U.S. passes "historic" healthcare bill

[AshtonBlack]

Indeed, the implication is quite clear. If he meant 1999-2000 boundary he would have used "into the 21st century."

Anyway, well done US political system. I hope the next four years works.

[MissingNo.]

With this bill the US is being dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 20th century.

I can't believe people are dragging their feet over this. Tales of long waiting times in Canadian hospitals strike me as myths. I live in the most populous city in Canada and I've been to the emergency room many times in my life thanks to my severe asthma. I've never had to wait for a stretch of time that would be considered exorbitant - maybe a couple hours at the most.

Same here. Usually measured in minutes. Call an ambulance here in the States and in most places you are picked up in five minutes, and at the hospital in no time flat with immediate care.

It's usually measured in minutes here as well. When I say never more than two hours, I mean that two hours is the maximum. It's the longest I've ever had to wait, it happened to be during a time when the hospital was insanely busy. So does this mean we agree that there is not much difference in wait times?

I don't doubt your experience. I haven't seen any good numbers, though, for an overall assessment or comparison.

Neither have I. I don't mean to submit my anecdotal evidence as proof positive of Canada's comparable wait times. The last sentence in that quote was probably an error on my part because it can easily be inferred to mean otherwise. It's just that I've heard nothing but rumours about Canada's excessive waiting room times and I've never experienced anything like it myself.

If there's a life-threatening emergency where every second is critical, of course the doctors will see that patient first but this is not true for the majority of cases. I find the long wait times argument abhorrent anyway. They''re essentially saying "I don't want to have to wait behind all those poor people with medical emergencies - I have money!"

That's a red herring, because poor people in the US with medical emergencies do not wait longer than anyone else. The emergency room, as a matter of law, treats emergency care patients by prioritizing medical conditions.

My point was not that American hospitals don't prioritize their patients, only that universal health care doesn't prevent anyone from receiving medical attention when they need it.

That is true in the US too, right now.

I know, that is exactly what I just said - that universal health care will somehow limit the availability of medical attention when seriously needed is falsity.

This was aimed at people who worry about longer wait times once health care is universal (presumably because people on a tight budget can visit the hospital when they need it without worrying about paying a bill they can't afford). I don't recall you making this argument - this was targeted towards mozg who did.

O.k. My only point is that the idea that poor Americans are left lying in their blood is a complete and utter falsehood designed to rally support for the new law.

Absolutely - I don't doubt that patients receive medical attention when they need it. They're just often left in crippling debt.

they just pay for it with taxes,

Not everyone pays taxes, and those that do often pay way less than their proportionate share per capita.

All right, so those who are below a certain level of income do not pay taxes. How often is often?

In the US, quite often, because the top 20% of income earners pay 80% of the taxes.

Which seems fitting since they control the majority of the wealth.

cutting out the insurance company middleman who is seeking a profit.

The new US law does not cut out insurance company middlemen.

I know that - that's why this bill is far from perfect. But it's a step in the right direction.

Far from perfect, I agree. Step in the right direction? Only if guaranteeing failure so that the single-payer movement can say "see we tried half-measures, so now we have to go full bore single payer UHC" is a step int he right direction.

It might be, considering US's political climate. Just look at how the GOP and the tea party are reacting to the idea of socialism invading their government. Never mind that America has lots of comparable social programs already installed. The teabaggers violently protesting the healthcare reform while collecting disability and social security are good for a laugh.

I did, gave me a chuckle.

Also the fact he said "Europe" despite the fact you live in Canada.

Hey we're the loyalists, remember? We have a constitutional monarchy! Maybe that counts as Europe?

I love how you folks get so superior on an issue like this. I didn't know where he was from, exactly.

It was just a silly joke. I wasn't trying to ridicule you, I was just having a laugh at the idea that Canada might be part of Europe.

Just posting to make sure everybody spotted the reference to 20thcentury.
OKTHXBAI

What can we say? America is a full century behind.

The 20th century was 11 years ago.

