Obamacare is capitalist approach ($$$) to universal healthcare, Canada is socialist

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

Of course, Canada is better as you don't worry about high premiums and confusing options. Not much paperwork either, which means less bureaucracy. Actually Canada has a lower cost for healthcare as percentage of GDP. And they have a longer life expectancy than America, which is the bottom line.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada

I don't think Obama had a free hand in picking the best option, but it's difficult to build a fair healthcare system upon the foundations of unbridled capitalism. Those who complain about the cost of Obamacare, should complain about the laws of capitalism, which is the law of the jungle.



--------------------------------------------------------------

http://BANANAREVOLUTION.webspawner.com

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher

Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Of course, Canada is better as you don't worry about high premiums and confusing options. Not much paperwork either, which means less bureaucracy. Actually Canada has a lower cost for healthcare

as percentage of GDP. And they have a longer life expectancy than America, which is the bottom line.

Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada
I don't think Obama had a free hand in picking the best option, but it's difficult to build a fair healthcare system upon the foundations of unbridled capitalism. Those who complain about the

cost of Obamacare, should complain about the laws of capitalism, which is the law of the jungle.
Excellent points! The Canadian system is very similar to Medicare,
which should be extended to all Americans. Canada has the best system
in the world,

Yeah, why didn't I understand that when all the Canadians come to the USofA for
health care. Yeah, it's a dead giveaway.

Right, you Christians NEVER have a solution to anything. If you hate Obamacare and the Canadian system you must provide me an option that extends healthcare to all.

HINT: Even Taiwan has such a system...

Taiwan looked at more than ten countries and combined their best qualities to form their own unique system. In 1995, Taiwan formed the National Health Insurance (NHI) model. In a 2009 interview, Dr. Michael Chen, Vice President and CFO of Taiwan's National Health Insurance Bureau explained that one of the models investigated was the United States and that fundamentally, NHI "is modeled after Medicare [in the USA]. And there are so many similarities – other than that our program covers all of the population, and Medicare covers only the elderly. It seems the way to go to have social insurance."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Taiwan#Health_care_reform

***

"MEDICARE FOR ALL" sounds like a reasonable idea. It's funny that Christians are in the front line attacking any possible solution. I think they are the wolf in sheep's clothing.

[His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

On Sat, 16 Nov 2013 08:46:24 -0800, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble

Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Of course, Canada is better as you don't worry about high premiums and
confusing options. Not much paperwork either, which means less
bureaucracy. Actually Canada has a lower cost for healthcare as
percentage of GDP. And they have a longer life expectancy than America,
which is the bottom line.

It's well known that the USA spends more on health care, as percentage of
GDP, than any other country, and is way down the list of several measures
of health quality, including life expectancy. If you want to know how
NOT to deliver health care efficiently and effectively, the USA is a case
study.

And the US has had a fascist, welfare-state-socialist
healthcare system for decades.

The US has had a welfare state for the elderly, who tend to vote much more than the young. If they took Medicare away from them, I bet they would abandon being conservative.

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 07:28:31 -0800 (PST), "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most

OCare is ultimately designed to send a lot more
taxpayer money to Big Med Inc .....
If he wanted *socialized* medicine he'd have
nationalized every health/med-related company
in the country instead.

Right, he wouldn't put the Medical/Pharmaceutical Industry on a diet
without facing a backlash. He had no option, but this idea of

"Diet" ? Hardly. Big Med is gonna MAKE profit from
this plan ... they practically wrote the legislation after
all, told their puppets to sign on the line or they'd
be de-funded and put on the sidewalk.
To subsidize 10% of the population, Joe Average IS
gonna wind up paying 50% more for health coverage
(at least that much, just wait and see, maybe double
after a few years go by). Then, using the "to save
money" excuse, they'll start cutting services and
trying to micro-manage every detail of everyones
lives. Then I'm bailing out ... find a country that
respects liberty a bit more. Hell, even eastern
europe might be better, they still remember all
those decades of Soviet totalitarianism ......
"Medicare For All" is pretty much what I'd been sayng
all along ... well, to extend MedicAid anyhow. The
mechanisms are already in place, you'd just have to
scale up a bit. No vast new bureaucracies, no IRS
enforcers, no suckin' up to Big Meds profit dreams.
BUT, in the existing ultra-corrupted environment,
that's just not gonna happen. Big Med plans to
get BIGGER, RICHER ... not marginized into
supp-plans and crap for the top 5% and
'vanity' procedures like facelifts and such.
Big Med wants MORE MONEY and dammit
they're gonna make their puppets WORK for
their 'donations' in order to GET that money
for themselves and (oh yea ... ) their
stockholders.
So, we get OCrapoCare ... and if the GOP
replaces it then it'll just be OCrapoCare-II -
ultimately making just as much money for
Big Med while their puppets brag on TV
about "Doing Something" ....

So Obamacare is a handy band-aid to the Medical/Pharmaceutical Industry, but not the average Joe. Then people often blame Obama and not the Medical/Pharmaceutical Industry. And the Republicans never offer an alternative, because it would be similar to Obamacare.

Medicare for all would be a nice solution, fair and simple, but I haven't heard that from the party politics that led this country to the brink. I'd add this motto to the debate: "Medicare for all or for none." Meaning the old should relinquish their privileges until all --men, women and children-- have it.

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

On Sat, 16 Nov 2013 08:46:24 -0800 (PST), "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most

Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Of course, Canada is better as you don't worry about high premiums and confusing options. Not much paperwork either, which means less bureaucracy. Actually Canada has a lower cost for healthcare as percentage of GDP. And they have a longer life expectancy than America, which is the bottom line.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada
I don't think Obama had a free hand in picking the best option, but it's difficult to build a fair healthcare system upon the foundations of unbridled capitalism. Those who complain about the cost of Obamacare, should complain about the laws of capitalism, which is the law of the jungle.

Good observation. People don't seem to get it. It isn't socialized
medicine or even close; it is a way to funnel more money into
insurance companies while preserving the profits of "managed health
care," and pharmaceutical companies.
It stinks. The wonder is that a democrat came up with it - or a
republican in democratic clothing (like Clinton)

Right, wolf in sheep's clothing. ;)

But there's something Big Brother really should be doing for us, and it's totally free, actually quite effective at controlling spiraling costs:

FACILITATE EXERCISE WHILE TAXING OBESITY.

Lazy fat asses overburden the system while the fit are forced to drive everywhere for fear of riding a bike or walking.

C'mon Big Brother, your policies nurture the fat asses because they are more profitable, and they are mostly the Christians. Give the fittest a better chance to survive and be happy.

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 07:32:26 -0600, Mitchell Holman <nomailvatt.com>

Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher

Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Of course, Canada is better as you don't worry about high premiums
and confusing options. Not much paperwork either, which means less
bureaucracy. Actually Canada has a lower cost for healthcare

as percentage of GDP. And they have a longer life expectancy than
America, which is the bottom line.

Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada
I don't think Obama had a free hand in picking the best option, but
it's difficult to build a fair healthcare system upon the
foundations of unbridled capitalism. Those who complain about the

cost of Obamacare, should complain about the laws of capitalism, which
is the law of the jungle.
Excellent points! The Canadian system is very similar to Medicare,
which should be extended to all Americans. Canada has the best system
in the world,

Yeah, why didn't I understand that when all the Canadians come to the
USofA for health care.

Don't you mean Americans going to
Canada for health care?

No. In Canada, you have to wait a long time for a needed procedure.

And in America you can be driven into bankruptcy
by medical bill, something that doesn't happen in Canada. Or France, or
the UK, or Australia, or Japan, or even Mexico.

