Ryan's Budget and the debt limit

[whell]

Originally Posted by merrylander

The facts are that Canada's Single Payer plan has less overhead than Blue Cross/Blue Shield spends in just the state of Masachussets. It also does not have any seven figure executives and bargains prices with Big Pharma, example Florence's BP medication is $599 for a 90 day supply, in Canada it is under $250. Novartis must still be making a profit at those prices because they still supply the Canadian market. We so enjoy being screwed that we keep spreading the myth that America is paying for all the research. If you believe that line of malarkey we are having a special on the Bay Bridge next week. Does this answer your How come?

Times are changing in Canada too. The demographic changes driving consumption are just a bit behind the US.

http://www.conferenceboard.ca/documents.aspx?did=616
http://www.vancouversun.com/health/W...536/story.html
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/...h.care.system/
http://www.vancouversun.com/health/r...751/story.html

Oh, by the way, before we start pining for the Canadian system for the US, consider:

Canada's total population is 33,751,000 - while the U.S. is around 307,183,000 people. Whatever issues the Canadian system is facing now, just multiply them by a factor of about 10.

[BlueStreak]

The most important and wonderful thing to me, as far as the "Single Payer" issue goes, is this;

It's one less thing an asshole employer has to hold over my head. I can tell the jerkoff to "bite me" and have one less thing to lose. I'm sure this is also an aspect of it that they hate, besides having to help pay for it. A workforce less dependent on them is a scary thing for them, to be sure. It means they have to work even harder and pay more out to maintain control. Same reason they despise "unemployment insurance", SS and Medicaid/Medicare. These things help sustain people after they've stopped working. And a slave driving butthole just can't have that, now can he? They're no longer laboring under the heavy weight of his yoke, and he's helping pay for it. Poor baby.

Dave

[d-ray657]

Blue - you is smokin'

Regards,

D-Ray

[BlueStreak]

Actually, I do realize people do have some incentive to work. Without it, no one would work. But, incentive is just the operative word to point out. Threatening someone with poverty and disenfranchisement if they don't drag the stone is NOT incentive---it's punishment for failing to obey your master. Incentive, to my mind, would be to offer someone something over and above what they already have.

And, I believe certain things are basic human necessities---like access to healthcare, a roof over their heads and food in their bellies. I pay taxes too, and I don't mind helping pay for these things. Unfortunately, that is a lonely opinion these days. I also happen to realize, that one day, we will ALL be too old to work, barring some tragic accident or illness, of course...........Some of us seem to have been brainwashed into thinking this is not so. That "True Patriots" work until they die and that SS and Medicare are nothing more than handouts for slackers. Fools. Damned fools, facing into the wind, tally-whacker in hand, ready to pee.

Dave

[merrylander]

Good old whell ank his linkies; Single payer cost me 0.8% on my taxable income and $54 per month for the family plan - if they doubled that it is still cheaper than $10,000 a year here. As for the sad story of the lady on CNN I really am sispicious about them. My sister-in-law went to Emergency with chest pains - they made here comfortable and installed a pacemaker next morning. My nephew has has two hip joint replacements. His sister recently had back surgery aand is now walking, before she had been confined to a wheel chair. The woman in the CNN link did not say if she had gone to Emergency or not, if she did not she was a fool and so was her internist.

BTW I fail to see what he population difference makes, we are more or less looking after the population at the moment, or are you concerned that people who do without healthcare now will actually get to see a doctor? SinglePayer also covered preventative medicine, maybe that in addition to good genes accounts for why I do not use prescription drugs. On my first visit to our new internist his receptionist asked what drugs did I take. I said if I ever get a headache maybe a Bufferin.

Ah but I know if it was not invented here it can't be any good.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

Actually, I do realize people do have some incentive to work. Without it, no one would work.

This is sure not universal although I do agree with you that in many many occupations where capitalism has caused a slave/slave owner environment this is indeed true.

it's ashame how adversarial a relationship generally is between workers and owners under our present system

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by whell

Well, if that's your logic, they don't you think the government is being cruel and heartless by doling out a mere pittance, and keeping the poor in poverty? Why not just pay out $50K a year to anyone who falls below a particular income level. Or why not just raise minimum wage so that everyone can make at least $50K per year?

finally we agree! However, I don't think cash or your dollar amount is well though out, it seems Whell though out.
I firmly believe each family should have a decent place to live and a bit of land, food and health insurance.

If Medicare is your model of a efficient and solvent system, then it no wonder you think single payer is a wonderful thing.

What would you submit as better? I think you don't know what you are talking about.

Projection. Very interesting.

No not at all. I think you are a good egg with a fear of honest reasoned dialogue. You seem trapped in a cycle of partisanism that somehow gives you security that independent thought does not.
I am very serious I find it fascinating.

[whell]

Originally Posted by noonereal

finally we agree! However, I don't think cash or your dollar amount is well though out, it seems Whell though out.
I firmly believe each family should have a decent place to live and a bit of land, food and health insurance.

So how would that work, exactly? You're suggesting that each family should just "have" a decent place to live, a bit of land, food and health insurance? Is that just given to families? By whom?

Since most of the land in the US is already owned by individuals, corporations, trusts or the gov't, would the gov't then confiscate land and redistribute it? How much land should each family get, and who decides?

What about single individuals? Do they get no land because they're not part of a family, or do they get less? What if they get married and start a family later? Does they have to find someplace on their own, or does a government agency relocate them to land deemed appropriate for families?

Is food just given away then? Would farmers, grocery workers, food distributors and manufacturers become gov't workers? Do restaurants still get to be owned by private individuals? How do they stay in business when food is available for free?

Of course, none of it is free, really? Someone's going to have to pay for this somehow, right? Who might that be?

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by whell

So how would that work, exactly? You're suggesting that each family should just "have" a decent place to live, a bit of land, food and health insurance? Is that just given to families? By whom?

Since most of the land in the US is already owned by individuals, corporations, trusts or the gov't, would the gov't then confiscate land and redistribute it? How much land should each family get, and who decides?

What about single individuals? Do they get no land because they're not part of a family, or do they get less? What if they get married and start a family later? Does they have to find someplace on their own, or does a government agency relocate them to land deemed appropriate for families?

Is food just given away then? Would farmers, grocery workers, food distributors and manufacturers become gov't workers? Do restaurants still get to be owned by private individuals? How do they stay in business when food is available for free?

Of course, none of it is free, really? Someone's going to have to pay for this somehow, right? Who might that be?

Land is not a problem, we have lots.
By birth we have a God damned right to earth and some of it's resources.

As you said nothing is free so most your questions are bogus.

We all share in both the labor and rewards, not one group labors and the other group enjoys the rewards as now. But if people cannot labor we are plenty wealth enough to alone them to live on a piece of land and not force them to live homeless.

[whell]

Originally Posted by noonereal

Land is not a problem, we have lots.
By birth we have a God damned right to earth and some of it's resources.

As you said nothing is free so most your questions are bogus.

We all share in both the labor and rewards, not one group labors and the other group enjoys the rewards as now. But if people cannot labor we are plenty wealth enough to alone them to live on a piece of land and not force them to live homeless.

We have a right to the earth and it's resources. WTF? My city still charges me for water. Will you please talk to them for me?

I wanna live in your world, man. I won't need to work. Just show up with one of those notes that the docs were handing out to the union folks in Wisconsin, and I can get me some land to squat on and a hunk of government cheese.