For us to get to the status of other western countries, we have to take a few steps back. It's not for nothing that we have led the free world since World War 2. But, of course, the US is so far "behind."

I'm referring to America's healthcare system specifically. You know, the subject that we've been discussing for 300 posts? But since we're on the subject, what steps back do you believe America would have to take to match pace with the rest of the world? Certainly not in education. Your economy is in pretty rough shape as well. Social welfare? Considering the subject, that would be worth a laugh. Your constitution is pretty solid but besides a few grating censorship laws, Canada is getting by pretty well without one, as are most Western countries. Maybe you mean America's military?

[mozg]

I don't recall you making this argument - this was targeted towards mozg who did.

Way to take my statement out of context. I was not referring to going to the emergency room to get an MRI on my knee and wanting to be seen ahead of the heart attack person, or the stabbing victim. I was referring to being told that I would have to wait weeks to get an appointment at an orthopedist to get an MRI at their office, rather than what I do now, which is call them up and make an appointment generally for the next day and go in.

What I have heard from Canadians I actually know, one in particular who had a back injury, was that he had to wait six months for an MRI on his back and he didn't get to choose which doctor. That does not sound 'better' than what I've got now.

It is very, very dishonest to claim that I want emergency room triage performed based upon method of payment.

The teabaggers violently protesting the healthcare reform while collecting disability and social security are good for a laugh.

Social Security is supposed to be a retirement plan, in that you pay into it for all the years that you work, and when you retire you're collecting your own money back. The Social Security Number is supposed to be an account number. The government, in its infinite quest for more money to spend, screwed that too by deciding that instead of setting that money aside (from the withholdings) that they'd just add it to the general fund and start using it to pay for everything under the sun. So now, honestly, I would like to be able to take the money I have to pay Social Security out of my salary and put it in my own retirement fund, where I would be able to invest it in a manner of my choosing rather than seeing it spent immediately. If I had any choice at all, I'd opt out of Social Security.

Odds are pretty good that I will pay into Social Security my entire working life and never see all of that money again. I've been paying into it since I was 16 years old. That and Medicare. I've also been investing for my own retirement, because I figure when I am 67 years old, all I'm going to have is what I saved.

Your constitution is pretty solid but besides a few grating censorship laws,

What censorship laws? Please be specific.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"The government, in its infinite quest for more money to spend, screwed that too by deciding that instead of setting that money aside (from the withholdings) that they'd just add it to the general fund and start using it to pay for everything under the sun."

Thank the Repugnicans for screwing that one up too.

[mozg]

"The government, in its infinite quest for more money to spend, screwed that too by deciding that instead of setting that money aside (from the withholdings) that they'd just add it to the general fund and start using it to pay for everything under the sun."

Thank the Repugnicans for screwing that one up too.

I have no love for the Republicans, nor any for the Democrats. The goal of a government and all the people in it is to acquire more power, more wealth, and more people dependent on them so that they can continue to be voted into office and retain their cushy lifestyles of being given blowjobs and caviar by lobbyists.

Anarchy wouldn't work either, so I really don't have too many answers on how to 'fix' things.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"The government, in its infinite quest for more money to spend, screwed that too by deciding that instead of setting that money aside (from the withholdings) that they'd just add it to the general fund and start using it to pay for everything under the sun."

Thank the Repugnicans for screwing that one up too.

I have no love for the Republicans, nor any for the Democrats. The goal of a government and all the people in it is to acquire more power, more wealth, and more people dependent on them so that they can continue to be voted into office and retain their cushy lifestyles of being given blowjobs and caviar by lobbyists.

Anarchy wouldn't work either, so I really don't have too many answers on how to 'fix' things.

Wise man. As long as people are "in the loop" there won't be any answers. The humans are too out-numbered to do anything major.

[mozg]

Wise man. As long as people are "in the loop" there won't be any answers. The humans are too out-numbered to do anything major.

I'm a chick. Not that it matters.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Wise man. As long as people are "in the loop" there won't be any answers. The humans are too out-numbered to do anything major.