In civilized countries, unlike the USA, people needing emergency treatment
for urgent, life-threatening conditions, get the care they need quickly
and easily, without having to take out a loan from the bank. More
elective procedures, like a hip replacement, will have a longer wait. Of
course, that wait could be cut way down if they were willing to spend as
much on their health care as we do in the USA! The main difference is the
elimination of a small group of people at the top of the food chain,
getting an obscene amount of money from the system.

Are you willing to challenge the wisdom of "trickle down economics"? ;)

You are supposed to feed the top of the food chain and the scraps will trickle down. In this case you feed them the sick and the old, just like they go to feed the predators in the African savannah. Ah, the young are not spared either. Bush vetoed the law that would give them some security.

Abortion would spare many Americans a life of struggle. Pity the Christians deny that. But looking on the bright side, more people means more consumers, more cars on the road, and more pollution. Ah, the Christians also deny that. For them obesity just happens and it's not the consequence of a lazy lifestyle. The Christian mind never asks "why." Things get a little complicated but they never pay attention to simple concepts like "prevention."

Things get simple also when they find a scapegoat like Obama, but they never offer a solution. The comments from Christians here are very telling.

[His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 11:47:40 -0600, Christopher A. Lee

On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 12:25:59 -0500, defaullt

On Sat, 16 Nov 2013 08:46:24 -0800 (PST), "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most

Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Of course, Canada is better as you don't worry about
high premiums and confusing options. Not much
paperwork either, which means less bureaucracy.
Actually Canada has a lower cost for healthcare as
percentage of GDP. And they have a longer life
expectancy than America, which is the bottom line.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada
I don't think Obama had a free hand in picking the
best option, but it's difficult to build a fair healthcare
system upon the foundations of unbridled capitalism.
Those who complain about the cost of Obamacare,
should complain about the laws of capitalism, which
is the law of the jungle.

Good observation. People don't seem to get it. It isn't socialized
medicine or even close; it is a way to funnel more money into
insurance companies while preserving the profits of "managed health
care," and pharmaceutical companies.

The enormous bureaucracy of the insurance system is one of the reasons
so much more is spent than in other countries, for less.

The bureaucracy, corporate profits, and this insane idea that death
can be avoided, or each natural death is an enormous tragedy instead
of the natural order of things.
We often spend more on health care for the last six months of life.
And the quality of life for a bed ridden zombie connected to more
electronics than a space shuttle, while unable to remember their own
name let alone the relatives clustered around? That makes sense?

No way, euthanasia makes more sense. We must not listen to the Christians. Gee, do they ever get it right? Christians are OK so long as they don't vote or else they defeat the purpose of democracy, which is to be smart and participate in liveable communities. They believe we came here to suffer and then don't want to let us go. C'mon, give every senior a gun to end his misery. ;)

for instance
Grace: "how are you doing today Mom?"
Mom: "who are you?"
Grace: "Mom, it's me Grace. I'm your daughter."
Mom: "I never saw you before; they let anybody into these places"
Grace: "which places?"
Mom: "this hotel" (Mom was convinced she was in France)
Grace: "you're in a hospital"
Mom: "where's Bobby?"
Grace: "he died Mom, don't you remember?"
this goes on for hours, while the cost is escalating like the numbers
on a run-away gas pump.
Pharmaceutical "research" is more about patent extension by
reformulating drugs with different delivery systems, extending the
life with 'off label' or different uses for the same drug, and
outright collusion among companies.
A generic manufacturer will announce plans to start manufacturing some
off-patent, but still profitable drug, and all kinds of problems
suddenly develop; regulatory and licensing squabbles, management
people hired away to large pharma, reasons/excuses to drag their feet
etc., and last but not least bribery.
When a drug costs a few cents to produce, sells for $20-30 a tablet,
and brings in a profit of 2 billion a month, a few million dollars to
engineer delays in competition is well worth it.

