• 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!

People say they're moving to Canada because of Obamacare

Jetboogieman said:
So therefore I don't have to be tied to a particular job because of Health Benefits and therefore can find which section of the economy I can be more productive in, which is exactly what I did.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I wonder if employment-based health insurance is such a great idea why we haven't put everything else (life, auto, mortgage, long-term care, homeowners) onto the same basis. I mean, that way, if you lost your job, you wouldn't have coverage for anything at all. Think how cool that would be.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Yeah and one of the reasons for that is economic mobility, especially in regards to health care.

I pay for my health care via taxes, because of that whichever province I move to will provide me health care as long as I sign up for their provincial insurance plan, which is free except BC which is $50 a month I believe.

So therefore I don't have to be tied to a particular job because of Health Benefits and therefore can find which section of the economy I can be more productive in, which is exactly what I did.
Click to expand...
I would argue that employer-provided insurance is one of the reasons costs are so high...there is another middle man involved in the process. Also, the idea that free market healthcare means employer-provided insurance is a common misconception. Government heavily encourages employer-provided insurance, and now thanks to Obamacare employers are forced to provide insurance or face fines. The irony is in the history of employer-provided insurance. During WWII, the federal government implemented wage controls, preventing wages from rising above a certain point. Yet they said health insurance did not count as wages for the purpose of the laws. It was at this time that employers offered health insurance to attract workers. They had no other way to do it legally.

To make matters worse, government added tax incentives to encourage employer-provided healthcare. The tax advantages were made even more attractive and fully codified in the 1954 Internal Revenue Code. Over the next few decades, employer-provided healthcare was the dominant form of insurance, which is no surprise.

The result? Workers are less likely to discriminate based on cost, for their employers are footing much of the bill. Providers of healthcare services have the incentive to provide more expensive services that are hardly more effective than the cheaper versions, because again those who receive the services are not paying for them directly (the employer is). It is difficult for an employer to monitor all of these healthcare costs while maintaining a successful business.

To add insult to injury, in 2000 43% of all medical expenses were paid for by government. The notion that healthcare is "private" in America is nonsense.

So when it comes to mobility, the problem originated with bad government policy decades ago, and has only been enforced since then and made mandatory with Obamacare.
 
Last edited:
rocket88 said:
Yes, people are so fed up with "socialized health care" in America, that they're moving. To Canada :lamo
Click to expand...
Well, that should shorten the waiting lines.
 
Cardinal Fang said:
Yeah, I wonder if employment-based health insurance is such a great idea why we haven't put everything else (life, auto, mortgage, long-term care, homeowners) onto the same basis. I mean, that way, if you lost your job, you wouldn't have coverage for anything at all. Think how cool that would be.
Click to expand...

You have to be alive and healthy to need any other insurance aside from Health...health you need to umm...well if you dont know already I guess theres no reason to splain it :)
 
Lakryte said:
So when it comes to mobility, the problem originated with bad government policy decades ago...
Click to expand...
Bad policy? Can you tell us if and how Americans got health care cover in the 1920's and 30's? It was in fact perfectly good policy at the time and continued for decades to be so. The problem came on the scene much later as two trends in particular began to develop -- first, rapidly accelerating health care costs (much of it not actually related to health care at all), and second, the ripping apart of the ties that used to bind a particular worker to a particular employer over time. The past is in any case done and cannot be undone. Wishing for things to have been otherwise will have absolutely no effect at all.

Lakryte said:
...and has only been enforced since then and made mandatory with Obamacare.
Click to expand...
LOL! Where do you suppose patrons of all these state-run exchanges are going to come from?
 
Last edited:
Cardinal Fang said:
Yeah, I wonder if employment-based health insurance is such a great idea why we haven't put everything else (life, auto, mortgage, long-term care, homeowners) onto the same basis. I mean, that way, if you lost your job, you wouldn't have coverage for anything at all. Think how cool that would be.
Click to expand...

Employment based health insurance has never seemed like a good idea to me. Part of the reason jobs get outsourced is so that they don't have to pay for healthcare for all these employees.
 
rocket88 said:
Employment based health insurance has never seemed like a good idea to me. Part of the reason jobs get outsourced is so that they don't have to pay for healthcare for all these employees.
Click to expand...

That's fine. I've never been able to find a Constitutional Mandate for the Government to be involved in healthcare. So how about this.... The government gets out of the business of healthcare, we get employers out of the business of healthcare, and we just let everyone buy (or not buy) their own policy? Sounds good to me, how about you?
 
