• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NL Premier Williams Set to Have Heart Surgery in US

My whole family is from Newfoundland. I was born in Toronto and grew up there. It's not my problem you're too damn ignorant to know where NL is. There are lots of people from NL dispersed all over Canada. Get a clue.

1. I never said I don't know where Newfoundland is. :lol:

2. I obviously wasn't talking about you, I was talking about the people who self-righteously bag on Canada's health care system while hardly knowing the first thing about Canada, much less its health care system.

I'd say "get a clue," but it's obvious you didn't actually read my post, so I won't bother.
 
True.
There are multiple ways of being held to account, after all...

A government, if democratically elected, can be held to account by not being re-elected, or being impeached, or whatnot.

A private corporation/entity can be held accountable through loss of business, fines if their industry is regulated in some way and they violated those regulations, and lawsuits if they violated the law in some way.

In both cases, negative or positive publicity can exacerbate or alleviate part of the consequences.

Of the two, however, I think there are more consequences hanging over private agencies than over public ones.
Not to mention, I am opposed to almost any growth of government control/power.

The flaw in your thinking is that supply/demand dynamics work the same with health care. If someone needs emergency care, they won't care if it's government run or run by corporations, they will want to survive. People can't turn away from corporate-run health care because they still need it, so the market doesn't end up determining anything.

The main difference between the two is who foots the bill at the end. I'd much rather UHC distribute the cost to all tax payers than let a corporation gouge me when I am the most vulnerable. I care about my fellow countrymen, so my tax dollars going toward their care doesn't bother me.

The last thing sick people need is to be stressed by the prospect of having to sell their house in order to pay for life saving treatment. Canada's system is better. You can nit pick at the little details all you want, but you still get the care you need in this country, and it doesn't ruin your life to get it.
 
It isn't free, unless no one pays taxes in Canada...

I'm so damned ignorant that what I think what Orion means is that requiring medical attention doesn't require a personal loan or a second mortgage to pay expenses that you wouldn't otherwise experience if you didn't require medical attention.
 
It isn't free, unless no one pays taxes in Canada...

Technically that's true, but compared to what I'd be paying if I had no UHC, it basically is free to me.
 
1. I never said I don't know where Newfoundland is. :lol:

2. I obviously wasn't talking about you, I was talking about the people who self-righteously bag on Canada's health care system while hardly knowing the first thing about Canada, much less its health care system.

I'd say "get a clue," but it's obvious you didn't actually read my post, so I won't bother.

I'm sorry.

.....
 
Technically that's true, but compared to what I'd be paying if I had no UHC, it basically is free to me.
True, but who said I wasn't being technical? :mrgreen:
 
The flaw in your thinking is that supply/demand dynamics work the same with health care. If someone needs emergency care, they won't care if it's government run or run by corporations, they will want to survive. People can't turn away from corporate-run health care because they still need it, so the market doesn't end up determining anything.

The main difference between the two is who foots the bill at the end. I'd much rather UHC distribute the cost to all tax payers than let a corporation gouge me when I am the most vulnerable. I care about my fellow countrymen, so my tax dollars going toward their care doesn't bother me.

The last thing sick people need is to be stressed by the prospect of having to sell their house in order to pay for life saving treatment. Canada's system is better. You can nit pick at the little details all you want, but you still get the care you need in this country, and it doesn't ruin your life to get it.
Interestingly enough, I recently was introduced (in this thread) to another idea, which might work better than our current system or the UHC idea.

It seems to me that it could be used like a mini-UHC, in a way.

Thoughts?
 
Interestingly enough, I recently was introduced (in this thread) to another idea, which might work better than our current system or the UHC idea.

It seems to me that it could be used like a mini-UHC, in a way.

Thoughts?

It could be a good intermediate step on the way to community health care in a place that doesn't have it, but I would not want Canada backtracking to something like that.

I think the foundational difference between Canada and the U.S. when it comes to health care is cultural. I support Canada's UHC and its taxing of citizens to provide for it, but in the U.S. the staunch right wing and libertarians are against that kind of government control. There are fiscal reasons to be against it which I am more sympathetic to, but the moral reasons don't make much sense to me. I'm Canadian though, so my values are different.
 
It could be a good intermediate step on the way to community health care in a place that doesn't have it, but I would not want Canada backtracking to something like that.

I think the foundational difference between Canada and the U.S. when it comes to health care is cultural. I support Canada's UHC and its taxing of citizens to provide for it, but in the U.S. the staunch right wing and libertarians are against that kind of government control. There are fiscal reasons to be against it which I am more sympathetic to, but the moral reasons don't make much sense to me. I'm Canadian though, so my values are different.
As I am one of those against government control (my libertarian tendencies are showing), I especially like the small-scale, local/state setup...and the lack of another massive federal bureaucracy.
 
As I am one of those against government control (my libertarian tendencies are showing), I especially like the small-scale, local/state setup...and the lack of another massive federal bureaucracy.

In Canada health care is a provincial responsibility. The only way the feds are involved is through enforcing certain standards through law, using their spending power. If provinces don't meet the standards laid out in the Canada Health Act, they lose the transfer payments for health care that they would have otherwise gotten from the feds.
 
As I am one of those against government control (my libertarian tendencies are showing), I especially like the small-scale, local/state setup...and the lack of another massive federal bureaucracy.

That's originally how corporations started. They were local initiatives. Now look at them.

The U.S. is too consumerist for local initiatives like health care to work, in my opinion. People are too busy spending money to want to save it, and people are too selfish due to accumulation of goods to want to have some kind of local UHC. Not to mention, how would that work if someone needs million dollar procedures like cancer therapy? It would use up all of the group fund.

Whereas the entire collective of the nation would make the group fund way bigger and harder to exhaust.
 
That's originally how corporations started. They were local initiatives. Now look at them.

The U.S. is too consumerist for local initiatives like health care to work, in my opinion. People are too busy spending money to want to save it, and people are too selfish due to accumulation of goods to want to have some kind of local UHC. Not to mention, how would that work if someone needs million dollar procedures like cancer therapy? It would use up all of the group fund.

Whereas the entire collective of the nation would make the group fund way bigger and harder to exhaust.
Or if it were state-wide...
 
Or if it were state-wide...

I don't agree with state sovereignty in this case. It wouldn't be fair for some states to have UHC when others don't.

Within the states, that would mean putting it up to a majority vote, even if that majority is 51%. That means 49% of people would've wanted UHC. UHC represents everyone: those who want it and those who don't.

Those who don't want it will be grateful for it when they need it. They are self-righteous until they need an ER and they can't afford it, or their insurance company double crosses them.

Something like 17-18% of the GDP is used on health care in the U.S. It would be around 15% or less if there were a UHC system. If you look at all the Western nations who have some kind of UHC system, their collective cost is less than it would be if everyone was stuck with private.

Everyone has to be on board or it won't last.
 
I don't agree with state sovereignty in this case. It wouldn't be fair for some states to have UHC when others don't.

Within the states, that would mean putting it up to a majority vote, even if that majority is 51%. That means 49% of people would've wanted UHC. UHC represents everyone: those who want it and those who don't.

Those who don't want it will be grateful for it when they need it. They are self-righteous until they need an ER and they can't afford it, or their insurance company double crosses them.

Something like 17-18% of the GDP is used on health care in the U.S. It would be around 15% or less if there were a UHC system. If you look at all the Western nations who have some kind of UHC system, their collective cost is less than it would be if everyone was stuck with private.

Everyone has to be on board or it won't last.
See, I can understand the arguement that health care should be paid for by everyone because someone lacking it effect everyone (albeit indirectly in most cases).

But I can also understand and agree with arguements against it, or at least some forms of it.

Perhaps if there were local "co-ops", as discribed in the link in that thread I linked...
And the local "co-ops" received funding from the state and federal level, but could use those funds (within reasonable a framework) to purchase healthcare from private providers (of their choice) for their area in a way they saw best...that would eliminate some of my issues with the idea of UHC.

It would still promote competition, thus (IMO) spuring improvements, and it would give everyone health care, as defined at the local level (within a reasonable framework, of course).
 
See, I can understand the arguement that health care should be paid for by everyone because someone lacking it effect everyone (albeit indirectly in most cases).

But I can also understand and agree with arguements against it, or at least some forms of it.

Perhaps if there were local "co-ops", as discribed in the link in that thread I linked...
And the local "co-ops" received funding from the state and federal level, but could use those funds (within reasonable a framework) to purchase healthcare from private providers (of their choice) for their area in a way they saw best...that would eliminate some of my issues with the idea of UHC.

It would still promote competition, thus (IMO) spuring improvements, and it would give everyone health care, as defined at the local level (within a reasonable framework, of course).

That sounds like an extra layer of bureaucracy that even most UHC systems don't have.
 
See, I can understand the arguement that health care should be paid for by everyone because someone lacking it effect everyone (albeit indirectly in most cases).

But I can also understand and agree with arguements against it, or at least some forms of it.

Perhaps if there were local "co-ops", as discribed in the link in that thread I linked...
And the local "co-ops" received funding from the state and federal level, but could use those funds (within reasonable a framework) to purchase healthcare from private providers (of their choice) for their area in a way they saw best...that would eliminate some of my issues with the idea of UHC.