Yes, let the old have a trike (quality of life) and then when they can't pedal any more, let them use the gun.

(sorry for the black humor)

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

You don't know what you are getting in Canada and Mesico.

Obviously you're ignorant.
I've had medical treatment in both Canada and the U.S., and while I
was lucky enough to have a fantastic health plan in Texas, I didn't
need one in Canada.
My wife's pregnancy and delivery cost us all of $240 in 2000, and the
actual bill for the insurance company was at least 100x that... way to
go, expensive U.S. health care!
In 2006, I ripped my achilles tendon... and in the U.S., I would have
had to wait for days (even with the excellent health plan) to see a
provider that was part of the plan. Because I was in Canada at the
time, I got to have the surgery the same night.... and I was in
physiotherapy starting two weeks later... right, for free!
People with money go from Canada to the U.S. because they don't want
to wait for elective surgeries. Outside of that, who the hell can
afford it?
You haven't had any treatment in either Canada or Mexico, Dork... so
you're entirely unable to comment on that without looking like a
jackass.
Health care ought to be universal, and the fact that you fight it
paints you for the jackass that you are.

Thank you for sharing your experience with us. It seems the Christians are universally opposed to universal healthcare of any kind. If anyone is the exception to the rule, then speak up!

[His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

On Thu, 21 Nov 2013 20:02:59 -0800 (PST), "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most

On Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:51:08 -0800 (PST), "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most

Lots of valuable statistics, but I'd like to point out another area where we are #1: O-B-E-S-I-T-Y.
And this obesity leads to poor health and a lousy quality of life. Why are we more obese? Because our communities are deserts devoid of life as much as it's the quality of the food readily available.

In the words of the great Greg Giraldo...
"How fucking disgusting are we that we've invented a dessert called
'Death by Chocolate'?"
It harkens back to medieval times when "portly" people were considered
to be wealthy and prosperous; after all, if you could afford to eat,
then being able to over-eat counted for something in the social
strata.
Now, it's more that there's a concerted effort by the prepared food
industry to concentrate on the chemical reactions triggered by salt,
sugar and fat consumption: there's definite correlations between the
pleasures triggered by endorphins and the memories connected to
good-tasting food.
Obesity's an epidemic because people like their couches and their
food.

It sounds like the automobile, "People drive because they like comfort."
But once people have CHOICES they start riding bike and public transportation. As many as 40% of the people commute by bike in Holland and Denmark.
Now we are sitting in gigantic traffic jams and few people realize we must look for alternatives, which also can help slow down climate change.
And even if it is an unhealthy hamburger, it tastes much after riding a bike. The problem is eating that crap AND then having to drive.
Again, hit them with a fat tax and let's see.

It's just a little disingenuous to compare the situations in Holland
and Denmark with those in the U.S.... but I do accept the premise.
There was a bit in the news about how parents of the current tween
generation could run faster when they were children than their
progeny, and that has to do with a different kind of lifestyle: there
was a lot less urbanized life, and a lot less mobility available
through cheap cars and gas.
In Holland and Denmark, the distances being commuted are far less than
they are in the U.S., especially in the megalopolises... so traveling
by bike isn't a real choice that's available unless enormous changes
were made to infrastructure. I used to do a 35 mile trip each way to
work for a couple of years: there is absolutely no way that could
happen on a bike.

It would be naive to give up the car and embrace the bike. We do live in communities and most of the time we move around one. Distances are too far for walking but not biking. I find that the bike is practical between 2 & 5 miles, though sometimes I'm in the mood to do more. I'm talking cargo bike, single speed, not flimsy road bikes.

However you'd probably agree that traffic is out of control in America. Help in on the way though. Speed cameras are popping up in Chicago and probably coming soon to a theater near you. I'm sure that if traffic were tamed we would have a much greater quality of life, including better health. We live in a cage forced by fear, real or imaginary, but there's a lot of fear. And Big Brother keeps throwing unconnected bike lanes at us that are used for parking. Nobody enforces anything. Banana Republic by the Sea.