Tigger said:
That's fine. I've never been able to find a Constitutional Mandate for the Government to be involved in healthcare. So how about this.... The government gets out of the business of healthcare, we get employers out of the business of healthcare, and we just let everyone buy (or not buy) their own policy? Sounds good to me, how about you?
Click to expand...

why do you still care? aren't you renouncing your citizenship and moving away in a couple of months?

as for your question, i agree that health care should be in no way related to specific employment. it's a lose-lose situation that makes employers uncompetitive and screws employees every time they switch jobs. we'd be much better off with national basic coverage. the method i'd prefer would be expanding medicare, as that would give the program a lot more bargaining power when it comes to prices. if people wanted additional coverage, they could purchase it privately. however, as i've previously stated, i'd be willing to consider a plan custom made for America using other first world solutions as a template.
 
Helix said:
why do you still care? aren't you renouncing your citizenship and moving away in a couple of months?
Click to expand...

Call it a philosophical exercise, and I will still have family members here in the US even after I leave.

Helix said:
as for your question, i agree that health care should be in no way related to specific employment. it's a lose-lose situation that makes employers uncompetitive and screws employees every time they switch jobs. we'd be much better off with national basic coverage. the method i'd prefer would be expanding medicare, as that would give the program a lot more bargaining power when it comes to prices. if people wanted additional coverage, they could purchase it privately. however, as i've previously stated, i'd be willing to consider a plan custom made for America using other first world solutions as a template.
Click to expand...

The problem with that being the fact that your founding documents have no provision for any such program; or are you just going to continue to ignore that document as your government has for the last century and a half?
 
My wife and I are self insured, the concept of employer based insurance is the same as Costco, buy in bulk and save. I guarantee there is no savings cutting loose from the group. Where my wife and I see savings is by shopping around for doctors and dentists who give a discount for paying in cash for minor things. 20 to 25% or I go elsewhere.

Our Health insurance is the equiv of 2.50 an hour in wages, that is not the reason companies outsource, the 30 cents an hour wage a chinee factory worker makes is. The lack of much concern what the factory dumps in a river is. Worker survivability isn't as big a concern when millions are waiting to take a maimed worker's place. Living 7 in a tiny barrack style room is.

It is interesting some support tariffs to protect American workers driving up the cost of goods but balk at healthcare because they figure it would do the same.
 
Tigger said:
Call it a philosophical exercise, and I will still have family members here in the US even after I leave.



The problem with that being the fact that your founding documents have no provision for any such program; or are you just going to continue to ignore that document as your government has for the last century and a half?
Click to expand...

the constitutionality was settled under Helvering v Davis, 1937.
 
Helix said:
the constitutionality was settled under Helvering v Davis, 1937.
Click to expand...

Let's just say I am not a very big fan of MOST of the rulings the SCOTUS came out with in that era.
 
Tigger said:
Let's just say I am not a very big fan of MOST of the rulings the SCOTUS came out with in that era.
Click to expand...

if you support the drug war, though, it's largely enabled by Wickard v Filburn, another ruling of that era.

you win some, you lose some, i guess.
 
That's funny, I guess they don't know that Canada has Health care delivered through a publicly funded health care system,
 
Tigger said:
I require a government that does more than just talk about maintaining order in society.
Click to expand...
Well you'll work harder with a gun in your back
For a bowl of rice a day
Slave for soldiers til you starve
Then your head skewered on a stake
Now you can go where people are one
Now you can go where they get things done
What you need my son:

Is a holiday in Cambodia
Where people dress in black
A holiday in Cambodia
Where you'll kiss ass or crack
 
Helix said:
if you support the drug war, though, it's largely enabled by Wickard v Filburn, another ruling of that era.

you win some, you lose some, i guess.
Click to expand...

the justices who came up with that idiocy should have been broken on the wheel
 
mertex said:
That's funny, I guess they don't know that Canada has Health care delivered through a publicly funded health care system,
Click to expand...

Just this morning I heard that 46K Canadians come to the US for healthcare because the wait in Canada is 40-60 days.
 
A few points.

First, I find it hilarious that conservatives consider themselves an oppressed minority. I guess not being in charge for the first time feels like oppression, doesn't it? Wait until someone actually oppresses you, you'll go berserk.

Second, instead of blaming each other for sending jobs to China and empowering them at our own expense, how about we all just agree to stop doing it?

Third, shouldn't we pursue whatever system will allow us to, based on an objective measurement, provide the best healthcare we possibly can? And for the most efficient cost? Whatever that system is, shouldn't that be what we use? And shouldn't we base it off of evidence, rather than slogans or political ideology?
 
Third, shouldn't we pursue whatever system will allow us to, based on an objective measurement, provide the best healthcare we possibly can? And for the most efficient cost? Whatever that system is, shouldn't that be what we use? And shouldn't we base it off of evidence, rather than slogans or political ideology?
Click to expand...

Exactly...in fact that's how Taiwan came up with their healthcare system. They did a long term study of multiple countries and looked for the system that was coste effective and provided the best care. It's not rocket science, we can easily come up with a system that doesn't suck up 20% of our GDP and provides as good or better care than our current system does.
 
They are in for a big surprise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom