You should see the reports coming out of England. Or the lawsuit by cuban Doctors against the socialist paradise of Venezuela.

Successfully updated karma reason!

In Gamble, Obama and Dems Prepare to Ram Health Care Through

AP

Obama strongly signaled at Thursday's summit that Democrats will move forward on a health care overhaul with or without Republicans. At stake are Democrats' political fortunes and the fate of Obama's agenda. Link

Forest Gump said it best "Stupid is as Stupid does". Remember, Obama can do no wrong, he is doing what the people want even though the people don't want it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I just spoke on Wednesday with an old Canadian friend of mine. She had to have surgery performed but would have to wait. She works for the court system in Timmins and has good insurance. Her insurance company authorized her to come to the US for her procedure at a US hospital (which she praised).

She said months later, she got a call from the Canadian heath care checking to see if she still wanted the care. Of course she declined, grateful the US had the time for her immediately. I told her that their are folks here that want to model the Canadian system for the US. I imagine that many of those doors will shut for foreigners if that does happen.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Yesterday, I got all my ironing done while watching the entire Summit. The fact that the American people by in large oppose Obamacare was brought up over and over, but no one of the Democrats ever acknowledged it.

Obama isn't stupid, (although his lockstep followers seem to be)....he's focused on dragging America into European style Socialism and a global "New Deal". He promised "change"...transformational change which will be a disaster and thanks to the Net, blogging, FOX cable, etc., "we the people" (who really have the power) are wise to it...the recent elections prove that.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Last week, at work, we did a roundtable to talk about the healthcare system here in Montreal. We went about personnal experiences, and stories members of our families heard.

The general consensus was that it was a good system, that took care of you when you needed it. It wasn't perfect, as some people clutter it for unwarranted reason, but we got only 1 story of bad experience out of the 30 that went around the room, and it was mostly because of the hospital's administration that the free healthcare system itself.

When I got my operation as a kid, everything went down smoothly. When my best friend got an accident, he got treated and went out of the hospital the same day. When a kid's got cancer, the parents only has to worry about her health, as nothing will ever be charged to them.

It isn't the wreck you picture it. It isn't a "paradise", but it isn't hell. It's a system that takes care of the majority or the problems, and all the emergencies, but because of some's problems are less urgent, they are delayed because of lack of ressources localy. This is the main problem that we are trying to face.

But it's not a 3rd-world country-rate system. I don't think there is a perfect system yet.

Successfully updated karma reason!

But it's not a 3rd-world country-rate system. I don't think there is a perfect system yet.

Sounds like nothing a little tax increase won't solve.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Sounds like nothing a little tax increase won't solve

Actually, you are wrong about that mentality. More and more people in our population are thinking that the solution is in a more efficient administration than simply plowing more money into the problem.

Don't assume we are living in a dumb socialist state. We know the problem our society face, and are quite aware of the causes. We just don't always agree on the solutions, and just like the U.S., we need to balance our points of view from time to time.

But you do know that currently, an all-public healthcare system is only present in a handful countries in the world (Canada included)? Taking *a* step toward more government care won't convert everything to such a system. Private administration will still be the majority element in your country, and you will have a nice hybrid public/private system, like in the U.K., France, and most other countries in the world.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Cikomyr,

reply 7

Actually, you are wrong about that mentality. More and more people in our population are thinking that the solution is in a more efficient administration than simply plowing more money into the problem.

Unfortunately for us (America), we are all too familiar with that problem, and the government response. While they do decry the fraud and waste, their solution is always more money, and no reforms (or meaningful reforms).

Quoting Cikomyr,

reply 7

Don't assume we are living in a dumb socialist state. We know the problem our society face, and are quite aware of the causes. We just don't always agree on the solutions, and just like the U.S., we need to balance our points of view from time to time.

I don't think anyone thinks of Hockey Canada that way. But as many commonalities that America and Canada have, there are as many significant differences. One of the most glaring is just the sheer size of the 2 countries. What can be done on a small scale does always scale well to a much larger (10x) basis. And the size issue is the major one. And that is what concerns most Americans about the whole socialized health care issue. When you are dealing with 100 or 1000 people, there is more intimacy than when you are dealing with 1 million. Americans have a lot more influence on the local level, where you can actually talk to and have your elected official remember you, than on a national scale where they represent a million or millions of people.