It would still promote competition, thus (IMO) spuring improvements, and it would give everyone health care, as defined at the local level (within a reasonable framework, of course).

Why would the government contribute money but relinquish oversight?

The other problem is, costs are high because insurance companies have a monopoly on the market. I wouldn't want my tax dollars going to co-ops who would then in turn use it to purchase private insurance. That would be at greater cost than a UHC system itself.

We wouldn't even be having this discussion in the first place if corporate monopolies weren't willfully gouging people and double-crossing them in their insurance contracts. It also fails to address the millions who are ineligible for private insurance because of the thousands of pre-existing conditions that the companies won't allow.

UHC needs to exist because the current system is a laughing stock.
 
That sounds like an extra layer of bureaucracy that even most UHC systems don't have.
Perhaps, but it might also be necessary for some people to accept it. And I think it would be more effective than a one-size-fits all approach.

Why would the government contribute money but relinquish oversight?
Because...the people who vote for them want it that way? Obviously...And additionally, it isn't the government contributing money, it's the taxpayers contributing money that they expect some return for. Again, obviously.

The other problem is, costs are high because insurance companies have a monopoly on the market. I wouldn't want my tax dollars going to co-ops who would then in turn use it to purchase private insurance. That would be at greater cost than a UHC system itself.
First off, competing health insurance companies are not a monopoly...after all, who else but another health insurance company would compete with them?
Secondly, I didn't say anything about insurance companies, why not just pay a local health clinic directly? The "co-ops" could REPLACE private health insurance.
We wouldn't even be having this discussion in the first place if corporate monopolies weren't willfully gouging people and double-crossing them in their insurance contracts. It also fails to address the millions who are ineligible for private insurance because of the thousands of pre-existing conditions that the companies won't allow.
And if a local or area "co-op" was collectively purchasing health care, would it not be reasonable to assume that they could far more easily demand coverage for pre-existing conditions, and any other issues that you mentioned...If they don't like the terms, they could form their own "health insurance" company, paid out of the collective fund, and say "screw you" to any health insurance companies attempting to "gouge" them. This would, it would seem, force any health insurance company to offer terms they could agree to, if they wanted to stay in business...

UHC needs to exist because the current system is a laughing stock.
Why is it a laughing stock?
You can't just say A is necessary because B, without proving B.
 
Perhaps, but it might also be necessary for some people to accept it. And I think it would be more effective than a one-size-fits all approach.

But you'd basically be paying for this huge, unwieldy bureaucracy that would only really be there for the benefit of private insurance corporations. There's no real point to this, except to benefit corporate interests. That is why most countries that have universal health care don't have a middle man, and provide health coverage directly to the people from the government.
 
But you'd basically be paying for this huge, unwieldy bureaucracy that would only really be there for the benefit of private insurance corporations. There's no real point to this, except to benefit corporate interests. That is why most countries that have universal health care don't have a middle man, and provide health coverage directly to the people from the government.
I think I explained ways that it wouldn't benifit the insurance corporations in the rest of my post. But I could be incorrect.
And why would it be a massive bureaucracy?

It could just be a team reviewing the standards set locally (all through paperwork), and checking to see that they met federal and state standards.
Not intricate standards, just basic ones, like, for example:
  • Everyone must be covered.
  • Pre-existing conditions must be covered.
 
I think I explained ways that it wouldn't benifit the insurance corporations in the rest of my post. But I could be incorrect.
And why would it be a massive bureaucracy?

It could just be a team reviewing the standards set locally (all through paperwork), and checking to see that they met federal and state standards.
Not intricate standards, just basic ones, like, for example:
  • Everyone must be covered.
  • Pre-existing conditions must be covered.

Fair enough, I envisioned something bigger than that. But I still see no need for a middle man IMO.
 
I think I explained ways that it wouldn't benifit the insurance corporations in the rest of my post. But I could be incorrect.
And why would it be a massive bureaucracy?

It could just be a team reviewing the standards set locally (all through paperwork), and checking to see that they met federal and state standards.
Not intricate standards, just basic ones, like, for example:
  • Everyone must be covered.
  • Pre-existing conditions must be covered.

I'd add all emergency treatment covered.
No patented treatments covered.
Allow the states healthcare to bargin on volume.
 
Hey, I think America has the best health care system too.

Just because I want a national health care policy so that everyone can take advantage of it doesn't mean I don't think we're the best (for those who can afford it).
No one here wants UHC, and it hasn't shown to be scaleable at our population size, nor with our demographic diversity.
 
No one here wants UHC, and it hasn't shown to be scaleable at our population size, nor with our demographic diversity.

US 350 Million.
EU 500+ Million.

EU has 27 different native nationalities, with hundreds of native ethnic differences.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom