PDA

View Full Version : Poll: How Would You Describe Yourself Politically?



ACME_MAN
09-13-2013, 12:12 AM
How would you describe yourself politically?

Gonzo432
09-13-2013, 12:50 AM
How would you describe yourself politically?

Just to the right of Dirty Harry.

Greg
09-13-2013, 01:20 AM
How would you describe yourself politically?

A moderate conservative, with some libertarian leanings.

Rizzo77
09-13-2013, 01:25 AM
I'm a Libertarian. I feel no need to expound beyond that description.

Bunch
09-13-2013, 01:58 AM
You forgot to add progressive....

LogDog
09-13-2013, 01:59 AM
I'm a moderately a radically liberal conservative.

USN - Retired
09-13-2013, 05:38 AM
Libertarian!

TJMAC77SP
09-13-2013, 10:31 AM
You forgot to add progressive....

You mean liberal?

Bunch
09-13-2013, 10:59 AM
You mean liberal?

No, I mean progressive....

TJMAC77SP
09-13-2013, 12:18 PM
No, I mean progressive....

I know...........

Pullinteeth
09-13-2013, 05:13 PM
Hmmm....I didn't see "Awesome" on the list?

DocBones
09-16-2013, 01:31 AM
Seeing as to how repubs and demos approach the center and give each other tongue while kissing (centering of the parties), I have chosen independent.

Chief Bosun
09-23-2013, 01:32 PM
I tend to be conservative when it comes to my politics.

That said, I refuse to vote along a party line or for a person simply because they belong to a particular party. I will vote for the person that I think is the most competent to do the job and the most likely to remember that in addition to servicing their consitiuents, they were elected to serve the best interests of the US, not their own personal agenda, and to have the intestinal fortitude to stand up and say that a particular stance their party adopts is pure unadulterated male or female bovine droppings.

I can only think of three politicians that fit the bill. One is now in the Senate, one retired from the Senate after having to engineer a change in party rules to keep the hard-liners from tossing him in the dumpster during the 1990's when he was up for reelection, and one was a potential for the White House that shot himself in the foot. All three had a talent for building consensus across party lines and getting the job done.

Stalwart
09-23-2013, 03:45 PM
On some issues I could be described as conservative, on others more liberal.

I have read the constitution and the 27 amendments many times -- some more than others. I am not a strict Constitutionalist but do believe that in general we are a nation of laws. There is also a strong argument that the Constitution and our laws are not a suicide pact to be blindly adhered to even unto our own demise (an opinion shared by Jefferson in statements about the Louisiana purchase and in statements on Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus -- which is discussed in the Constitution in time of national emergency.)

Dickie
09-23-2013, 03:51 PM
A middle of the road, slightly right. A few libertarian leanings

AJBIGJ
09-23-2013, 03:58 PM
I think the definitions themselves are somewhat fluidic in nature, like MM stated labels tend to create a lot of false presumptions. Even Libertarians, who tend to be steadfast ideologues under most circumstances, can't find a consistent opinion for abortion. True Liberals (not Progressives) tend to be the same way, yet many have worn that label and were gung-ho to go into Syria, which definitely was not the modus operandi during the Bush presidency. "Independent" should technically apply to everyone, unless they are themselves absolutely incapable of individual critical thought (which appears to be the case often enough with some individuals).

sandsjames
09-23-2013, 04:38 PM
It's so easy to be conservative/liberal socially and the opposite fiscally. It's a shame that everyone is pigeon holed.

Rusty Jones
09-23-2013, 05:20 PM
No, I mean progressive....

No, you mean both. Quit with the semantics.

efmbman
09-23-2013, 05:20 PM
Short answer: Libertarian (I think)

Long answer:

I have honestly considered this - very often lately in fact. I search for websites that I hope are objective but I can't seem to find any. Each one I visit has a list of issues and then the positions of each party. It does not take long to determine the party of the author. The descriptions are biased. I also find that the questions are designed to force the responder into a corner. For example, here is a cut-paste of a question about gun control I found:

Q: Firearms should be:
a) Unrestricted and allowed to be carried freely
b) Dangerous and should be strictly controlled

I would not choose A or B to answer that, but those are the only choices offered. This bothers me because I think it is indicitive of how our country has devolved into a "Us vs. Them" mentality. Politicians are becoming less able to understand an opposing point of view. News mediums are spewing party lines all day every day.

I would have to agree with AJBIGJ that we should all at least strive to be independent when considering political affiliation. It is becoming more difficult to do so because of how the public gets information, however. As a parent, I hope I can encourage my kids to think for themselves but at the same time can I do so without pushing my political position on them?

Rusty Jones
09-23-2013, 05:25 PM
Look at that! Unsurprisingly, "independent" gets the most votes!

Yeah... independent, my ass. I bet you that the same people who checked it are the same people on here who say the most conservative shit.

I checked third party liberal. I am a socialist. Knowing that socialism will never happen in the US, I'll just vote for the liberal party that actually stands a chance.

Bunch
09-23-2013, 05:55 PM
No, you mean both. Quit with the semantics.

Not really.

IMO, being progressive is a state of mind primarily focused on social issues. Being liberal is a political view. What has happened here lately is that Fox News and the right wing propaganda machine has manage to hijack the term "liberal" to lump everyone together using it as a pejorative. The way I see it liberals are like the "RINO'S" in the republican party and we progressives are like the Tea Party of the GOP. Not all liberals are progressives that's for sure.

Rusty Jones
09-23-2013, 06:11 PM
Okay, so if I asked the general population what the difference between "liberal" and "progressive" is; is this the same gist that I'd get from the respondents? Or are these simply YOUR definitions?

The term "liberal" was actually meant to be offensive from the beginning, and then it was later adopted by the people it described (much like the word "capitalism," which was coined by Karl Marx).

The problem is, both "liberals" and "conservatives" have been criticized to death; and I really believe that not wearing these labels proudly is a result of that - we claim to be other things, or make up new words to describe us, in order to exempt ourselves from that criticism.

For example; only ONE person here has checked "conservative" - when you and I both know damned well that there are FAR more conservatives here than just one.

71Fish
09-23-2013, 06:23 PM
Look at that! Unsurprisingly, "independent" gets the most votes!

Yeah... independent, my ass. I bet you that the same people who checked it are the same people on here who say the most conservative shit.

I checked third party liberal. I am a socialist. Knowing that socialism will never happen in the US, I'll just vote for the liberal party that actually stands a chance.

Why can't an "independent" have liberal views as well? Very few people can be pigion holed into a box. I guarantee you I have some views that are very socialist in nature, as well as some views to the right of Pat Buchanan. It just depends on the topic. It isn't fair to put people in a box.

Bunch
09-23-2013, 06:25 PM
Having had conversation with many of my friends that are democrats I think that there is a general sense that these definitions are acceptable but again one person can't claim ownership to the one true definition of an idea or of a set of ideas. As a progressive I usually align myself with the agenda of the democratic party because I feel they care about the issues that I care and as long as that is so they will have my vote. If or when that changes then I will adjust my vote accordingly.

AJBIGJ
09-23-2013, 06:30 PM
Okay, so if I asked the general population what the difference between "liberal" and "progressive" is; is this the same gist that I'd get from the respondents? Or are these simply YOUR definitions?

The term "liberal" was actually meant to be offensive from the beginning, and then it was later adopted by the people it described (much like the word "capitalism," which was coined by Karl Marx).