Quoting Cikomyr,

reply 7

Private administration will still be the majority element in your country, and you will have a nice hybrid public/private system, like in the U.K., France, and most other countries in the world.

That is not a given. The plans before congress all have one thing in common. Ways to drive the private companies out of the business. That concerns us as well, because then you have just a monopoly of ineffeciency. The republicans, much to the consternation of many of the democrats, do not want to reject reform out of hand, but to actually reform it, not completely remake it. But they have no voice in the matter due to the over whelming majorities of democrats. If some of their ideas were actually incorporated into a bill, it would not only be much cheaper thant he current versions, but also more effective and more widely supported.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Ways to drive the worst private companies out of the business.

Corrected that for you. It will change the business environment one way or the other, and the weakest will stop doing business.

I will finish my comment later, all right? Gotta do something else

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Cikomyr,

reply 9

Ways to drive the worst private companies out of the business.
Corrected that for you. It will change the business environment one way or the other, and the weakest will stop doing business.

I will finish my comment later, all right? Gotta do something else

To the democrats, all private companies are the worst, so the meaning is really unchanged from their perspective. And they are running the show.

Successfully updated karma reason!

To the democrats, all private companies are the worst

Waiiiiiit..

Isn't that a little harsh? Come on. I know there are some Democrats that are that level of socialists, but they aren't the majority of their party, not by a long shot. The main reason many of them wants more government intervention is because of the bad practice of some companies. Since those companies make (sadly) a better profit, these push the competitors to adopt some other policies that are detrimental to the society/customers.

Rein in those bad practices by putting a governement alternative, and companies who can compete will do so. I personnaly trust the market to do the most efficient thing. Not necessarely the best thing.

Successfully updated karma reason!

For the most part, I do agree with you. However the leaders of the party (Obama, Pelosi and Reid) are very anti- BB and socialist. And as much as we would like to think that a representative is just that (representing the people), more often than not (at least of late), they toe the party line. The purpose of this 2000+ page bill is to kill the insurance industry, and they will succeed. Unless some democrats get a backbone.

I personnaly trust the market to do the most efficient thing. Not necessarely the best thing.

Best being subjective. For the market, efficiency is the best thing.

Successfully updated karma reason!

For the market, efficiency is the best thing.

For the customers, it isn't always.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I don't think anyone thinks of Hockey Canada that way.

Look, at the way the conservatives are depicting us, you had me fooled since I have been 13.. (12 years ago)

But as many commonalities that America and Canada have, there are as many significant differences. One of the most glaring is just the sheer size of the 2 countries. What can be done on a small scale does always scale well to a much larger (10x) basis. And the size issue is the major one. And that is what concerns most Americans about the whole socialized health care issue. When you are dealing with 100 or 1000 people, there is more intimacy than when you are dealing with 1 million. Americans have a lot more influence on the local level, where you can actually talk to and have your elected official remember you, than on a national scale where they represent a million or millions of people.

Which only underline your ignorance of the canadian system and reality. You know that the administrative level in Canada is at the Provincial level? (Province is the equivalent of State in Canada). The federal law states the "Grand Line" the provinces should adminstrate their things, but they are usually blur and flexible ennough to allow lots of difference between Alberta and here Quebec.

the same thing could be achieved in the USA. Having Federal laws preventing inter-state abuses would be the best way to control exagerations, but outside of this, the states should be the one to provide administration.

For the most part, I do agree with you. However the leaders of the party (Obama, Pelosi and Reid) are very anti- BB and socialist. And as much as we would like to think that a representative is just that (representing the people), more often than not (at least of late), they toe the party line. The purpose of this 2000+ page bill is to kill the insurance industry, and they will succeed. Unless some democrats get a backbone.

The democrats? Hating the insurance companies? They are probably the ones the most in arms of the insurance and high finance lobbies.

Have you considered that Obama is not the profit-hater you depict him as to be? Seriously, have you considered that the difference between Obama and your rethoric is about the same between Bush and his detractors at the time?