I'm a chick. Not that it matters.

Wise human.

[MissingNo.]

I don't recall you making this argument - this was targeted towards mozg who did.

Way to take my statement out of context. I was not referring to going to the emergency room to get an MRI on my knee and wanting to be seen ahead of the heart attack person, or the stabbing victim. I was referring to being told that I would have to wait weeks to get an appointment at an orthopedist to get an MRI at their office, rather than what I do now, which is call them up and make an appointment generally for the next day and go in.

What I have heard from Canadians I actually know, one in particular who had a back injury, was that he had to wait six months for an MRI on his back and he didn't get to choose which doctor. That does not sound 'better' than what I've got now.

It is very, very dishonest to claim that I want emergency room triage performed based upon method of payment.

I wasn't claiming that you want to be seen ahead of the heart attack victim or the stabbing victim. Where on earth do you get that idea? I never said anything of the sort. You're complaining about waiting times though so it's implied that you're concerned about being seen after the poor people. Why would there be longer waiting times with universal health care? Is it not implied that the longer waiting times are due to more patients being treated? That's what I was getting at.

The teabaggers violently protesting the healthcare reform while collecting disability and social security are good for a laugh.

Social Security is supposed to be a retirement plan, in that you pay into it for all the years that you work, and when you retire you're collecting your own money back. The Social Security Number is supposed to be an account number. The government, in its infinite quest for more money to spend, screwed that too by deciding that instead of setting that money aside (from the withholdings) that they'd just add it to the general fund and start using it to pay for everything under the sun. So now, honestly, I would like to be able to take the money I have to pay Social Security out of my salary and put it in my own retirement fund, where I would be able to invest it in a manner of my choosing rather than seeing it spent immediately. If I had any choice at all, I'd opt out of Social Security.

Odds are pretty good that I will pay into Social Security my entire working life and never see all of that money again. I've been paying into it since I was 16 years old. That and Medicare. I've also been investing for my own retirement, because I figure when I am 67 years old, all I'm going to have is what I saved.

Okay, fine, ignore social security. There are still dozens of social programs that these people benefit from.

Your constitution is pretty solid but besides a few grating censorship laws,

What censorship laws? Please be specific.

Canada has a ban against "hate speech"/"hate literature". Anything that they consider hateful or intended to incite violence (anything they want, really) can be banned. This is the reason that Ann Coulter ran into a bit of trouble when she was scheduled to speak at the University of Ottawa.

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm referring to America's healthcare system specifically. You know, the subject that we've been discussing for 300 posts? But since we're on the subject, what steps back do you believe America would have to take to match pace with the rest of the world? Certainly not in education. Your economy is in pretty rough shape as well. Social welfare? Considering the subject, that would be worth a laugh. Your constitution is pretty solid but besides a few grating censorship laws, Canada is getting by pretty well without one, as are most Western countries. Maybe you mean America's military?

I'm not going to get into a discussion of which country is better, because I've never claimed the US to be "better."

The "rest of the world?" Do you mean Europe? Because if we look at Asia, Africa, and South America, well, I think the US would have to take a few steps back, in comparison to most (but not all) places on those continents. I think the US stacks up pretty well with the continent of Europe, by and large. While some areas of Europe, like Norway, Sweden, Denmark, etc. (representing what, 18 million people) are quite awesome, aren't there other areas of Europe (Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Belarus, etc.) where things might not be quite so awesome? In the US, we have our California, New York, Massachusetts, etc., and we have our Mississsippi and Alabama.

Nevertheless, I'm certainly not going to be drawn into a mudslinging on this. I think Canada is great. I've spent a lot of time there and I think Canadians have nice thing going up there. Toronto, Montreal, Windsor, Kingston, London, Quebec City - I've been to them all, and I think the country is great. It's not "worse" than the US. Having been all over the US too, though, I see nothing "worse" about the US too. In addition, Europe is a fabulous place: London, Paris, Amsterdam, Oslo, etc. - I've been to several European cities and my personal experience is that those places are great too. I don't think they are "worse" than the US.