The problem is, both "liberals" and "conservatives" have been criticized to death; and I really believe that not wearing these labels proudly is a result of that - we claim to be other things, or make up new words to describe us, in order to exempt ourselves from that criticism.

For example; only ONE person here has checked "conservative" - when you and I both know damned well that there are FAR more conservatives here than just one.

I think what you mention here is kind of true across the board. Those who choose "Libertarian" and "Independent" probably shy away from the term "Conservative" because the term implies being sort of a Bachmann or a Santorum with social issues, which probably not too many people in here closely identify with. You're both probably correct that more posters in here are often conservative-leaning, yet to label oneself accordingly would imply we identify most closely identify ourselves with the entire package.

SomeRandomGuy
09-23-2013, 06:33 PM
Having had conversation with many of my friends that are democrats I think that there is a general sense that this definitions are acceptable but again one person can't claim ownership to the one true definition of an idea or of a set of ideas. As a progressive I usually align myself with the agenda of the democratic party because I feel they care about the issues that I care and as long as that is so they will have my vote. If or when that changes then I will adjust my vote accordingly.

I usually have trouble finding a party to vote for. So far I have not seen a party platform that stands for what I stand for. It also seems near impossible to get straight answers from any candidate on where they stand. A while back I emailed my congressman letting him know I support banning red light cameras here in Ohio (I wanted himt o vote yes on teh bill already in the senate). He emailed me back with a canned response that said something to the effect of "there are a lot of factors to conisder on this but I appreciate your feedback". Basically, he might as well have said I have to see if the people who funded my election campaign are profiting from red light cameras.

As far as what I stand for here are a few of the ideas:

1.) The Fair Tax or Flat Tax. Lets have a debate and find the best system.
2.) I am against gun control but I do support background checks and certain measures meant to keep guns from mentally ill or convicted criminals.
3.) I am pro people's rights. That includes legalizing gay marriage, marijuana etc.
4.) I want a smaller more effective government I think we need social help programs but private sector has always been better at helping people than government.


So if you look at those 4 items you really couldnt say I am a republican but also not really a democrat. When people ask I would say independant because I do not believe everything either party says and the quickest way to say that is independant.

AJBIGJ
09-23-2013, 06:36 PM
Having had conversation with many of my friends that are democrats I think that there is a general sense that these definitions are acceptable but again one person can't claim ownership to the one true definition of an idea or of a set of ideas. As a progressive I usually align myself with the agenda of the democratic party because I feel they care about the issues that I care and as long as that is so they will have my vote. If or when that changes then I will adjust my vote accordingly.

It's been my observation as an outsider that a major difference between a "Liberal" and a "Progressive" falls into what issues they feel to be the most important and subsequently where they place the emphasis. Please correct me if I'm mistaken in that.

AJBIGJ
09-23-2013, 06:41 PM
I usually have trouble finding a party to vote for. So far I have not seen a party platform that stands for what I stand for. It also seems near impossible to get straight answers from any candidate on where they stand. A while back I emailed my congressman letting him know I support banning red light cameras here in Ohio (I wanted himt o vote yes on teh bill already in the senate). He emailed me back with a canned response that said something to the effect of "there are a lot of factors to conisder on this but I appreciate your feedback". Basically, he might as well have said I have to see if the people who funded my election campaign are profiting from red light cameras.

As far as what I stand for here are a few of the ideas:

1.) The Fair Tax or Flat Tax. Lets have a debate and find the best system.
2.) I am against gun control but I do support background checks and certain measures meant to keep guns from mentally ill or convicted criminals.
3.) I am pro people's rights. That includes legalizing gay marriage, marijuana etc.
4.) I want a smaller more effective government I think we need social help programs but private sector has always been better at helping people than government.


So if you look at those 4 items you really couldnt say I am a republican but also not really a democrat. When people ask I would say independant because I do not believe everything either party says and the quickest way to say that is independant.

Moderate Libertarian/Independent would probably be the closest description of that I could recognize.

Bunch
09-23-2013, 06:42 PM
I think what you mention here is kind of true across the board. Those who choose "Libertarian" and "Independent" probably shy away from the term "Conservative" because the term implies being sort of a Bachmann or a Santorum with social issues, which probably not too many people in here closely identify with. You're both probably correct that more posters in here are often conservative-leaning, yet to label oneself accordingly would imply we identify most closely identify ourselves with the entire package.

What I find kind of ironic is that when it come to being labeled a "liberal" or "progressive". "Liberal" is the word that conservatives like to throw out there when in reality their anger is directed at "progressives".

imported_WILDJOKER5
09-23-2013, 06:45 PM
My sig line says the way I stand. You are Authoritarian or you are libertarian with social issues. And you are either liberal or conservative in the fiscal issues.

My score comes from politicalcompass.org

20+Years
09-23-2013, 06:45 PM
It hangs to the left. I mean I lean to the right. Wait! Is the wind blowing and which direction? And... are we standing on a hill? Sometimes that will make me lean one way or the other too.

Glad you didn't ask if I was religious.

AJBIGJ
09-23-2013, 06:45 PM
What I fing kind of ironic is that when it come to being labeled a "liberal" or "progressive". "Liberal" is the word that conservatives like to throw out there when in reality their anger is directed at "progressives".

Yes, that is very true. I tend to think the most honest definitions tend to come from those who self-identify under a particular term used.

Absinthe Anecdote
09-23-2013, 06:48 PM
How do I describe myself politically?

Thoroughly disgusted and fed up with politics.

The truth doesn't matter because one side will always take half the truth and mix it rhetoric to use against their opponents.

Every issue has a flip side and I'm tired of keeping track of which side I'm supposed to be on.

Even if you think you are an informed voter, chances are you've been manipulated by sound bites and imagery.

Rant over.

imported_WILDJOKER5
09-23-2013, 06:48 PM
What I fing kind of ironic is that when it come to being labeled a "liberal" or "progressive". "Liberal" is the word that conservatives like to throw out there when in reality their anger is directed at "progressives".

"Liberals" are the progressives of the left. Bush, McCain, Romney, Rove and just about all the establishment GOP are progressives of the right. Anyone that makes an authoritarian law about social issues that expands the size of the federal government past the constitution is a progressive, and they are on both the left and right side.

SomeRandomGuy
09-23-2013, 06:53 PM
To me there is a very simple test to determine if someone is a conservative or liberal. Have them watch 30 minutes of CNN and then 30 Minutes of Fox News. See which one they like better. Then after that have them watch The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and then The Colbert Report with Stephen Colbert. See which one they laugh at more. If the person has an open mind and can appreciate perspective on all the shows they are probably independant. If they find theirself yelling at the TV during one of the shows you can easily figure out where they stand politically. Also another way to tell: Just ask them how they feel about Syria and Iraq. If they defend invading Iraq but are against invading Syria they are republican. If they are still mad about invading Iraq but want to invade Syria they are democrat.

AJBIGJ
09-23-2013, 06:57 PM
To me there is a very simple test to determine if someone is a conservative or liberal. Have them watch 30 minutes of CNN and then 30 Minutes of Fox News. See which one they like better. Then after that have them watch The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and then The Colbert Report with Stephen Colbert. See which one they laugh at more. If the person has an open mind and can appreciate perspective on all the shows they are probably independant. If they find theirself yelling at the TV during one of the shows you can easily figure out where they stand politically. Also another way to tell: Just ask them how they feel about Syria and Iraq. If they defend invading Iraq but are against invading Syria they are republican. If they are still mad about invading Iraq but want to invade Syria they are democrat.

