case at the present time?

Obviously it would be mere grandstanding on your part, knowingly and willfully at the expense of the third party. If it were just you and me and a crowd, then yeah . . . go for it. And yeah, you can call me a butthole all day long for threatening the ban that might hurt the third party this week. But the solution would be simple . . . wait. Then give me no end of crap about it.

Similarly, the Democrats waited until the program would lapse before submitting legislation they knew would be vetoed. It's mere grandstanding. Yes Bush set the terms, and you can argue about that, but you cannot deny that the Democrats at least share the blame equally, even if you refuse to accept that theirs is the primary fault.

More tomorrow.

[Aaron]

"Deal with the fact"? I needn't "deal with the fact". Nations differ. Even in Canada, often pointed to as an example for the United States' ponderings on the matter, the initial government-run health care has now become a mix of private and public, in part due to circumstances where the public system fails.

Bzzt, wrong as usual your either lying or can't be bothered to check your facts. The dual tier system is in use only in Alberta where it's been such a dysmal failure that the private cliics have come begging for government handouts.

Now, if you're simply asking why there's a difference between assorted nations on the matter, there are plenty of opinions. Some suggest that we were too busy with the Cold War in the 60's when many other nations nationalized their health care systems. Given the problems that many such countries have experienced (e.g. Japan, Canada, et al.), the general opinion might've been that we dodged the bullet. Others might argue that our medical community, used to handsome rewards for service, might've disliked the idea and lobbied to prevent it. For a time, too, we were the undisputed champions of healthcare advances, so having folks from the world over come to us for advanced medical treatments might've produced an ego regarding our system, one not necessarily properly placed (and which is now deflating a bit as medical advances occur everywhere). Alternately, it might simply be that we read more Orwell.

Opinions differ, and the truth is probably a mix of many such options.

No the truth of the matter is that your politicians are to busy sucking corporate cock for them to even think of instituting a non-profit system. Half of them when questioned on the subject just throw up the smoke screen of "it'll never work here".

Cuba's communist. Of course it would have more overlords and no privatization.

How does that invalidate the fact that they have a public system and the "land of the free" does not? Don't dodge the issue.

Infant mortality rates are useful in broad strokes, but depend mightily on the criteria employed. Many former Soviet bloc countries, for example, still use a recording methodology that deflates their numbers by some 20%. Some European countries, such as Germany, Switzerland, and Austria, would refuse to count as live births similar at-risk births that occurred in the United States.

Indeed, the US is probably the most self-deprecating reporter worldwide, since (1) almost all our births are recorded at a hospital thanks to medical access, (2) any evidence of life causes a live birth to be recorded, possibly contrary to stillbirth definitions used elsewhere (see WHO 1959, and the US confusion on the matter), and (3) greater access to high-tech methods that could save some, but not all, at-risk pregnancies that might otherwise result in simple stillbirth/miscarriage as would be reported elsewhere.

So your excuse is that your higher infant mortality rate is because of better recording standards? Despite the fact that all the First World nations would be oblifgated to report an infant death to either the hospital, the police, or the coroner depending on where the baby was born. What a bloody joke, as usual your attemting to spin your lies into something other people will swallow.

I wouldn't go that far. Frankly, most Americans are stupid . . . myself included . . . and only go to the doctor if something's obviously wrong. Other than work physicals where required, seemingly-healthy people might not see a doctor for years . . . and yet if you peer into their homes you'll find computers with spiffy onboard extras, big TVs, VHS and DVD players, closets full of spiffy clothing, and assorted other toys. The cost of a checkup, even uninsured, might be equal to a particular toy, but if given the choice I'd wager most Americans would get the toy rather than the checkup. (Even the insured might not go despite the checkup being covered, since it usually isn't required to maintain coverage.) This is only going to be more true as time goes on, in my opinion.

Well I'm glad we agree on one thing, the average American is a frothing retard. But the fact remains that people in countries with universal health care visit the doctor more regularly and are encouraged to see the doctor for yearly check-ups. The same would hold true for the US where a competant system in place.

*snip*

The point is that they shouldn't have to fork out the money for health insurance. The United States as a naton is rich enough to be able to afford to give health care for all it's citizens regardless of their lifestyle choice.

We want our cake and to eat it, too . . . we want the standard of living of someone who has our income to spend on the 'necessities', but fail to account for other details. This is why most Americans have almost nothing saved up, and instead live in debt. This is why we're going to be screwed in the coming century . . . we're getting soft. But that's a discussion for another time.

Who gives a shit, yes Americans are soft and lazy and weak. But they should still have access to free health care, a right that every other first world citizen has and many other "shithole" nations do as well but is continuely denied to them out of greed and outdate veiws on the part of your administration and corporations.

*snip pointless rambling*.

Just save yourself the trouble and copy Canada's system point for point. It's quick, effiecent, fairly cheap and it works. There's no shame in copying a superior system and no need to make an American version when your just going to cock it up anyways.

[DSG2k]

The dual tier system is in use only in Alberta where it's been such a dysmal failure that the private cliics have come begging for government handouts.