Politically, also, I think the western world has to stop bickering back and forth anyway. The US, Canada, Mexico, Europe, Israel, South Africa, Australia, Brazil, along with our eastern friends, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, etc., we are all up against it when it comes to much of the Islamic World and the Chinese, and their lap dogs, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea... I suggest we all realize who our friends are, and who on the other hand are calling for and working towards our deaths.

[Coito ergo sum]

Canada has a ban against "hate speech"/"hate literature". Anything that they consider hateful or intended to incite violence (anything they want, really) can be banned. This is the reason that Ann Coulter ran into a bit of trouble when she was scheduled to speak at the University of Ottawa.

Canada's law on that issue is troubling. The intent is laudable, to protect people from mindless, hateful speech that is of little, if any, value in political or social discourse. The problem arises not in its intent - I don't think Canadians intend to squelch minority political views - but, the problem arises in its application. What inevitably winds up happening is that that "they" (politicians) decide what they consider to be hateful or intended to incite violence, and they wind up including "unpopular" or "unsavory" or "controversial" political opinions in the mix. Then certain audiences that are more organized than others realize that the legality of speech depends on how bad it pisses enough people off, so they whip up frenzies and controversies (like the Mohammed Cartoon debacle).

Any speech can be hate speech if it pisses someone off, and piss off enough people and you have no more argument that your speech is merely unpopular, or as we are seeing in Holland, even that it is true. In Turkey, for example, Richard Dawkins' book, the God Delusion, became the subject of legal action claiming that it was hate speech. And, isn't it arguably? Calling people deluded and their religions bunk, and their gods "homocidal, filicidal, genocidal" bullies and the most unsavory character "in all fiction" really tends to whip religious folk up into a frenzy, even to violence.

Well, this is a derail, so I'll stop.

[Coito ergo sum]

"The government, in its infinite quest for more money to spend, screwed that too by deciding that instead of setting that money aside (from the withholdings) that they'd just add it to the general fund and start using it to pay for everything under the sun."

Thank the Repugnicans for screwing that one up too.

?

That was done long before the Republicans took Congress in 1994, and the Democrats controlled Congress for most of the previous 60 years. Under the Social Security Act of 1965, part of President Lyndon B. Johnson's "Great Society" program, Social Security was changed to withdraw funds from the independent "Trust Fund" and put it into the General Fund for additional congressional revenue. Democrats controlled Congress at the time.

So, actually you can thank the Demonrats for screwing that one up, too.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"The government, in its infinite quest for more money to spend, screwed that too by deciding that instead of setting that money aside (from the withholdings) that they'd just add it to the general fund and start using it to pay for everything under the sun."

Thank the Repugnicans for screwing that one up too.

?

That was done long before the Republicans took Congress in 1994, and the Democrats controlled Congress for most of the previous 60 years. Under the Social Security Act of 1965, part of President Lyndon B. Johnson's "Great Society" program, Social Security was changed to withdraw funds from the independent "Trust Fund" and put it into the General Fund for additional congressional revenue. Democrats controlled Congress at the time.

So, actually you can thank the Demonrats for screwing that one up, too.

I blame politicians.

And Darwin.

[Coito ergo sum]

"The government, in its infinite quest for more money to spend, screwed that too by deciding that instead of setting that money aside (from the withholdings) that they'd just add it to the general fund and start using it to pay for everything under the sun."

Thank the Repugnicans for screwing that one up too.

?

That was done long before the Republicans took Congress in 1994, and the Democrats controlled Congress for most of the previous 60 years. Under the Social Security Act of 1965, part of President Lyndon B. Johnson's "Great Society" program, Social Security was changed to withdraw funds from the independent "Trust Fund" and put it into the General Fund for additional congressional revenue. Democrats controlled Congress at the time.

So, actually you can thank the Demonrats for screwing that one up, too.

I blame politicians.

And Darwin.

Ah, but when you first blamed only "Repugnican" politicians, and you didn't mention the Demonrats.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Oh, the dumbass level.