I think that can depend heavily on the content featured and the issues of the day featured in a 30 minute segment. Sometimes all that would give you is how we feel about "Trayvon", which I think it's fair to say has very limited bearing on your political leanings.

imported_WILDJOKER5
09-23-2013, 06:59 PM
To me there is a very simple test to determine if someone is a conservative or liberal. Have them watch 30 minutes of CNN and then 30 Minutes of Fox News. See which one they like better. Then after that have them watch The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and then The Colbert Report with Stephen Colbert. See which one they laugh at more. If the person has an open mind and can appreciate perspective on all the shows they are probably independant. If they find theirself yelling at the TV during one of the shows you can easily figure out where they stand politically. Also another way to tell: Just ask them how they feel about Syria and Iraq. If they defend invading Iraq but are against invading Syria they are republican. If they are still mad about invading Iraq but want to invade Syria they are democrat.

What if they say "..at the time, Iraq seemed well represented, but now seems like it was a farce, so lets stay out of Syria because they are trying to make the same arguement against someone that has friends and has never invaded a neighboring country. There is no need for us to involve ourselves in a CIVIL war with less evidence against syria and less international backing. And lastly, why attack somone that isnt threatening the US like Saddam was."?

Bunch
09-23-2013, 07:00 PM
It's been my observation as an outsider that a major difference between a "Liberal" and a "Progressive" falls into what issues they feel to be the most important and subsequently where they place the emphasis. Please correct me if I'm mistaken in that.

Liberalism has been I will always been a political movement/philosophy. It has clearly defined concepts and constructs.

Progressivism is just a constant evolving process always seeking out social fairness and justice.

You can be both a liberal and progressive, you can be just one, or you can be neither...

imported_WILDJOKER5
09-23-2013, 07:04 PM
Liberalism has been I will always been a political movement/philosophy. It has clearly defined concepts and constructs.

Progressivism is just a constant evolving process always seeking out social fairness and justice.You actually have that backwards. neo-liberals love to talk about abstract things like a social contract that isnt written down and is always evolving.

Progressives have had the same agenda since Woodrow Wilson picked up the torch for them from the English progressives. Expand the government.

Bunch
09-23-2013, 07:14 PM
"Liberals" are the progressives of the left. Bush, McCain, Romney, Rove and just about all the establishment GOP are progressives of the right. Anyone that makes an authoritarian law about social issues that expands the size of the federal government past the constitution is a progressive, and they are on both the left and right side.

I don't believe so.

IMO, progressives just care about the end result and not the process. For example I believe in free healthcare for everyone, I don't care if it is by law, I don't care if all of the sudden the hospital stop charging patients or what not. I just want people not having to pay for healthcare. The first one to gets me there gets my vote...

AJBIGJ
09-23-2013, 07:18 PM
Liberalism has been I will always been a political movement/philosophy. It has clearly defined concepts and constructs.

Progressivism is just a constant evolving process always seeking out social fairness and justice.

You can be both a liberal and progressive, you can be just one, or you can be neither...

Pretty close to what I meant by where the emphasis is placed. The first tends to root more closely to an ideology over the latter.

Bunch
09-23-2013, 07:20 PM
You actually have that backwards. neo-liberals love to talk about abstract things like a social contract that isnt written down and is always evolving.

Progressives have had the same agenda since Woodrow Wilson picked up the torch for them from the English progressives. Expand the government.

I'm pretty sure that I know what I am.

AJBIGJ
09-23-2013, 07:23 PM
I'm pretty sure that I know what I am.

I think my point about the labels made via self-identification being the most honest has definitely been validated.

AJBIGJ
09-23-2013, 07:27 PM
I don't believe so.

IMO, progressives just care about the end result and not the process. For example, I believe in free healthcare for everyone, I don't care if it is by law, I don't care if all of the sudden the hospital stop charging patients or what not. I just want people not having to pay for healthcare. The first one to gets me there get my vote...

If I were to guess at the vision of an idyllic society as viewed by progressives, it would probably be something along the lines of a world portrayed in the whole Star Trek fantasy universe, is that at least somewhat accurate?

Stalwart
09-23-2013, 07:37 PM
And one big point is that some people forget that you can pass laws on how people can and cannot act, you cannot legislate how people think.

Bunch
09-23-2013, 07:44 PM
If I were to guess at the vision of an idyllic society as viewed by progressives, it would probably be something along the lines of a world portrayed in the whole Star Trek fantasy universe, is that at least somewhat accurate?

Lol...

I'm a Star Wars guy...

Absinthe Anecdote
09-23-2013, 10:04 PM
I don't believe so.

IMO, progressives just care about the end result and not the process. For example I believe in free healthcare for everyone, I don't care if it is by law, I don't care if all of the sudden the hospital stop charging patients or what not. I just want people not having to pay for healthcare. The first one to gets me there gets my vote...

I just want people to have free groceries and I don't care how it is done. I don't care if they pass laws or if farmers, supermarkets and restaurants just stop getting paid and we all end up eating nothing but a rudimentary protein paste. The first one to get us free food gets my vote...

I would think a government committee would do a much better job choosing my meals than I would.

Just as long as none of us have to pay for food, that's the important thing.

Bunch
09-23-2013, 10:11 PM
I just want people to have free groceries and I don't care how it is done. I don't care if they pass laws or if farmers, supermarkets and restaurants just stop getting paid and we all end up eating nothing but a rudimentary protein paste. The first one to get us free food gets my vote...

I would think a government committee would do a much better job choosing my meals than I would.

Just as long as none of us have to pay for food, that's the important thing.

You just made me hungry....

Absinthe Anecdote
09-23-2013, 10:37 PM
Lol...

I'm a Star Wars guy...

If we were all clones that might make health care a hell of a lot easier to manage.

Wait a second! Who the hell pays for all those prosthetic limbs the Star Wars people are always getting?

The Senator from Nabu? That Jar-Jar dumb ass? "Meesa thinks you have mighty big co-pay!"

Absinthe Anecdote
09-23-2013, 10:58 PM
Just out of curiousity..do you use your govt-managed Tricare, or have you gone out of pocket to purchase a private health insurance policy for you and your family?

I use Tricare and although it is cheap, it isn't free. It was part of an offered benefit package that the government used to attract me to become a career airman.

I would say it is part of a contract between an employee and their employer.

Not sure where you are going with this question but you might want to look at what my post was responding to.

sandsjames
09-23-2013, 11:37 PM
I was heading toward your comment that "a government committee would do a much better job choosing my meals than I would"

You were responding to a comment about "free govt. healthcare"...yes. But, the implication is that you do not think the govt. would do a very good job providing your healthcare for you.

It would seem to me, that if you believed that for something as important as healthcare...you would not be in Tricare or be in it, but supplement it with private health insurance...or would instead purchase the much more wonderful private health insurance that you can choose your coverages with, at least for your family.

So, are you saying the govt.-managed Tricare provides good enough healthcare for your family...(cheap or free or part of your contract isn't the point)? Or that the benefits of purchasing your own private healthcare do not justify its costs?

As AA mentioned, Tricare is an earned benefit...and "part of your contract" is the point. All able bodied people have the same opportunities the rest of us do. At one point or another, they could have joined the military, they could have studied harder, they could have stayed out of jail, they could have worked, etc., etc,.

