Who do you support for President, now that Fred has dropped out?

[H.E. Pennypacker]

Originally Posted by Eugene V. Debs

You already do if you have health insurance. Insurance, even private insurance, is, by its nature, a collective system-- multiple people pay into it and multiple people collect. As long as there's health insurance, public or private, you will be paying for someone else's healthcare.

The current patchwork of private insurance carriers only serves to inflate costs by compartmentalizing provider compensation, increasing administration of compensation, and red-tape. Canada's system only has 1-2% of its costs as adminstrative (compare that with 30-40% for most private insurers here). Having a single insurer would be much more efficient than our current, disjointed, confusing system.

The USA ain't Canada - whatever our government has a hand in, the confusion, cost, and pain-in-the-ass-ness goes up tenfold.

The nice thing is, health insurance is optional here. If you want to pay out of pocket, that's your prerogative. When you automatically get taxed for health insurance, there's no choice in the matter. It's one step closer to socialism, and one step closer to the USSR and Vietnam and Korea who we all went to war with!

[P89]

Originally Posted by Eugene V. Debs

Most Canadians I've talked with are satisfied with their system. People crossing the border for surgeries are usually doing so for elective surgeries.

My Canadian friends are looking to get the hell out of there for a whole slew of reasons. We've had the conversations about them coming here but they see the trend of the U.S. following suit. Lets face it, Government isn't going to rest until every last one of us is completely under their thumb.

[Aran]

Originally Posted by Eugene V. Debs

Most Canadians I've talked with are satisfied with their system. People crossing the border for surgeries are usually doing so for elective surgeries.

Same.

Hell, *I* got covered by my host's ... I don't know what to call it, it's not quite a POLICY, since it's governmental... insurance when I was staying with friends for a few weeks in Ontario a few years back when I got an eye infection.

Beyond giving them my name and my host's address (Their system spit back an error when we tried to use my address, since it's set up for six digit with space postal codes, not five digit zip codes) there were no complications, we were in and out in under 20 minutes, complete with antibiotic eyedrops from the in-house pharmacy.

If I ever have to go to the doctor in a semi-emergency (I don't want to go into detail, but it was a BAD infection) again, I want it to be in Mississauga, Ontario.

[Eugene V. Debs]

Originally Posted by Slim Pickens

Nice try, Debs. Here is a 19 page treatise comparing Medicare to the private sector:

http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/re...ublication.pdf

Furthermore, how can "pro-capitalist" economists claim that the US healthcare system is a "market failure" when it is so heavily regulated that market forces have NOTHING to do with the cost of healthcare in this country? Am I going to get a better price on an MRI if I shop around? Flatly, the answer is "no."

Slim

I'll read it over when I get a chance, but the source does have both a material and an ideological interest in painting government health insurance as being less efficient than private health insurance:

The Council for Affordable Health Insurance (CAHI) is a research and advocacy association of insurance carriers active in the individual, small group, HSA and senior markets. CAHI's membership includes insurance companies, small businesses, providers, nonprofit associations, actuaries, insurance brokers and individuals. Since 1992, CAHI has been an active advocate for market-oriented solutions to the problems in America's health care system.

That being said, I look it over when I get a chance.

[Slim Pickens]

Originally Posted by Eugene V. Debs

I'll read it over when I get a chance, but the source does have both a material and an ideological interest in painting government health insurance as being less efficient than private health insurance:

The Council for Affordable Health Insurance (CAHI) is a research and advocacy association of insurance carriers active in the individual, small group, HSA and senior markets. CAHI's membership includes insurance companies, small businesses, providers, nonprofit associations, actuaries, insurance brokers and individuals. Since 1992, CAHI has been an active advocate for market-oriented solutions to the problems in America's health care system.

That being said, I look it over when I get a chance.

I agree, they do have a dog in the race, but they also provide sufficient references to source material (which is of utmost importance in my opinion).

Slim

[Eugene V. Debs]

Originally Posted by H.E. Pennypacker

It's one step closer to socialism, and one step closer to the USSR and Vietnam and Korea who we all went to war with!

Yeah, Canada and the rest of the developed world are just like North Korea and the USSR. Oh, I guess maybe they are just on the road to that-- must be a long damn road considering the rest of the industrialized world has had it for many decades.

Okay, I see why pro-free market folks would be against single-payer healthcare, but to suggest that if we adopt it we're on the march towards a Stalinist dystopia is absolutely ludicrous and flies in the face of reason.

[Eugene V. Debs]

Originally Posted by P89

Lets face it, Government isn't going to rest until every last one of us is completely under their thumb.

That's true, but I don't see single-payer or socialism as being part of the equation, at least not in this country.

For example, with the exception of Paul and Gravel, all the Presidential candidates are statists. And with the exception of Kucinich and Gravel, no one is advocating for single-payer healthcare. Hillary, Edwards and Obama's plans are all more corporate welfare than socialism. And none of the candidates are socialist. None. Gravel and Kucinich come closest, but even they are not seriously proposing a major restructuring of capitalist economic relations.

So while I share the fear of others here of an ever encroaching Big Brother government, I find the fear of socialist government in the U.S. laughable. I know it's fashionable for conservatives and Libertarians to call anything they don't like "socialists" But there is exactly one socialist in Congress-- one! And Bernie's about as moderate of a "socialist" as you'll run across. This idea that all Liberals are really just socialists is absolutely preposterous. American Liberalism is a reaction to socialism, but it is not itself socialism, it is a capitalist ideology (perhaps not a "free-market" capitalist ideology, but capitalist nonetheless).

[BearTitan]

This thread has really turned the corner. I'm going over to the Connecticut Firearms Owners Association website and stir up some shit...

[Eugene V. Debs]

Originally Posted by BearTitan

This thread has really turned the corner. I'm going over to the Connecticut Firearms Owners Association website and stir up some shit...

We got some orgs in CT but nothing as cool as PAFOA. Connecticut is lame-- can't blame me for wanting to hang out in PA, even if only online, now can ya?

[phillyd2]

Nice to have yet another sophisticated poster of fine words parsed in a circle and willing to debate every topic down to the last comma.

No disrespect to a fellow Huskie but the liberal agenda in this country as supported by the left wing and championed by the Democratic party is in the direction of socialism, no matter what you want to call it. Its major thesis remains increased government control of every aspect of our lives.

I'm beyond annoyed at the They Are All the Same mantra spewed by some. I'm even more annoyed by the If Its Not Ron Paul Its Nobody stance by some. All are free to do as they wish and at this point in my life I'll be ok even with Madam Clinton in office. But please stop trying to sell me that they are all the same. No, they are NOT! While the Republicans have more than lost their way recently, note the phrase: "lost their way" because the Democrats have no such self doubt about their positions. At the very least Republicans are sinners who know they have sinned. Democrats only are disappointed because they have not sinned as much as they would have liked and are not ashamed to say they intend to sin more.

To me there is no such debate or confusion. While not too thrilled at the current Republican field I am under no illusion that even the best Democrat would be any better than the worst Republican.

Mike Gravel? Are you F'ing serious? The same idiot who after his second bankruptcy said that he was "only hurting the credit card companies, who deserved it". While others may agree and enjoy this kind of class warfare BS I want none of it.