Bush wasn't that bad as some people decried him to be. Well.. you know, maybe Obama isn't as bad as some of his political ennemies, those who have the most to win to depict him THAT BAD, make it sound. In the end, it simply freezes the debate

Successfully updated karma reason!

Look, at the way the conservatives are depicting us, you had me fooled since I have been 13.. (12 years ago)

I don't think they are depicting "you" as much as just demonizing your health care system. You like it a lot, but then Danny Williams apparently does not.

Which only underline your ignorance of the canadian system and reality. You know that the administrative level in Canada is at the Provincial level? (Province is the equivalent of State in Canada). The federal law states the "Grand Line" the provinces should adminstrate their things, but they are usually blur and flexible ennough to allow lots of difference between Alberta and here Quebec.

Far from it, it merely accentuates the commonalities, and yet the differences. You have 35m, right? Ok, now try governing 310m. This is not a provincial or state issue. It is purely federal. You indicate I am ignorant because your system is run by 10 provinces where the population averages 3m (up to about 8 for Ontario?). Try running a centralized plan for 310m and growing from Ottawa.

the same thing could be achieved in the USA. Having Federal laws preventing inter-state abuses would be the best way to control exagerations, but outside of this, the states should be the one to provide administration.

Let me call your attention to the bolded word. You are correct because you used that word. Indeed, some of the republican plans have even gone so far as to try to aid with the second statement above. Removing the bar on interstate commerce (which is the role of the Federal government) when it comes to medical insurance. The problem is that Obama and the other democrats have cut that out.

The democrats? Hating the insurance companies? They are probably the ones the most in arms of the insurance and high finance lobbies.

As we have already seen, they make love in the night, and then villianize during the day. The only thing the democrats like is the money from the insurance companies. They (Barney Frank and Obama being the leading 2) have already said they want them gone since they are "evil". Of course the companies gave money to the democrats. They wanted to try to be the "Good Quisling", but as anyone who has read about the Fox and the Gingerbread man knows, the marriage never makes it across the river.

Have you considered that Obama is not the profit-hater you depict him as to be? Seriously, have you considered that the difference between Obama and your rethoric is about the same between Bush and his detractors at the time?

I would love to consider it! Show me where? I do not fault a tiger for being a tiger. Obama has never hidden his contempt for private enterprise (he did after all tell Joe the Plumber - tough shit). Obama did not run as a friend of private business. he ran on the platform that government does not do enough. So I can consider it, but then there is no basis to believe it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

funny that the democrats wan't insurance companies gone... what with their role in having them established in the first place.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting taltamir,

reply 16

funny that the democrats wan't insurance companies gone... what with their role in having them established in the first place.

They created the HMOs and cant stand them now either. Goes back to the road to hell and best of intentions.

Successfully updated karma reason!

more like "good intentions of stupid people who demand instant implementation and capitulation to their demands and refuse to listen when smarter people tell them exactly how it is going to be wrong, instead accusing the smarter people of being evil, eating babies, and wanting people to die if they get sick"

How is it that everyone with half a brain predicts exactly what is going to happen with perfect accuracy? I can do it, most conservative talk radio hosts can do it, most economists can do it... and yet to the democrats it is always "completely unexpected"... actually they say "nobody could predict"... it is really funny/insulting when they say this on the positive effects of something someone else has done.. ex: Barak Obama: "I admit that I was wrong about the surge not working, nobody could have predicted that it would be as successful as it was"... really? if nobody could predict it, how come they did it? did the people who pass it think it was going to fail? bah.

So, no... the road to hell is not paved with good intentions. its paved with arrogance and stupidity. My good intentions are to stop obamacare. Their good intentions is to force obamacare on the people who don't want it. Its not the good intentions thats making them ruin this country, but the disregard to the rights of people, freedom, the constitution, and experts in the field.

Successfully updated karma reason!

and yet to the democrats it is always "completely unexpected".

And they are supposed to be the smart ones. LOL

Successfully updated karma reason!