Absinthe Anecdote
09-23-2013, 11:41 PM
Measure Man

If I want to purchase private insurance and move Tricare to secondary based upon my needs or desires, I can.

I hope you are not implying that since I have a government managed healthcare program that I should shut the fuck up and support socialized medicine.

Bunch
09-23-2013, 11:42 PM
I was heading toward your comment that "a government committee would do a much better job choosing my meals than I would"

You were responding to a comment about "free govt. healthcare"...yes. But, the implication is that you do not think the govt. would do a very good job providing your healthcare for you.

It would seem to me, that if you believed that for something as important as healthcare...you would not be in Tricare or be in it, but supplement it with private health insurance...or would instead purchase the much more wonderful private health insurance that you can choose your coverages with, at least for your family.

So, are you saying the govt.-managed Tricare provides good enough healthcare for your family...(cheap or free or part of your contract isn't the point)? Or that the benefits of purchasing your own private healthcare do not justify its costs?
Reminds me of...


President Obama at a town hall meeting last week described a letter he received from a Medicare recipient:

"I got a letter the other day from a woman. She said, 'I don't want government-run health care. I don't want socialized medicine. And don't touch my Medicare.'"

At a town hall meeting held by Rep. Robert Inglis (R-SC):

Someone reportedly told Inglis, "Keep your government hands off my Medicare."
"I had to politely explain that, 'Actually, sir, your health care is being provided by the government,'" Inglis told the Post. "But he wasn't having any of it."

Link to HuffPo article...
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/252326

Bunch
09-23-2013, 11:46 PM
I was heading toward your comment that "a government committee would do a much better job choosing my meals than I would"

You were responding to a comment about "free govt. healthcare"...yes. But, the implication is that you do not think the govt. would do a very good job providing your healthcare for you.

It would seem to me, that if you believed that for something as important as healthcare...you would not be in Tricare or be in it, but supplement it with private health insurance...or would instead purchase the much more wonderful private health insurance that you can choose your coverages with, at least for your family.

So, are you saying the govt.-managed Tricare provides good enough healthcare for your family...(cheap or free or part of your contract isn't the point)? Or that the benefits of purchasing your own private healthcare do not justify its costs?

Keep you hands off my medicare!!




President Obama at a town hall meeting last week described a letter he received from a Medicare recipient:

"I got a letter the other day from a woman. She said, 'I don't want government-run health care. I don't want socialized medicine. And don't touch my Medicare.'"
At a town hall meeting held by Rep. Robert Inglis (R-SC):

Someone reportedly told Inglis, "Keep your government hands off my Medicare."
"I had to politely explain that, 'Actually, sir, your health care is being provided by the government,'" Inglis told the Post. "But he wasn't having any of it."

Link to HuffPo article...
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/252326

Bunch
09-23-2013, 11:50 PM
Measure Man

If I want to purchase private insurance and move Tricare to secondary based upon my needs or desires, I can.

I hope you are not implying that since I have a government managed healthcare program that I should shut the fuck up and support socialized medicine.

But you have been a beneficiary of government run healthcare or not?

sandsjames
09-23-2013, 11:56 PM
But you have been a beneficiary of government run healthcare or not?

If you mean "Did you earn the benefit of cheap medical care" then I would say yes. Hell, it's not the fact that it's government run that is attractive, it's the cost. And that cost is earned for volunteering to serve. Unfortunately, there are too many people who would rather have the government serve them than the opposite.

grimreaper
09-23-2013, 11:59 PM
But you have been a beneficiary of government run healthcare or not?

Should he have the choice ?

Bunch
09-24-2013, 12:09 AM
Should he have the choice ?

Of course... In the absence of free healthcare then the more access to affordable healthcare the better... For him and for everyone else. But I think one thing is to be opposed to government run healthcare on principle and another is speaking disparagingly about it while being a beneficiary of it for the majority of your life.

grimreaper
09-24-2013, 12:18 AM
Of course... In the absence of free healthcare then the more access to affordable healthcare the better... For him and for everyone else. But I think one thing is to be opposed to government run healthcare on principle and another is speaking disparagingly about it while being a beneficiary of it for the majority of your life.

Except he doesn't have a choice and none of it is affordable, including the government option. Tricare is what he has since it was an earned benefit after 20+ years of service to his country and he couldn't drop it if he wanted to since the system being defended here (ObamaCare) would fine him if he elected to go without.

He doesn't have a choice. ObamaCare took that away from him.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/23/its-official-obamacare-will-increase-health-spending-by-7450-for-a-typical-family-of-four/


Obamacare Will Increase Health Spending By $7,450 For A Typical Family of Four

Bunch
09-24-2013, 12:43 AM
Except he doesn't have a choice and none of it is affordable, including the government option. Tricare is what he has since it was an earned benefit after 20+ years of service to his country and he couldn't drop it if he wanted to since the system being defended here (ObamaCare) would fine him if he elected to go without.

He doesn't have a choice. ObamaCare took that away from him.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/23/its-official-obamacare-will-increase-health-spending-by-7450-for-a-typical-family-of-four/

You won't find a big fan of Obamacare in me...

grimreaper
09-24-2013, 12:49 AM
You won't find a big fan of Obamacare in me...

I think that more and more people are figuring out that it's not all that it was cracked up to be. Yes, it might get insurance to those that didn't have it, but so far, the cost projections are double what we were told, it is not having any real effect on healthcare costs and are even increasing costs in many cases, and is limiting choice, even though we were told it wouldn't. There were other ways to do it.

Not to mention that employers are cutting employees and trimming hours to stay under the mandate, a secondary effect of the law that they obviously never though about, or if they did, they just didn't care.

Bunch
09-24-2013, 12:56 AM
I think that more and more people are figuring out that it's not all that it was cracked up to be. Yes, it might get insurance to those that didn't have it, but so far, the cost projections are double what we were told, it is not having any real effect on healthcare costs and are even increasing costs in many cases, and is limiting choice, even though we were told it wouldn't. There were other ways to do it.

Not to mention that employers are cutting employees and trimming hours to stay under the mandate, a secondary effect of the law that they obviously never though about, or if they did, they just didn't care.

When they took the public option out they lost me. Hopefully overtime it will get added.

grimreaper
09-24-2013, 01:13 AM
When they took the public option out they lost me. Hopefully overtime it will get added.

When the Insurance Industry and Big Pharma came out in favor of it, that should've been an indication that the fix was in. Sure, insurance companies can't charge as much per person, but when you have the government mandating that everyone have insurace, they will make a ton of money due to the fact that they were just handed millions of new customers. Ditto for Big Pharma.

Bunch
09-24-2013, 01:15 AM
When the Insurance Industry and Big Pharma came out in favor of it, that should've been an indication that the fix was in. Sure, insurance companies can't charge as much per person, but when you have the government mandating that everyone has insurace, they will make a ton of money due to the fact that they were just handed millions of new customers. Ditto for Big Pharma.

And that was after they lobbied hard against the public option.

grimreaper
09-24-2013, 01:31 AM
Whether it was free or not was not my point...he indicated that the govt. was not very competent in providing healthcare.

Depending on how you look at it, they aren't. Billions lost to fraud and "improper payments" and then have to spend millions to try and recover it.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2012/05/31/medicare-and-medicaid-fraud-is-costing-taxpayers-billions/

Absinthe Anecdote
09-24-2013, 02:22 AM
Of course... In the absence of free healthcare then the more access to affordable healthcare the better... For him and for everyone else. But I think one thing is to be opposed to government run healthcare on principle and another is speaking disparagingly about it while being a beneficiary of it for the majority of your life.

What makes you think free anything is even a remote possibility?

Somebody is going to be paying.

My whole riff on free groceries was to lampoon the ridiculous comment you made about hospitals giving out healthcare free of charge.

Bunch
09-24-2013, 03:02 AM
What makes you think free anything is even a remote possibility?

I think in 50 or 100 years when they look back at us people will be laughing at some of the things we have to pay for these days.

Bunch
09-24-2013, 03:18 AM
Depending on how you look at it, they aren't. Billions lost to fraud and "improper payments" and then have to spend millions to try and recover it.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2012/05/31/medicare-and-medicaid-fraud-is-costing-taxpayers-billions/

Do you really want me to start pointing instances in which private companies engage in bilking customers out of billions of dollars in every single industry known to man?

grimreaper
09-24-2013, 06:39 AM
Do you really want me to start pointing instances in which private companies engage in bilking customers out of billions of dollars in every single industry known to man?

You are talking about two different things that have absolutely nothing to do with each other, so I don't understand what such an exercise would accomplish.

sandsjames
09-24-2013, 11:38 AM
Whether it was free or not was not my point...he indicated that the govt. was not very competent in providing healthcare.

They aren't. The government healthcare is horrible. The doctors don't give a shit about you. They rarely remember you. They don't remember why you were there the last time if you show up for the same issue. They don't review your records before you come in. They don't spend nearly enough time with the patient. The only time you get good healthcare is when you get a referral to see a real doctor. Imagine if the ONLY doctor you could ever see was a government employed doctor.

71Fish
09-24-2013, 01:02 PM
They aren't. The government healthcare is horrible. The doctors don't give a shit about you. They rarely remember you. They don't remember why you were there the last time if you show up for the same issue. They don't review your records before you come in. They don't spend nearly enough time with the patient. The only time you get good healthcare is when you get a referral to see a real doctor. Imagine if the ONLY doctor you could ever see was a government employed doctor.

I agree completely with everything you wrote. I could write a lot more, but why bother?

AJBIGJ
09-24-2013, 01:10 PM
Imagine hypothetically you're going to go work for McDonalds, part of the package incentive deal they give you as part of the contract of employment is absolutely free meals during your shifts. While you could technically take a break and go to Burger King, or Subway, or Tropical Smoothie, or Taco Bell, any of which happens to be nearby, or you could brown bag your lunch, often enough you will probably wind up snacking on a double cheeseburger and some fries. Now, after a few years, you become a strong candidate to star in the sequel of "Super-Size Me". It's tough to avoid, while it may be more healthy to seek an alternative lunch, it's hard to ignore the lure of something that is essentially a "free lunch", although it is not technically "free" but rather has a cost value associated with the terms of employment, and also happens to be a convenient excuse for the franchise not to pay you as much as an employee as it might have otherwise. Replace the word "lunch" with "Healthcare", and "McDonalds" with "Military Service", this is Tricare in a nutshell.

sandsjames
09-24-2013, 01:56 PM
Guess this is my support tricare day. After having to use tricara for a myriad of services
For me and the family, its amazing the price they pay for services, which is great if you
Have to pay a percentage left, because it is very small. It may help that I am in a small
Town, whose used to caring for military. As some members have said on here,
They had $250k operations and got a $40 bill. Cost wise, its very hard to say tricare is bad.
I'm paying like $500 a year for a family of five. I haven't used VA care, since I just
See a regular base Dr, so ill reserve judgement on that aspect.

I agree completely about the coverage...no complaints. My concern is (going back to knowing what government employed doctors are like) that when the ENTIRE country is pretty much government employed doctors, how bad will it get?

Absinthe Anecdote
09-24-2013, 02:39 PM
I agree completely about the coverage...no complaints. My concern is (going back to knowing what government employed doctors are like) that when the ENTIRE country is pretty much government employed doctors, how bad will it get?

Don't worry, we can always put up a bunch of posters and murals to keep morale up.3421

Bunch
09-24-2013, 02:44 PM
I agree completely about the coverage...no complaints. My concern is (going back to knowing what government employed doctors are like) that when the ENTIRE country is pretty much government employed doctors, how bad will it get?

You keep going back to this and this is just FOX NEWS and right wing media propaganda...

The public option is just another form of insurance, a single payer system very much like Canada, and will provide the public coverage for private delivery of healthcare services. As it was proposed you could choose to buy the public insurance option, stay in private insurance or supplement your public insurance with private insurance like some people in Canada do. The public option that Obama was proposing was an improved version of the Canada model and nothing like the UK model which is in fact "socialize medicine" and even there you still have some private options.

Only the public option would have guaranteed to lower insurance premiums accross the board because of the many people expected to enroll in it and thats why the insurance industry lobbied hard against it once it was taken out of the ACA bill then they lobbied hard for it knowing that they could still charge whatever they wanted.

Either way I give the current model 10-15 years tops...Personalized Medicine is the way of the future and you will see how the current insurance model will collapse due to the advances that personalized medicine will bring. When that happens high healthcare and health insurance cost will be a thing of the past.

sandsjames
09-24-2013, 05:11 PM
You keep going back to this and this is just FOX NEWS and right wing media propaganda...

The public option is just another form of insurance, a single payer system very much like Canada, and will provide the public coverage for private delivery of healthcare services. As it was proposed you could choose to buy the public insurance option, stay in private insurance or supplement your public insurance with private insurance like some people in Canada do. The public option that Obama was proposing was an improved version of the Canada model and nothing like the UK model which is in fact "socialize medicine" and even there you still have some private options.

Only the public option would have guaranteed to lower insurance premiums accross the board because of the many people expected to enroll in it and thats why the insurance industry lobbied hard against it once it was taken out of the ACA bill then they lobbied hard for it knowing that they could still charge whatever they wanted.

Either way I give the current model 10-15 years tops...Personalized Medicine is the way of the future and you will see how the current insurance model will collapse due to the advances that personalized medicine will bring. When that happens high healthcare and health insurance cost will be a thing of the past.

I'm not big on modeling after the Canadian system. My inlaws are Canadians and their insurance isn't the greatest. As a matter of fact, my Brother In-Law, who has worked at a gas station for the last 40 years, has no coverage for prescriptions. There are more options, already, for cheap prescriptions in the States then there are in Canada.

You're option is nothing more than EVERY OTHER NEWS station left wing media propaganda...you say there will still be a private option, but there will not. After years, this option will go away. People will not be able to afford it when they are also paying for everyone else's government care. Also, employers will not carry the private insurance options because they will have no need. And people will be stuck going with government paid doctors. Waiting 6 months to get an appointment, having a doctor who doesn't give a shit about you, etc. The care will decline. Sure, the poor will always have their care for their 6 kids and addiction related illnesses. The rest of the country will be screwed.

Bunch
09-24-2013, 05:23 PM
I'm not big on modeling after the Canadian system. My inlaws are Canadians and their insurance isn't the greatest. As a matter of fact, my Brother In-Law, who has worked at a gas station for the last 40 years, has no coverage for prescriptions. There are more options, already, for cheap prescriptions in the States then there are in Canada.

Really? You clearly don't know what you talking about!!


By crossing the border and now online, Americans, many of them elderly, have been buying drugs through Canadian pharmacies for years. But that may become more difficult.

Regulators have mostly ignored rules prohibiting the purchase and import of prescription drugs when the same treatment is available at home. Now, the Food and Drug Administration appears to be abandoning a relaxed view toward drugs sold to Americans by pharmacies in Canada, where government price-caps keep a lid on costs.

"We are outraged," said Joel Barkin, a spokesman for Rep. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., who has led bus trips to Canada to buy cheaper drugs.

Link to the article by cnnmoney: http://money.cnn.com/2003/03/13/news/drugs_canada/


You're option is nothing more than EVERY OTHER NEWS station left wing media propaganda...you say there will still be a private option, but there will not. After years, this option will go away. People will not be able to afford it when they are also paying for everyone else's government care. Also, employers will not carry the private insurance options because they will have no need. And people will be stuck going with government paid doctors. Waiting 6 months to get an appointment, having a doctor who doesn't give a shit about you, etc. The care will decline. Sure, the poor will always have their care for their 6 kids and addiction related illnesses. The rest of the country will be screwed.

Maybe when you step out of your hannity/rush/beck bubble when can have an honest and clear conversation about this.

sandsjames
09-24-2013, 05:37 PM
Really? You clearly don't know what you talking about!! Ummm...ok...I guess I don't know that he pays more than $200 a month for his diabetes medicine, more than $200 a month for his cholesterol medicine, etc. I don't know those things. I can't possibly know those things.

Maybe when you step out of the Bill Mahr, John Stewart bubble we can have an honest conversation about this.

I don't care how much Americans pay for prescriptions in Canada. I'm talking about how much Canadians pay for prescriptions. They are currently trying to add prescriptions to the health care but, currently, it's not part of it.

Bunch
09-24-2013, 06:07 PM
Ummm...ok...I guess I don't know that he pays more than $200 a month for his diabetes medicine, more than $200 a month for his cholesterol medicine, etc. I don't know those things. I can't possibly know those things.

Show me the facts...and show me how much those same drugs cost in the USA.


Maybe when you step out of the Bill Mahr, John Stewart bubble we can have an honest conversation about this. I really dont like John...


I don't care how much Americans pay for prescriptions in Canada. I'm talking about how much Canadians pay for prescriptions. They are currently trying to add prescriptions to the health care but, currently, it's not part of it.

So if Canadians pay less for prescriptions wouldn't that gave you pause and ask what are they doing better than us. Of course you dont care about fellow americans that have to pay out of pocket!!! I bet you are riding on your nice government run prescription plan all the way to your deathbed...

imported_WILDJOKER5
09-24-2013, 06:39 PM
I don't believe so.

IMO, progressives just care about the end result and not the process. For example I believe in free healthcare for everyone, I don't care if it is by law, I don't care if all of the sudden the hospital stop charging patients or what not. I just want people not having to pay for healthcare. The first one to gets me there gets my vote...

Nothing will ever be "free". What is one thing the government provides that is ever "free"?

imported_WILDJOKER5
09-24-2013, 06:40 PM
I'm pretty sure that I know what I am.

Did you take the politicalcompass .org test? I didnt know what I was till I did.

imported_WILDJOKER5
09-24-2013, 06:44 PM
And one big point is that some people forget that you can pass laws on how people can and cannot act, you cannot legislate how people think.

Nope, but you can politically and governmentally fund "research" and only those "scientist" that will provide you with the answers you are looking for, which allows people to justify the way they act. Prime example is scientist that were funded to come up with the food pyramid and everyone started to think grains should be the staple of a diet. When in actuality, grains are very unhealthy and any researcher that published findings that went against the origional government funded research never seemed to get a grant afterwards.

imported_WILDJOKER5
09-24-2013, 06:51 PM
I think that more and more people are figuring out that it's not all that it was cracked up to be. Yes, it might get insurance to those that didn't have it, but so far, the cost projections are double what we were told, it is not having any real effect on healthcare costs and are even increasing costs in many cases, and is limiting choice, even though we were told it wouldn't. There were other ways to do it.

Not to mention that employers are cutting employees and trimming hours to stay under the mandate, a secondary effect of the law that they obviously never though about, or if they did, they just didn't care.They had to pass the bill to find out what was in it...:fing26:

imported_WILDJOKER5
09-24-2013, 06:53 PM
When the Insurance Industry and Big Pharma came out in favor of it, that should've been an indication that the fix was in. Sure, insurance companies can't charge as much per person, but when you have the government mandating that everyone have insurace, they will make a ton of money due to the fact that they were just handed millions of new customers. Ditto for Big Pharma.

Bill Gates just admitted thats why he is backing common core. "It will provide a uniform customer base"

imported_WILDJOKER5
09-24-2013, 06:56 PM
I think in 50 or 100 years when they look back at us people will be laughing at some of the things we have to pay for these days.

THEY will be paying for it, just as "We" are paying for our parents/grandparents social security now. "Free" will never happen, unless you are making people slaves who will never have a return for the labor.

imported_WILDJOKER5
09-24-2013, 07:01 PM
The next republican president will overturn it and
It will be a colossal train wreck.

Not likely. Romney wanted to replace it. Unless you get Rand Paul or Ted Cruz, you wont see any force to repeal completely. The GOP is just as bad with the big government as the dems. Bush started it off with Medicar part-d

imported_WILDJOKER5
09-24-2013, 07:05 PM
Show me the facts...and show me how much those same drugs cost in the USA.

So if Canadians pay less for prescriptions wouldn't that gave you pause and ask what are they doing better than us. Of course you dont care about fellow americans that have to pay out of pocket!!! I bet you are riding on your nice government run prescription plan all the way to your deathbed...
And what is the standard of living compared to those drugs costing Canadians? Do Canadians get paid more or less than US citizens? Is $200 the same to a Candian as it is to a NE US citizen? Kind of like, does $200 go further in the south or in NYC?

Bunch
09-24-2013, 08:11 PM
And what is the standard of living compared to those drugs costing Canadians?
Generally speaking "cost of living" is HIGHER in Canada. He stated that his friend or family in Canada spean $200 in diabetes medicine a month. Lets say that drug is Humalog, 5 pens of Humalog cost about $95 in Canada, the same amount cost $275.00 in USA. So what does did means? Someting is clearly out of whack when you live in a place that is supposed to have a lower cost of living but when it comes to prescription drugs you are paying almost 200% more for the same product. So basically if his friend/family was living in the US they will be paying close to $600 bucks for the same medicine the use in Canada for $200.


Do Canadians get paid more or less than US citizens?
This question really has many variants. The short answer is about the same $36,000 a year in Canada to $35,300.00 in the US.


Is $200 the same to a Canadian as it is to a NE US citizen? Kind of like, does $200 go further in the south or in NYC?

Like I said earlier, if a place like Canada is known to have a HIGHER cost of living than the US how can you explain that a prescription drug will cost 200% less than what it cost in the US, isn't supposed to be cheaper in the US?

grimreaper
09-24-2013, 08:43 PM
And what is the standard of living compared to those drugs costing Canadians? Do Canadians get paid more or less than US citizens? Is $200 the same to a Candian as it is to a NE US citizen? Kind of like, does $200 go further in the south or in NYC?

Don't know a lot about their Prescription drugs except people from the U.S. do go to Canada to buy meds, but I can tell you that I have Canadian inlaws who have come to the U.S. to have surgeries due to the expected wait.

Bunch
09-24-2013, 09:12 PM
Don't know a lot about their Prescription drugs except people from the U.S. do go to Canada to buy meds, but I can tell you that I have Canadian inlaws who have come to the U.S. to have surgeries due to the expected wait.

I don't doubt what you are saying...but this also is another perceived myth from right wingers...that Canadians constantly flock to the US for care...


To examine the extent to which Canadian residents seek medical care across the border, we collected data about Canadians’ use of services from ambulatory care facilities and hospitals located in Michigan, New York State, and Washington State during 1994–1998. We also collected information from several Canadian sources, including the 1996 National Population Health Survey, the provincial Ministries of Health, and the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association. Results from these sources do not support the widespread perception that Canadian residents seek care extensively in the United States. Indeed, the numbers found are so small as to be barely detectible relative to the use of care by Canadians at home.

And even in the case that they do come to then US for care...who pays for it?!!! Of course the evil Canadian Healthcare System

Analytic framework.
Canadians might receive care in the United States for a number of reasons:

(1) Services are available in Canada but often involve extensive wait times (wait-listed services). Examples often include magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), radiation oncology treatment, and selected surgical procedures such as total knee replacements, cataract surgery, and coronary artery bypass surgery.

(2) Leading-edge technology services are unavailable in Canada. Examples include gamma knife radiation and proton beam therapy for some cranial tumors and specialized programs to treat severe brain injuries.

(3) Services are available in Canada, but U.S. health care centers are more conveniently located for some Canadians (proximal services). Examples include some residents of rural border regions in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, or western Ontario seeking primary care in U.S. settings; and some residents of urban centers such as Thunder Bay, Ontario, seeking secondary or tertiary care south of the border.

(4) Services are provided to Canadian snowbirds, who live in the United States during the winter months, or to other periodic business and leisure travelers to the United States (coincidental services).

(5) Services are available in Canada but are perceived by the patient to be of higher quality in specific U.S. medical centers such as those listed as one of “America’s Best Hospitals” (magnet services).

Across these categories, the sources of funding for care vary considerably. For example, patients in the fourth category will generally have their costs covered by varying combinations of provincial health insurance and private insurance. Services in the second category, approved by a provincial plan, would be paid in full by that plan at rates negotiated with the U.S. care center. Some services in the first and third categories may be provided under a contract between the provincial Ministry of Health and the U.S. providers. Other services in these two categories, as well as those in the fifth, require direct out-of-pocket payment by Canadian patients.

Link to published peer reviewed study:
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/21/3/19.full

I think if we dig deep in the numbers you will find more US citizens going abroad for medical treatment than any other citizens of any other developed country.

grimreaper
09-24-2013, 10:23 PM
You just confirmed exactly what I said.


Don't know a lot about their Prescription drugs except people from the U.S. do go to Canada to buy meds, but I can tell you that I have Canadian inlaws who have come to the U.S. to have surgeries due to the expected wait.



Canadians might receive care in the United States for a number of reasons:

(1) Services are available in Canada but often involve extensive wait times (wait-listed services). Examples often include magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), radiation oncology treatment, and selected surgical procedures such as total knee replacements, cataract surgery, and coronary artery bypass surgery.

--bypass surgery. Not exactly something I would want to have to wait for if I needed it. Now that raises the question as to why there as such long wait times.

And this Canadian study seems to contradict some of what you posted:


http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/Content/research-news/research/articles/leaving-canada-for-medical-care-2011-ff0712.pdf


Among the consequences of poor access to health care in Canada is the reality that some Canadians will ultimately receive the care they require outside of the country. Some of these patients will have been sent out of country by the public health care system due to a lack of available resources or the fact that some procedures or equipment are not provided in their home jurisdiction. Others will have chosen to leave Canada in response to concerns about quality (Walker et al.,2009); to avoid some of the adverse medical consequences of waiting for care such as worsening of their condition, poorer outcomes following treatment, disability, or death (Esmail, 2009); or simply to avoid delay.

grimreaper
09-24-2013, 10:44 PM
Who better to ask about the Canadian Healthcare System than Canadians?


• Overall ratings of the health care system have improved slightly in recent years, but a large majority of Canadians still believe that the system is unsustainable and urgently in need of substantive change.

• Both federal and provincial governments receive relatively low ratings for their performance on health care, though Canadians have slightly more confidence in their provincial governments to make positive changes in the future.

• There is overwhelming support for increased spending on health care, from both levels of government. There is a strong sense that the federal government should transfer more money to the provinces, but not without conditions – there is also strong support for national standards in health care provision.

• The highest policy priority for Canadians is timely access to care. Quality is also a major concern. Both are believed to have declined in recent years, and – without
fundamental change to the system – are seen as likely to decline more in the future.

• There is increasing attention to private sector provision of health care services, in large part a response to expectations about the quality of public services. Most people interested in private health care view this as an addition to, rather than a replacement for, the public health care system. And support for private care does not preclude support for additional public funding – many support both.

• There is strong support for additional home care services, and moderate support for a national pharmacare program.

http://www.queensu.ca/cora/_files/PublicPerceptions.pdf

BENDER56
09-24-2013, 10:59 PM
To me there is a very simple test to determine if someone is a conservative or liberal. Have them watch 30 minutes of CNN and then 30 Minutes of Fox News. See which one they like better. Then after that have them watch The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and then The Colbert Report with Stephen Colbert. See which one they laugh at more. If the person has an open mind and can appreciate perspective on all the shows they are probably independant. If they find theirself yelling at the TV during one of the shows you can easily figure out where they stand politically. Also another way to tell: Just ask them how they feel about Syria and Iraq. If they defend invading Iraq but are against invading Syria they are republican. If they are still mad about invading Iraq but want to invade Syria they are democrat.

The way you have worded this leads me to suspect that you think Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are opposites, politically.

Dude, you DO know that Colbert is a liberal and the character he plays on his show is a lampoon of conservatives? You do know that, right?

Bunch
09-25-2013, 12:07 AM
Who better to ask about the Canadian Healthcare System than Canadians?



http://www.queensu.ca/cora/_files/PublicPerceptions.pdf

And that's why I said on my earlier post that the original proposal of Obamacare would had be an IMPROVED version of the Canada system and not a copycat of the Canada system. Still, I rather have the Canada system here right now that what we have had or will have even with Obamacare.

grimreaper
09-25-2013, 12:21 AM
And that's why I said on my earlier post that the original proposal of Obamacare would had be an IMPROVED version of the Canada system and not a copycat of the Canada system. Still, I rather have the Canada system here right now that what we have had or will have even with Obamacare.

How exactly do you improve it without increasing costs, which goes completely contrary with your idea of "free" healthcare?


Canadian Health Care In Crisis

AP/ February 11, 2009, 7:32 PM

A letter from the Moncton Hospital to a New Brunswick heart patient in need of an electrocardiogram said the appointment would be in three months. It added: "If the person named on this computer-generated letter is deceased, please accept our sincere apologies."

The patient wasn't dead, according to the doctor who showed the letter to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity. But there are many Canadians who claim the long wait for the test and the frigid formality of the letter are indicative of a health system badly in need of emergency care.

Americans who flock to Canada for cheap flu shots often come away impressed at the free and first-class medical care available to Canadians, rich or poor. But tell that to hospital administrators constantly having to cut staff for lack of funds, or to the mother whose teenager was advised she would have to wait up to three years for surgery to repair a torn knee ligament.

"It's like somebody's telling you that you can buy this car, and you've paid for the car, but you can't have it right now," said Jane Pelton. Rather than leave daughter Emily in pain and a knee brace, the Ottawa family opted to pay $3,300 for arthroscopic surgery at a private clinic in Vancouver, with no help from the government.

"Every day we're paying for health care, yet when we go to access it, it's just not there," said Pelton.

The average Canadian family pays about 48 percent of its income in taxes each year, partly to fund the health care system. Rates vary from province to province, but Ontario, the most populous, spends roughly 40 percent of every tax dollar on health care, according to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

The system is going broke, says the federation, which campaigns for tax reform and private enterprise in health care.

It calculates that at present rates, Ontario will be spending 85 percent of its budget on health care by 2035. "We can't afford a state monopoly on health care anymore," says Tasha Kheiriddin, Ontario director of the federation. "We have to examine private alternatives as well."
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-204_162-681801.html

Bunch
09-25-2013, 12:22 AM
You just confirmed exactly what I said.






--bypass surgery. Not exactly something I would want to have to wait for if I needed it. Now that raises the question as to why there as such long wait times.

And this Canadian study seems to contradict some of what you posted:


http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/Content/research-news/research/articles/leaving-canada-for-medical-care-2011-ff0712.pdf

So 45 thousands Canadian were seeing outside the country. Many of them had their services paid by their public insurance. But close to a million Americans will travel abroad to seek medical care. Not to count the thousand of expats that retire abroad for that reason also. All of course paying out of pocket.


With these variables in mind, we believe the market size is USD 24-40 billion, based on approximately eight million cross-border patients worldwide spending an average of USD 3,000-5,000 per visit, including all medically-related costs, cross-border and local transport, inpatient stay and accommodations. We estimate some 900,000 Americans will travel outside the US for medical care this year (2013).

Link to Patients Beyond Borders website:http://www.patientsbeyondborders.com/medical-tourism-statistics-facts

grimreaper
09-25-2013, 12:33 AM
So 45 thousands Canadian were seeing outside the country. Many of them had their services paid by their public insurance. But close to a million Americans will travel abroad to seek medical care. Not to count the thousand of expats that retire abroad for that reason also. All of course paying out of pocket.

Dude, you're comparing a country with a population 3 million less than California to one that has over 314 million people.

and If Canada didn't have the United States to essentially supplement their lack of providers/equipment, their numbers would look even worse.

Bunch
09-25-2013, 12:44 AM
Dude, you're comparing a country with a population 3 million less than California to one that has over 314 million people.

and If Canada didn't have the United States to essentially supplement their lack of providers/equipment, their numbers would look even worse.

But you seem to think that is just a problem in Canada. I'm just pointing out that it happens also in the US. Besides, like you said in Canada is not a problem of affordability, like it is in the US.

grimreaper
09-25-2013, 12:51 AM
But you seem to think that is just a problem in Canada. I'm just pointing out that it happens also in the US.

Never claimed that people don't look elsewhere in the U.S., but to point to Canada as a shining example of what healthcare should look like is waaay off the mark IMO.

The majority of Americans were happy with the healthcare they had and for some reason, the Federal govt thought it better to fundamentally change our system into a giant clusterf*** all in the name of insuring 30 million people who didn't have insurance, many of those by choice, not because they couldn't afford it.

Absinthe Anecdote
09-25-2013, 01:06 AM
Didn't Michael Moore go to Cuba in his documentary, Sicko, and claim they have better healthcare?

I think I remember seeing a film clip of him showing a Cuban hospital that looked like it was plucked from the 1950s and claiming it is a better system.

Bunch
09-25-2013, 01:11 AM
Never claimed that people don't look elsewhere in the U.S., but to point to Canada as a shining example of what healthcare should look like is waaay off the mark IMO.

The majority of Americans were happy with the healthcare they had and for some reason, the Federal govt thought it better to fundamentally change our system into a giant clusterf*** all in the name of insuring 30 million people who didn't have insurance, many of those by choice, not because they couldn't afford it.

I remember back in 2008 the majority of Americans overwhelmingly supported doing something about the uninsured. The goal was to get them access to healthcare. The end result... this Obamacare is something that we can agree is not what people wanted. I hope it works for the better but I just don't see how it will without some major tweaking.

grimreaper
09-25-2013, 01:41 AM
I remember back in 2008 the majority of Americans overwhelmingly supported doing something about the uninsured. The goal was to get them access to healthcare. The end result... this Obamacare is something that we can agree is not what people wanted. I hope it works for the better but I just don't see how it will without some major tweaking.

I have no problems with getting healthcare for those that need it, as is the opinion of most Americans, but IMO, we went about it in about the most backasswards way possible.

imported_WILDJOKER5
09-25-2013, 11:32 AM
Generally speaking "cost of living" is HIGHER in Canada. He stated that his friend or family in Canada spean $200 in diabetes medicine a month. Lets say that drug is Humalog, 5 pens of Humalog cost about $95 in Canada, the same amount cost $275.00 in USA. So what does did means? Someting is clearly out of whack when you live in a place that is supposed to have a lower cost of living but when it comes to prescription drugs you are paying almost 200% more for the same product. So basically if his friend/family was living in the US they will be paying close to $600 bucks for the same medicine the use in Canada for $200.Please give some links.


This question really has many variants. The short answer is about the same $36,000 a year in Canada to $35,300.00 in the US.This is skewed. Those that generally cross to Canada are from the northern states which have a higher pay and higher cost of living. Try doing a site to site comparasion, not just general comparason and you may find your results change dramatically. The price for Canadian goods will also vary heavily depending on where they need to be shipped since there are a bunch of resource towns (dimond mining) in the mountains. And think about the regulations put on the cost of the meds up there as compared to here. The ability to make generic meds compared to "TM" drugs which means you pay for the name more than the drug. We have a bunch of regulations and taxes that drive up the price, not sure if Canada is the same or not.


Like I said earlier, if a place like Canada is known to have a HIGHER cost of living than the US how can you explain that a prescription drug will cost 200% less than what it cost in the US, isn't supposed to be cheaper in the US?
There are a lot of factors, but you havent shown where it costs 200% more in the US than Canada.

imported_WILDJOKER5
09-25-2013, 12:04 PM
I have no problems with getting healthcare for those that need it, as is the opinion of most Americans, but IMO, we went about it in about the most backasswards way possible.

And used lies to rile up the masses to support the boondogle of Obamacare. Then hid all legislation until it was passed.

giggawatt
09-25-2013, 04:14 PM
Not likely. Romney wanted to replace it. Unless you get Rand Paul or Ted Cruz, you wont see any force to repeal completely. The GOP is just as bad with the big government as the dems. Bush started it off with Medicar part-d

Correct me if I'm wrong but, Ted Cruz was born in Canada and therefore is not eligible to be POTUS.

Stalwart
09-25-2013, 04:28 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong but, Ted Cruz was born in Canada and therefore is not eligible to be POTUS.

Senator Cruz's mother was an American citizen, his dad was born in Cuba and was an oil worker who was working in Canada when he was born. The Constitutional requirement is to be a "natural born citizen" & the consensus is that someone is a "natural born" citizen if they have citizenship at birth and don’t have to go through a naturalization process to become a citizen; Senator Cruz has never gone through a naturalization process.

Children born to Americans abroad are generally considered natural born citizens of the United States. Senator McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone since his father (a Naval Officer) was stationed there, Senator McCain is a United States citizen and his eligibility to run for President was not seriously challenged in 2008.

Of note though is that currently there is no definitive Supreme Court precedent on it.