I hope you're not directing that at me. I just quoted the e-mail I received. I didn't write or believe or forward it.

(I know little about the Canadian system; I am not Canadian. But I do know that a straight copy probably wouldn't work down here. There's just so many more of us. Ya dig?)

No, I am directing that at whoever believes it and repeats it.

The Canadian system is basically just federal health insurance. Yes it would work, but it would take some more changes.

Okay, a logical person would have to conclude that this entire post was sarcasm based on your the above however it would appear that logic has little to do with you so I guess this is all serious.



I do realize that the new Massassi Talking Points published by Jon'C include saying that I am a Republican and not a conservative, as if the two are mutually exclusive. Just like his recent characterization of citizens challenging their representatives, senators, and other officials is all over the media, so has this recent talking point begun to spread across Massassi. I guess it doesn't matter that I have been critical of the Republican party moving away from conservatism or that I was critical of the Republican Party's most recent presidential nominee. No, of course my actual conservative opinion that I have expressed here has absolutely no bearing on the matter. The brilliant Jon'C has told you what to think.



Actually, sounds more like a hippy dope-smoking liberal. If that's your opinion of the definition of conservatism it would explain your misunderstanding. Perhaps calling yourself a conservative makes you seem like a Maverick or a rebel. Maybe it turns the girls on.

You're not conservative.

To lighten things up a bit, who really cares? These are just like every other bogus email chain letter out there. I used to, I forget the website, forward them to a site that would send out a debunk email to all those in the distribution. A couple recent ones I remember were some email about In God We Trust being removed from new coin, I believe. It was partially true, if I remember correctly. I think the phrase was moved to the edge of the coin and people thought it was gone. In fact, there might have been an error where some did make it to circulation without the phrase, iirc.

Another was some stupid email that claimed America coming to the middle east was referred to in the Quran as some giant eagle... I don't even remember the details. Some civilian cops were giving us some sort of training and he read that to us, followed by "it's true, look it up on the internet". So I did. It's not true.

I'm amazed by the amount of garbage people forward around without taking the time to verify the contents. If I find something interesting enough to share, I at least want to confirm it's legit.

Why? Can't I support a single 'liberal' thing, and still remain overall conservative? Or do I have to toe the conservative line on every single issue or forfeit the title? Furthermore : I never said I supported nationalized health care. In fact. I don't!


What? **** you. I've been saying Republicans are Liberals for years. Joncy stole it from me, and you give HIM the credit? **** you man. That's not cool. Just. **** you.

Hippy dope-smokers aren't liberal. Nor am I a hippy dope-smoker. (I SHOWER, thank you very much.)

That is what conservatism IS. Small government. Less government. The government leaving us, the people, the **** alone. The government has things to do like defending us from attackers. It's jobs do not involve intruding in my life and telling me what I can't do in my own home. I'm not even a doper and will never smoke a joint and I still support legalized drugs of all kinds because I don't believe the government has any RIGHT to tell me what I can or can't smoke. THAT is conservatism : THE CONSERVATION OF RIGHTS AT THE LOWEST LEVELS. *I* reserve the rights I do not specifically give up to the government. Local government reserves the rights it does not specifically give up to the state. And the state reserves the rights it does not specifically give up to the feds.
That's not what YOU want. That's not what the REPUBLICAN PARTY supports. Because you want to give the federal government more and more power. That is the LIBERAL position.

You're not conservative.

I wish they would already, it has no business being there.

Recently, I got called an ******* for not saying 'under God' when reciting the pledge of allegiance. I looked the guy square in the eyes and apologized for insulting his religion by not believing in it. He had no ****ing clue what to say next.

So, I guess this is as close to a thought provoking debate that I'll get out of you so here we go.



Fair minded people can of course have varying opinions on specific issues. I just say you're not a conservative based on what you're definition of conservatism is.



I know. You said you opposed it because then the government would no longer provide you health coverage (and have you bothered to research that because that seems suspect to me on the surface). I oppose it because I believe it is wrong for the country and I base that on my conservative views.



Did you even read the quote you just posted? I gave Jon'C credit for calling me a Republican and then I refer to my views, of which I have always been vocal here. Perhaps I could have written it better but I still think it is clear enough.



Did you come up with that yourself or did someone tell you to say that because that is just like Jon'C calling me a "Republican" (with all of the Jon'C implied rhetoric that goes along with him calling me that). I have never once supported giving the federal government "more and more power". I think the closest anyone here can come to making that case is me not putting on the tinfoil hat every time a government program is suggested or enacted such as the patriot act or id card type thing. I refrain from the blanket condemnation because sometimes I don't know the right answer or to what degree I trust my government with certain powers. And often when and who I trust in the government with those powers. And those that castigate me here for that are likely the same people that apparently see nothing wrong with the tyrannical authority the government already has to view your personal finances and, likely soon, to peruse your medical records.

For the record, I am a Republican and I am a conservative. I want to participate in the process and I want to help direct the party to conservatism. I want to support conservatives in primaries and oppose incumbents that sell out on the hill. I'm not going to do the easy thing and run away from the labels because I don't want Jon'C to call me a "Republican".