Who votes in America? The Christians, the gated communitarians and the elderly. Do they have a clue? Do they care?

However, with sufficient change in mindset, and smarter urban
planning, you could do a lot to mitigate the impact of car use and gas
consumption and increase the overall health of the population. But
that takes education, and caring about things... both of which have
taken a giant leap backwards because people like convenience.

I don't think people like convenience that much when they pay a price for it. Obesity, gas, depression, isolation, aggression take a toll. When I ride a bike I don't experience any of that.

I'm an advocate of things like "sin" taxes, where you place a
financial premium on things like alcohol and tobacco and foods that
contain excessive sugar and fat and sodium.

Or may do it like the Japanese... WAR ON OBESITY!

http://www.overcomingbias.com/2011/11/japans-fat-tax.html

That's more interesting to me than the war on drugs or prostitution. Let me guess who's behind those wars. ;)

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

Post by His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
However you'd probably agree that traffic is out of control in America.

No. Population is out of control. Traffic wasn't bad just 50 years ago.

It is. According to God's command, we should multiply ad infinutum, remember?

Post by His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Who votes in America? The Christians, the gated communitarians and the
elderly.

They aren't a drop in the bucket. Proof? 0bama is president.

This president drew on a different crowd. At the local level it's the same old voting groups at work. I was unprepared to see so many political signs on a recent tour I took through a gated community nearby. As if they cared.

Well, they care enough not to have an unsympathetic politician in power. And you know what, a big construction/destruction/corruption project is happening right outside their gates.

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

It's just a little disingenuous to compare the situations in Holland
and Denmark with those in the U.S.... but I do accept the premise.

It truly is. I've been to Holland (though not to Denmark, but I don't
believe it's much different there), and compared to most places in the
U.S., it's *tiny*. It makes sense to ride bikes in Holland. You leave
your house, get on your bike, ride for 15 or 20 minutes, and presto,
you're where you need to be.
If you live in one of the large, mountainous states of the western U.S.,
however, it doesn't make much sense to ride a bike; you would spend most
of your day doing nothing but pedaling to get where you're going, and
you'd be drenched in sweat and exhausted when you got there.
And that's not even talking about the fact that in several of those large
western states, the temperatures in the summer are not conducive to
riding a bike. I live in southern Arizona; I don't ride my bike between
April and October (November of this year, since it stayed hot during
October). It's just not practical.

Well, the good thing about free spirits (including the atheists) is that we can reason and reach a compromise if you will. I never, ever expect Christians to give away an inch of their hard earned convictions, such as they have against climate change.

Anyway, after my little speech, I will address your point, which is both reasonable and unreasonable. If I lived in the mountains, I wouldn't ride a bicycle. If it was freezing cold, I wouldn't ride a bicycle. I live in Florida however and I see no reason for the supermarket to be full of cars and SUVs. Quite simply people don't have a choice. And the same is true for most places in the South. Now NYC implements a fantastic bike sharing program. Impractical under a winter storm? You bet. You know what, I probably wouldn't even ride a bike in NYC. I would walk because it would give me more freedom to go in and out the stores and would allow me to socialize with that great crowd out there.

But wait, I expect that people in the mountains have a least a hiking trail nearby without the need for a car. Regrettably that wasn't the case in this beautiful natural place where we landed last year. We spent 2 months there and we never found the hiking place. Only the Buddhist retreat had a small place to hike. The local government provides nothing, even when they have a prosperous industry in town: the prison.

Bottom line is that most people in America are denied the pleasure to ride a bike, ride a canoe, walk or hike. And that means you become fat and depressive, and ultimately sick. You free spirits know we are not meant to sit on our ass and expect to be happy. Only the Christians have that expectation.

(I'm not sure if you are a Christian or not. If you are, it would explain everything)