And they are supposed to be the smart ones. LOL

and yet, conservative are supported to be the ones who limit government spending

Yet another reason why I don't think rethoric isn't that much of a big deal, whoever the politician is. Bush and republicans kept increasing the government's budget during a time of great economical prosperity for the whole world (and the country), which is.. just.. not normal for people who claimed to be conservatives.

Both sides are rotten, mesay.

Successfully updated karma reason!

and yet, conservative are supported to be the ones who limit government spending

Conservatives yes, republicans no. Do not confuse the 2.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Conservatives yes, republicans no. Do not confuse the 2.

Until I see a Conservative Party in the White House..

Or until I see the GoP stop claiming they represent the conservative side of the issue

I will confuse both of them as much as I want. Specially as Bush run his campaign as a conservative. And as many GoP representative at the time also ran as conservative, but have donne little to nothing to cut spendings when the president was on their side (as opposed to their good job when Clinton was around)

Successfully updated karma reason!

but have donne little to nothing to cut spendings when the president was on their side (as opposed to their good job when Clinton was around)

Do you mean the same same Clinton with the Republican controlled congress? Are you giving Clinton the credit for keeping the congress in line? I do believe Bill told the public, after the 94 elections, "I hear you and will comply" (something to that effect). At the same time I don't believe the 2006 Congress get near enough "credit" for their spending habits...it was all "inherited" in 2008 after all. The Rep's do deserve their share of the blame, no argument there. I just get a kick out of when liberals complain about fiscal conservatism. Everyone knows it's not their concern at all, just something to point to. Kind of like a fisherman complaining others were catching too many fish, as they are reeling them in just as fast as they can.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Bush was the president, the president controls the military, not spending. Current congress was bending over backwards to do what obama wanted instead of their job (and it was their job to control spending) for some odd reason. they have stopped though. the reason we haven't socialized healthcare yet is because democrats in congress STOPPED bending over backwards for obama (while still controlling congress).

As for republican control of congress... they controlled congress from 2002 to 2006. Democrats were in power between 2000-2002, and between 2006 and 2008 (so, only half of bush's presidency). and currently of course.

Did you know there were several republican proposed bills to stop sub par lending that were shot down by democrats? did you know the republicans actually cut taxes when last in power? Did you know that while bush supported the first bailout, a supermajority of the republicans in congress opposed it, and a super majority of democrats voted for it?

A simple google search:

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/65211

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll674.xml

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR03997:

Democrats: 140 AYES, 95 NOES

Republicans: 65 AYES, 133 NOES, 1 NV

and unlike the democrats, the republican voter base has been swift to label as traitor anyone who voted for it and give them the boot. to the point where now every single republican congressmen is unified in saying no to the healthcare nationalization bill...

I am having more difficulty finding the senate results... someone please link them if you have it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Cikomyr,

reply 11

To the democrats, all private companies are the worst
Waiiiiiit..

Isn't that a little harsh? Come on. I know there are some Democrats that are that level of socialists, but they aren't the majority of their party, not by a long shot.

I agree with you here. If all Democrats thought that way their bill(s) would have passed a long time ago as they do have a majority capable of ramming through anything they want. As it is, there are enough of them among their own party who still have some common sense and are trying to do the right thing instead of simply furthering an ideological agenda.

Rein in those bad practices by putting a governement alternative, and companies who can compete will do so.

I disagree. The solution isn't to create a government alternative that is doomed to be inefficient and wastful, not to mention highly expensive to the taxpayers, but to change how the existing insurance companies are regulated. They are already regulated so it won't need to be anything new and expensive, simply change some of the regulations. First and foremost is to do away with their anti-trust excemption. That alone will go a long way towards evening out the playing field between the companies and create true nation-wide competition between them.

Secondly is to clamp down on some of their less than honest practices and ensure they can't screw people over. Basically, make sure their contracts between themselves and their customer are honored and don't allow them to simply cancel a person't policy to avoid paying a claim (which happens quite often).

Every major industry in this country is better regulated than insurance. That's what needs to be fixed.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Socialized healthcare collapses in Israel

Socialized healthcare collapses in Israel

http://www.nrg.co.il/online/29/ART2/067/020.html

In Gamble, Obama and Dems Prepare to Ram Health Care Through