Edit: Never mind, JM said this before.

JM, I would like it if you could answer my question. I'm not looking to pick a fight with you, I'm just a little bit confused.

You asked me a questions?

This one? Oh! Ha! It doesn't. Lowering health care prices certainly does, however! The problem here is that nationalized health care is disguised as free! No, I just feel there are much better way to do it than nationalizing it, and this is mostly because I don't trust the government to do anything right.
There are better and simpler ways to lower health care costs, thus making it more accessible, that don't involve more and more bureaucracy. Something as simple as capping malpractice payouts would help a lot.

Need I mention that insurance companies are a big part of the problem too?

I see. Spot on.

And yeah, insurance companies are going to be par for the course in any usurious culture.

I am disturbed that Mort Hog apparently agreed with me about something.

It would seem that you have more in common than you might have thought.

The problem is this:

Doctors, health insurance, medication and hospitals in the private sector are amazingly over priced, and therefore a good portion of people are left without a financially realistic opportunity to get medical attention in emergencies.

Apparently various health insurance companies abandon you when you get a serious illness.

Does this mean we have to tax most of everyone, drive the private sector prices even higher, at the same time forcing doctors to move to countries where they can profit more and work less, and therefore overloading a universal health care system that will be under funded and incapable of meeting accordingly the demands of all those who will find themselves forced to subscribe to it, even with a good amount of rationing. (Because this is the reality of the health care reform proposal that certain people want shoved down our throat, even though this is not the intention)

Or does it mean we just need to impose some regulations on the private sector of health insurance and medicine, and therefore make it possible for more people to afford better insurance and people who don't want insurance afford emergencies when they need them.

Otherwise, were just going to increase the national debts by supporting a system that will be too expensive to support.

There isn't a single damn healthcare system that has been adequate for people with my condition so I stopped caring a long time ago. And yes this includes Canada and Britain.

I found it somewhat ammusing that after you have been ripping me for aparantly not being conservative enough or wanting bigger government, which I've never advocated, you basically repeat something I said twenty some odd posts previous. I was going to let it go without comment but what the hell. You all know I'm a troll.

I was actually just responding to Mr. C's scorn upon you when you were quoting the chain letter before realising I was about thirty posts too late.

I love my Canadian system, that's all I have to say.

Tack on the pharmaceutacles to that list.

Also. When we say "nationalizing health care" are we now making Aetna, MetLife, etc. now goverment corporations and private ownership of anything health is illegal? Or are we talking about a government run healthcare system that is to compete with the private sector? I think a lot of people think the former is going to happen rather than the latter.

The problem I have is that people are going to be so against the government system that it won't get much use and just end up wasting $$. We Americans hate much change. However, people could ignore previous hesitations and this could take off (and function) and be a serious competitor to the private sector. If the private sector is to stay alive, they will have to compete and provide services that match or do better than the government.

To be fair, it wouldn't exactly be a trajedy if a bunch of insurance companies went out of business.

A lot of the healthcare reform legislation has to do with making insurance companies more responsible for their clients. Like limiting their ability to dictate what diagnostic procedures doctors are allowed to use, preventing them from discontinuing insurance in the event a client develops a long-term condition, making people who have existing conditions insurable, putting an end to the delightful practice of preventing care if an actuary table says they're probably going to die before the lawsuit goes to court, etc.

heres a huge part of the problem with that. the private sector cannot print its own money. if a private sector insurance agency goes under because it cannot compete with a government "public option" it will be deemed because the company was ill suited to compete in the market. but do you really think those same rules will apply to the "public option"? hell no. there is no way the government would let its public option health care go under. the idea of fair competition with a government option is purely lip service. it is simply not feasible. and not because the government option is better, because its unsinkable, because its backed by the government.

From perusing the legislation as it is currently written it appears that the intent is to force employers to provide health care coverage compliant with the legislation or pay higher taxes. Furthermore, it forces insurance companies to only offer new policies that are compliant with the legislation although I haven't read deep enough to know if that is just policies that employers purchase or individual policies as well. I assume the former, for now.

For someone who acted all high-and-mighty about their own system, you certainly judge harshly. I've worked in hospitals on both coasts in two major US cities, and I really don't see what everyone is on about.

I've rarely seen a patient fall through the cracks because in the majority of cases the physicians do their job and look after the welfare of those that trust them. There are exceptions and small anecdotes of failure, but the majority of the time the system works for everyone.

Social darwinism how? I've dealt with a metric ton of patients without insurance who weren't even citizens who have received the standard of care. What in god's name are you blabbering about? Are you saying we turn patients away and let them languish otherwise? Are you saying that the medical system here purposely and with full knowledge is committed to large scale negligence? You're gonna need to back that up with something apart from strong language.