"Bzzt, wrong as usual your either lying or can't be bothered to check your facts."

Why be a dick when you're wrong? It just makes you look stupid.

The court decision was from Quebec. The .pdf referencing it was from a national medical association. Per the CBC in Dec. 2006, "The incidence of health care providers practicing outside a provincial system is on the rise. Provinces like Quebec have seen significant growth in private, for-profit clinics. These clinics allow those who are willing to pay for services to obtain them without the usual wait times, which is in direct violation of the Canada Health Act." See also the increasing growth as of August '07.

I don't claim to be an expert on Canadian healthcare, but all sources point to a private + public system in Quebec. Many other provinces have laws similar to the ones which applied in Quebec, overturning the ban on strictly-private practices. That's not even counting the private supplements to public stuff all across Canada.

No the truth of the matter is that your politicians are to busy sucking corporate cock

So the above is your considered and reasoned response to what I said?

Cuba's communist. Of course it would have more overlords and no privatization.

How does that invalidate the fact that they have a public system and the "land of the free" does not? Don't dodge the issue.

Who's dodging? You're assuming a public system is intrinsically better than a free-market system, that Cuba's public system so qualifies, and ignoring the fact that a privatized for-profit competitive healthcare system in a frickin' communist country would make no sense in the first place. If you have a non-communist 'second-tier' example, feel free to use it, otherwise you're missing the whole point.

So your excuse is that your higher infant mortality rate is because of better recording standards? Despite the fact that all the First World nations would be oblifgated to report an infant death to either the hospital, the police, or the coroner depending on where the baby was born. What a bloody joke, as usual your attemting to spin your lies into something other people will swallow.

No, you're ignoring the known, reported differences in IMR calculations country-by-country, which in at least some cases of first-world nations (e.g. Russia) results in 20-25% shifts in the data. Look it up.

There's lies, damned lies, and then statistics. You're guilty of mindless use of all three (especially your damned-lies attempts to claim that I'm lying just to cover up your own ignorance).

But the fact remains that people in countries with universal health care visit the doctor more regularly and are encouraged to see the doctor for yearly check-ups.

We're encouraged here when insured and still don't . . . do you really think we'll be more inclined to go when we're having to wait in absurdly long lines?

The point is that they shouldn't have to fork out the money for health insurance. The United States as a naton is rich enough to be able to afford to give health care for all it's citizens regardless of their lifestyle choice.

Why do people think the US is rich enough to do everything in the world? In 2007, we spent 1.62 TRILLION . . . over half the budget . . . on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment, and Welfare. (For those counting at home, Medicare and Medicaid alone cost 670.9 billion.) Add another 243 billion on interest on the national debt, and you're at over two-thirds of our 2.8 trillion dollar budget.

Hillary claims her plan to nationalize healthcare will only cost 110 billion, but that's obviously crap . . . SCHIP alone costs 72 billion, and that's not for everyone, or even most everyone. Not to mention the lost revenue from the healthcare industry taxes.

free health care, a right

1. It's not free.
2. What makes it a right?

*snip pointless rambling*.

I'm sorry, I mistakenly thought you wanted to discuss nationalized health care's pros and cons. Seafort brought it up and you continued it.

Or would reading my pointless rambling have deflated your silly "libertarian wank fest" claim?

[Captain Seafort]

most Americans are stupid . . . myself included

I agree wholeheartedly, particularly with the second bit. Sigged.

No, I do not, and I don't believe you've thought the matter through. I've given one example already. Another would be this . . . if I were to tell you that I had the power to ban you if your next message did not conform to an in-between opinion, and if your banning would hurt some third party were it to happen within the next week, why would you then decide to continue to argue your case at the present time?

That sounds very much like Bush's antics - outright blackmail in an attempt to force Congress to kow-tow to him. Thanks for proving my point. You're still dodging the point that Bush was the one who was putting personnal feelings above the needs of the electorate by vetoing the bill. The fact that he'd already threatened to do so and the Dems refused to submit to his attempted blackmail is irrelevent except to demonstrate Bush's contemptable nature.

[DSG2k]

most Americans are stupid . . . myself included

I agree wholeheartedly, particularly with the second bit. Sigged.

Oh how noble . . . stripping a quote from its context (i.e. intentional misquotation, i.e. lying) and attempting to use it as an insult at all times with every message you post. Color me unimpressed by your childishness.

You're still dodging the point that Bush was the one who was putting personnal feelings above the needs of the electorate by vetoing the bill.

You're still refusing to accept that if the electorate needed a working SCHIP program, then it was the responsibility of Congress to do its grandstanding before it lapsed due to Bush's "personnal feelings" (since of course, to your mind, he can't possibly be serving the needs of the electorate).

I even gave you an exit route compromise from your absurd position ("share the blame equally") in the last message, one which you have ignored in your Bush-hatred lunacy.

[Captain Seafort]

So even when I agree with something you post you whinge and whine about it?

I refuse to acept an "exit route" that involves any golden mean fallacy or letting the real culprit off the hook. Bush's action's were attempted blackmail pure and simple. I'm not sure whether to be irritated by your inability to see this or pity you for it.