BCREASON:
- I wonder how many Canadians would like to give up their healthcare and have pre- Obama style American medicare.
However our system is overburdened already and becoming an increasingly higher percentage of our budgets. As the baby boomers try to catch up to we old and wiser in greater numbers it will be unsustainable? Fortunately we have 90% fewer people than the U.S. or we would have had to change our system a long time ago.
The problem is that in spite of the myths propagated by the lefties, governments don't do many things better. They have NO motivation to do so. If they need more money, they raise taxes and we the people have no choice but to pay.
Governments do not have to return a profit so they are not motivated to save money and find the best way to provide care at the lowest cost. Ontario's billion-dollar-boondoggle Ehealth spending with NO RESULTS for all the money spent are the ABSOLUTE BEST example of this.
BCReason says: False Dichotomies irk me. Either you're a Conservative or you're a Socialist. There's no longer a middle ground where you can have some Conservative ideals while still wanting to help people.
ANSWER: A dichotomy is a whole divided into two mutually exclusive parts. The comment above is false. All of us in the human family have two parts: the part that wants to do good and help others and the part that wants to be selfish and do whatever makes us feel good. That is obvious. It is not a dichotomy to be conservative and care about others. Socialism, the myth goes, which includes the main Democratic party in the U.S. today, cares about the little guy and the Republicans care only about the fat cats. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Mr. Biden according to statistics donated less than $5000 total to charity last year or 1.44% of his income. The same article indicates that the average donation to charity is 3 - 5% of income.
And startling to some like Brian, conservatives donate a higher proportion of their income even tho they earn less than liberals. [In case he thinks I have quoted biased figures, check here. This article shows that by percentage those that have the least, give the highest percentage. Also in 2005 the Cheneys, gave away 78% of their income. Come on Mr. Biden, I thought you wanted to help those less fortunate than you! Or is it that you want OTHERS to help those less fortunate?]
So Brian, balanced research says you have swallowed a myth whole hog as the saying goes. No dichotomy is an absolute including the myth of who shows "compassion" the most.
BCReason: While I regard myself as a conservative I try not to carry that to absurd extremes. Small government and lower taxes are an ideal. However some things are best done by government and some by private enterprise.
Answer: I think he meant conservative financially. Small government and lower taxes are necessary especially when times are tough, Big government in prosperous times like the 60' and 80's is okay because everyone has more to spend.
The problem with ObamaCare which requires the U.S. to go into even MORE debt than they already have is that it was brought in at a VERY TOUGH TIME with 9.2 - 18% unemployment in the U.S. Government is the biggest waster of money. No profit needed, just print more money or raise more taxes. Who can stop the government from doing that?
BCReason: To give tax dollars to private insurers so they can make large profits is nonsensical. This is a case where better services for less money can be provided by government. Insurance companies naturally follow the inclination to maximize profits by reducing service and charging high premiums. They are not accountable and the way medicare was set up there was minimal competition. (That's my understanding of it anyway). A government agency would be accountable to taxpayers to provide maximum service for the lowest possible cost. Being a nonprofit provides a savings right from the start.
Answer: You do not understand private enterprise Brian. But of course you are trained in technology so why would you? On the other hand, competition between private health-care providers CAN PROVIDE lower costs because they all want as much business as possible, so they must provide AS MUCH as possible for as LITTLE COST as possible.
There is disparity and disagreement even about the stats regarding the two current systems in 2010, but one study by the WHO in 2000 "This study rated the US "responsiveness", or quality of service for individuals receiving treatment, as 1st, compared with 7th for Canada. However, the average life expectancy for Canadians was 80.34 years compared with 78.6 years for residents of the U.S.[8]"
There are problems with both systems as they are almost opposites. In Canada the government has a monopoly which ObamaCare will become unless modified or replaced. If the government care is so good as Brian states, why not open it up to competition and prove it, or not? IN the U.S. too many spend their life savings and become bankrupt and more or simply die due to neglect because they cannot afford the medicine or care they need.
My thought is that the countries which seem to have better more efficient systems are the ones who have a combination of government-run and privately-run healthcare.
We are fast reaching that necessity in Canada. And unfortunately, economics being his weak suit, Mr. Obama is following the Canadian model too closely.
BCReason: Just a word about bailouts. In Canada I was pro GM and con Nortel. GM and it's suppliers represent 100's of thousands of jobs. Too big to let fail and hopefully we can recoup the money later. Nortel has few employees left in Canada and basically no suppliers because all manufacturing is off shore. This despite the fact I owed my own living at the time to Nortel. I couldn't in good conscience support bailing them out.
Answer: WE will never know. Mitt Romney says other companies would have bought up the bankrupt GM and Chrysler and make them profitable by eliminating the excessive wages of workers which are MUCH higher than the Japanese car companies.
So the point I'm making, it is wrong to blindly follow any ideology. Be a socialist where it makes sense to do so and be a conservative where it makes sense to do so. To do the opposite leads to disaster. [True except in atheism Brian is following the leaders blindly! He sends me atheistic opinion-pieces or statements which he expects me to have faith in and accept without any evidence. On the other hand, as a neo-atheist, he wants evidence to prove there is a God. Which is it Brian? Evidence or Faith: You cannot have a false dichotomy of wanting one from me and the other for yourself can you?]
BCReason: My fear with Sarah and the tea party is they will blindly follow the conservative ideology into places where it doesn't belong. They are assured that whatever they do has Gods approval. They disdain the educated as elites and are more apt to follow an uneducated preacher rather than economists and political scientists to the detriment of all. [Brian thinks obviously that the TEA party is a bunch of religious zealots with little wisdom but that is because he knows nothing about them except what he reads on extreme radical lefty sites. On the other hand, I have read articles by both sides and listened to the TEA party people. TEA party stands for "Taxed Enough Already" What Brian and the government of the U.S. do not understand is what we all know. When we are in a difficult time financially we have to spend LESS, not more!]
ANSWER: An opinion which has little verity. Some of the most educated are stupid in many ways and have little wisdom. Education does not equal common sense as many less-educated, common people display.