Six days is not the average for Canada, it's more like 72 days (see: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2384253). 106 versus 72 is still not exactly pretty, but there are other factors like physician density as well as the fact that rushing to the OR is not warranted in every case. It may not be better, but it's certainly not much worse. Also, where did you get 106 from anyway? (I was able to find a 106 day time point. For Canada, that is: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11522831_How_long_do_patients_wait_for_elective_general_surgery)

Every system has it's problems, but I think that a privatized system that distributes healthcare judiciously is far superior to anything the government puts out. My personal experience with the government and their programs is horrendous, and trying to sort out medicare coverage for patients on the phone is more painful than any procedure. This is what I've gathered from working in hospitals and conversing with staff. I have plenty of stories of my own from physicians and nurses who've worked in socialized systems, and it's overwhelmingly negative. Mainly the complaints are poor compensation, restricted procedures, and restricted medications.

Lord Kuat: if I didn't have health insurance when I was born, I would be missing a leg right now, and possibly be dead. Even now I'm struggling to find another insurance company that will cover me because I have a preexisting condition. Especially without paying over quadruple the normal rate, just for catastrophic coverage. Don't ever argue the US system is good.

Hold on now, Cool Matty. Insurance is when you pay money to be assured that should anything bad ever happen, you will be covered. If you think you're entitled to insurance to cover anything relating to your pre-existing condition, that's not insurance. You just want to pay a little bit every month to have a company pay a lot MORE money for your medical procedures. Now, if you want insurance just to have insurance, and not to cover things relating to your pre-existing condition, and you can't get THAT, then you're right, that's a flaw in the system. There should be a way to except pre-existing conditions from coverage while still covering any potential unrelated events.

First off, no I can't just exclude my condition. That would be adequate, although difficult since then they'd want to blame everything on it.

Second off, that's crap. What's to keep them from just adding and adding to the preexisting conditions list until nothing is covered? I don't know if I'm going to need surgery in the future, regardless of my condition or not. That's what insurance is for!

An understandable problem. You'd think at least one insurance company would work that way. Not knowing what your condition is, even if they did try to blame things on it, it seems like there'd still be a lot of coverage. For sure better than nothing, though whether the price would be worth it is kind of a pointlessly speculative thought. That right there is one of the reforms that I see as reasonable. A tough one, but it still seems better than the current "solution".

Apparently the US government disagrees.

Irrelevant. Countries with socialized healthcare typically have provisions in place to cover healthcare received while traveling.

Yes, that is what I am saying.

You believe there shouldn't be a way for someone with a pre-existing condition to get treatment for that condition?

Heh, remember when that congressman said Canada was killing its elderly and infirm?

The very fact that healthcare is discussed as a 'business' is downright disturbing. I am so glad that here healthcare is a right. No matter what happens, I know I'll be treated and not have to worry about anything.

Yes, in fact in all EU citizens can recieve healthcare in any other EU state. Trying to get healthcare in the US as a traveller is a nightmare, even just seeing a GP is extortionate.

Must be nice to not be cursed with a condition rarely diagnosed correctly in your country, resulting in even the inability to obtain medical funds to receive treatment from a doctor in a country who knows it.

No, I didn't say they shouldn't be able to get treatment. They should be able to get whatever treatment they want. I just don't think that they should necessarily have it covered by insurance. Forcing a company to take on someone who is guaranteed to lose them money, when all parties involved KNOW IT, is wrong. I know it sounds callous, and I'm all for finding other ways to get people like this healthcare, be it charity or loans or anything other VOLUNTARY solution. As you may have noticed, though, I have a real problem with anyone forcing anyone to do something.

Edit: Cool Matty, I know it must suck to be dealt a ****ty hand like that, but don't for one second think that you're ENTITLED to anything because of it. Again, I know it sounds like a bunch of crap coming from me, I was not born with any serious conditions, and throughout my life I have not had anything too bad medically happen to me, at least nothing that required expensive treatments (i have had more than a few bouts with stuff that no one could figure out, that ended up fixing themselves). I'm lucky, I know. But I also know I'm not entitled to free ****. I don't deserve much except the liberty to do what I can with what I've been given. Nothing personal.

Bobthemasher: sometimes you have to be forced. If it was all voluntary, no one would get it. It would fail miserably.

On the other hand, if said person is hired by a company, the insurance that company offers it's employees must not decline them under any circumstances.

Cool Matty, I think you have a serious lack of faith in humanity if you think we have to be forced to help each other.

Nice cognitive dissonance. You're suggesting that someone with a preexisting medical condition that makes them uninsurable and precludes them from gainful employment should be paying for "whatever treatment they want" out of pocket. I'll give you a moment to figure out how retarded that sounds.

^^^

We could do like the Spartans did.

If they are born with a condition that makes them "uninsurable" (makes it a bad idea for the insurance company to cover that condition) AND also precludes them from working any jobs at all, AND they don't know anyone who can help them, then I'm sorry. That's a really crappy deal. I suppose being born in the middle of an empty desert paralyzed and blind would suck pretty bad. But don't think that you're entitled to treatment. If someone I know was in a similar situation, I'd do what I could to help. So would a lot of other people I know.