138 replies to this topic

[jbg]

My advice, Soviet style, is that if you have an older family member ("loved one" in US MSM politically correct language), you should have a good contact within the provincial health system. You'll need to know how the provincial bureaucracy works. A good contact is sometimes simply someone smart who works in a hospital.

Or someone in a nearby, English-speaking country.

[Michael Hardner]

Huh?

Random article: Five million Canadians without family doctor

Huh?

CBC Misdiagnosed

I could google some example of American failings, and what of it ? I already acknowledge that there are problems, and indeed I have gone as far as to say that the system needs reform. I wouldn't go as far as to say it's broken, I would say it's breaking.

---

My advice, Soviet style, is that if you have an older family member ("loved one" in US MSM politically correct language), you should have a good contact within the provincial health system. You'll need to know how the provincial bureaucracy works. A good contact is sometimes simply someone smart who works in a hospital.

Have you ever worked in business ? I'm not sure what your background is, but from your writing you seem to have been a theatre critic or something. In business, Auguste, problems are stated, then examined, then a solution is tried.

Healthcare is a business, whether it is public or private. The problems can be solved.

[Michael Hardner]

I argue here that "single payer" is a lousy idea in the long run; it's not sustainable. (And with that said, I nevertheless think that the State should be involved in delivery of medical services and so I favour socialised medicine.)

Why not ? What makes single payer systems decline ?

Single payer systems require strong administration, and management and government doesn't do that well, especially when the masses don't/can't pay attention to the finer points.

[jacee]

I strongly disagree.

IOW, you want a "single payer" system. We have such a system in Canada, and it doesn't work. Or at least, it works at first and then after a few decades, it doesn't.

Canada's health system is now Soviet. It will soon be utterly corrupt as boomers/their children seek special treatment through contacts.

US liberals prefer a single-payer system but think that it only poses a (political) problem because of the implicit tax. The level of a State health care premium or tax is the least of the problems of a single-payer system. The broader, more important questions are: what health care to cover, and who is to get it?

With "single payer", the single payer is suddenly involved in making choices. Naive Americans believe that if they had one single State/government-run HMO, life would be better. It just ain't so.

I'm Canadian and I live in such a "single-payer" system. Thirty years ago, it was easy to find a GP. Now, people go to a clinic, queue for an x-ray and wait overnight in emergency rooms. Doctors misdiagnose breast cancer, women suffer mastectomy, and there is no penalty.

Worse, Canada's health system does not innovate. Patient files in Canada are still recorded on paper and doctors don't use email. Innovation? Our provincial government bureaucrats want to build super-hospitals and put all sick people under one roof.

That's just silly August. Our health care system is not as troubled as you think.
We do face significant challenges as the aging of the baby boomers puts more demand on the system, but it is also true that the system has had the benefit of our wage earning/taxpaying years to prepare for this entirely predictable demographic challenge.

The difficulty in getting a family doctor is perhaps a new phenomenon, though I'm not entirely convinced of that either. I think there was always a sizable group of Canadians who relied on emergency room medical services, and we're simply hearing more about them lately as hospitals are trying to clear the decks to cope with the aging demographic challenges.

There are some challenges due to constraints put on doctors' pay, but in my opinion that's a good thing: I find modern doctors much more driven by altruistic motives these days than the ARROGANT SOB DOCTORS of past decades who were in it for the money and prestige. The explosion in numbers of women doctors is having an effect in clearing out the a$$holes too, I think.

Emergency rooms have always had wait times. That hasn't changed much.

Your other complaints are unsubstantiated, and don't indicate any systemic issues.

[Shady]

More Obamacare shenanigans...

Obama administration diverts $500M to IRS to implement healthcare reform law

The Obama administration is quietly diverting roughly $500 million to the IRS to help implement the president’s healthcare law.

The money is only part of the IRS’s total implementation spending, and it is being provided outside the normal appropriations process. The tax agency is responsible for several key provisions of the new law, including the unpopular individual mandate.

AP

[bush_cheney2004]

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on the constitutionality of "Obamacare", supporting most provisions in a 5-4 decision. The so called individual mandate has been narrowly ruled as legal as a tax passed by Congress.

Great news for President Obama, but it will make for a more spirited presidential campaign and renewed efforts by opposition groups.

[American Woman]

Great news for President Obama....

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I'm now questioning my vote.

The idea that the mandate is a "tax" is ludicrous; taxes are set by the government, and the citizens have a voice in the government; not so regarding insurance companies, who can charge whatever they like.

[bush_cheney2004]

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I'm now questioning my vote.

Sure.....but I never voted for Mr. Obama, so no biggee!

The idea that the mandate is a "tax" is ludicrous; taxes are set by the government, and the citizens have a voice in the government; not so regarding insurance companies, who can charge whatever they like.

Very true and a watertight interpretation, but the court must have considered passage by Congress as tantamount to the same thing, without calling it a tax. As was discussed at the hearings, it would have been better to actually have a plaintiff with standing to challenge the so called "tax", equal protection clause, etc., etc. Maybe that will happen down the road.

I personally admire your integrity on this, self reporting as being without health insurance.

[Shady]

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on the constitutionality of "Obamacare", supporting most provisions in a 5-4 decision. The so called individual mandate has been narrowly ruled as legal as a tax passed by Congress.

Great news for President Obama, but it will make for a more spirited presidential campaign and renewed efforts by opposition groups.

You're definitely right about the renewed efforts of Obamacare opponents. I just read that the RNC raised over 1 million dollars in less than an hour after the decision was announced.

[American Woman]

Sure.....but I never voted for Mr. Obama, so no biggee!




Very true and a watertight interpretation, but the court must have considered passage by Congress as tantamount to the same thing, without calling it a tax. As was discussed at the hearings, it would have been better to actually have a plaintiff with standing to challenge the so called "tax", equal protection clause, etc., etc. Maybe that will happen down the road.

I personally admire your integrity on this, self reporting as being without health insurance.

Thank you. It's just not right, for so many reasons.

As for this comment:

The law, Roberts wrote, “makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income. And if the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, it may be within Congress’s constitutional power to tax.”

It's not "like buying gasoline" because one need not buy gasoline if one chooses; it's more like fining someone for not owning a car/not buying gasoline - and of course it's nothing like taxing earned income - I can't even imagine where that comparison is coming from. It's not as if people who don't earn an income are fined for it. Perhaps the government should mandate that we give to the presidential elections, too, and if we don't - pay a fine. Wouldn't that be just another tax?

I agree with what I've read, that the decision says 'either live with it or get a new government,' and since the Republicans are vowing to overturn it, I just may be voting Republican. I know this for sure - I will neither buy what I don't choose to buy - nor pay the fine. Doesn't sound as if there's a heck of a lot they can do to enforce it. At any rate, I'm no longer so sure of an Obama win come November.

Congress specifically did not allow the use of liens and seizures of property as methods of enforcing the penalty.

Non-compliance with the mandate is also not subject to criminal or civil penalties under the Tax Code and interest does not accrue for failure to pay the penalty in a timely manner, according to the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation.

[punked]

It is just what Mitt Romney wanted. Right Shady?

[dre]

Thank you. It's just not right, for so many reasons.

As for this comment:

The law, Roberts wrote, “makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income. And if the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, it may be within Congress’s constitutional power to tax.”

It's not "like buying gasoline" because one need not buy gasoline if one chooses; it's more like fining someone for not owning a car/not buying gasoline - and of course it's nothing like taxing earned income - I can't even imagine where that comparison is coming from. It's not as if people who don't earn an income are fined for it. Perhaps the government should mandate that we give to the presidential elections, too, and if we don't - pay a fine. Wouldn't that be just another tax?

I agree with what I've read, that the decision says 'either live with it or get a new government,' and since the Republicans are vowing to overturn it, I just may be voting Republican. I know this for sure - I will neither buy what I don't choose to buy - nor pay the fine. Doesn't sound as if there's a heck of a lot they can do to enforce it. At any rate, I'm no longer so sure of an Obama win come November.

Congress specifically did not allow the use of liens and seizures of property as methods of enforcing the penalty.

Non-compliance with the mandate is also not subject to criminal or civil penalties under the Tax Code and interest does not accrue for failure to pay the penalty in a timely manner, according to the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation.

Problem is Americans all have health insurance anyways because of the free rider problem and the EMC act. You will probably pay MORE to treat all these people without the bill than you will with it.

[August1991]

It's not "like buying gasoline" because one need not buy gasoline if one chooses; it's more like fining someone for not owning a car/not buying gasoline - and of course it's nothing like taxing earned income - I can't even imagine where that comparison is coming from. It's not as if people who don't earn an income are fined for it. Perhaps the government should mandate that we give to the presidential elections, too, and if we don't - pay a fine. Wouldn't that be just another tax?

It seems to me that the US Constitution gives Congress to tax as it wants. Moreover, if we are to have a legitimate government, it must be able to impose taxes.

-----

I think that Roberts has taken a wise decision that oddly is even partisan. It limits the commerce clause, reaffirms the power to tax, puts Obamacare properly into the court of public opinion and finally gives Romney a decent shot at winning in November.

It looks like this will be a referendum-election. We had one of those in 1988.

[bush_cheney2004]

It seems to me that the US Constitution gives Congress to tax as it wants. Moreover, if we are to have a legitimate government, it must be able to impose taxes.

Got no problem with that, as "tax" was always the correct technical interpretation. How that plays out politically remains to be seen.

Edited by bush_cheney2004, 28 June 2012 - 08:06 PM.

[Shady]

It seems to me that the US Constitution gives Congress to tax as it wants. Moreover, if we are to have a legitimate government, it must be able to impose taxes.

That's not entirely true. The constitution spells out specifically how congress may tax. Anyways, it isn't a tax, at least it wasn't up until today. But what this amounts to is the federal government being allowed to tax inactivity.