Comments on: Senate Vote on Health Care Reform Bill

By: compoundcaptive

compoundcaptive — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 13:50:52 +0000

I’m not sure how much more specific I can be: The people with whom I discussed Canadian health care are “snow birds, snow people, winter visitors” or whatever label you prefer, but they were born in Canada and are citizens there. They’ve had personal experiences with that health care system and, in many cases, it failed them. That’s the primary reason they began coming to the U.S. over two decades ago. When I asked them if others they knew felt the same way they unhesitatingly responded, “Yes, all of them, and they want to come here too.”
Something else I questioned early on was why the administration hadn’t begun fixing the systemic problems they identified last summer. To date, no action has been taken to address the specific areas that are broken (e.g., Medicare waste and abuse).
I don’t believe we can afford nor do we need to disassemble and rebuild the entire system. Addressing the parts of it that are failing would seem to be a reasonable starting point given the current economic conditions.

By: mike_brewer

mike_brewer — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 09:25:59 +0000

Compound,
We like Leftfield and TipOneil over at VeteranVeritas. They keep things wonderfully juiced up. Try not to take it so personally.

By: mike_brewer

mike_brewer — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 09:22:40 +0000

I have family who are Canadian. They do not meet the same folk you run into in the coffee shops. Good journalism would identify those people with a bit more specificity and content. Otherwise it is hearsay and too anecdotal to matter. In fact most Canadians are quite pleased with there system.
Did you know that our Medicare program was modeled after the Canadian template? It was 1965.

By: compoundcaptive

compoundcaptive — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:45:06 +0000

Good offering Lefty–thank you for the thoughtful input.
As I mentioned in an earlier posting, I enjoy having meaningful dialogue with anyone who offers something worthwhile for consideration. This becomes especially useful when the person effectively describes the manner in which they view something that happens to be from a perspective that I hadn’t considered or merely overlooked.

By: compoundcaptive

compoundcaptive — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:14:58 +0000

OK, now you’ve gone too far ego dude. You’re the one expressing a destructive attitude of “for em’ or agin’ em” with no middle ground considered and falsely labeling me.
I can see clearly through your rhetoric as most who attempt to view things from a broad-ranging, middle ground vantage point.
We’re done here–

By: tiponeill

tiponeill — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:20:42 +0000

But you seem to want, in fact insist, on starting an argument about everything for the mere sake of irritating people.

You seem to have a high opinion of yourself – You post a silly right wing political talking point about the size of a bill, and not only do you expect your argument to be taken seriously and not ridiculed, but you think that someone who ridicules the argument is doing it solely to “irritate” you
Try this instead – If the bill was one paragraph long, the Repubs would still vote against it and would be complaining that it was too short.
Perhaps you are unable to see through political rhetoric, but most of us can and don’t take them seriously – and if you are simply going to mindlessly repeat political slogans you might want to get used to being ridiculed – it isn’t anything personal.

By: leftfield

leftfield — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:24:26 +0000

Your doing great, Compound. People who agree with you will be less likely to comment on a blog than those who don’t agree with your point of view. I don’t often comment on radical leftist blogs or websites because it all becomes an exercise in patting one another on the back and telling one another how smart we are and how dumb the other guy is. Where’s the fun in that? Writing about controversial issues is bound to attract more readers and get more negative responses. You should consider all the negative responses as a measure of success.

By: leftfield

leftfield — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:18:17 +0000

Don’t we already have a system of de facto rationing in place, one based not on need, but on ability to pay? Don’t insurance company bureaucrats already determine what treatments you will receive or not receive? Doesn’t a total stranger in an unaccountable tyranny already determine the value of your life? It is inevitable when dealing with a capitalistic system of economics that everything, including your life, has an exchange value.

By: compoundcaptive

compoundcaptive — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:32:59 +0000

Oh good, another sniper. And your idea offering would be??

By: compoundcaptive

compoundcaptive — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:30:08 +0000

Actually, if you watched 60 Minutes last night it became evident during the interview that a form of rationing would occur, although the government will never use such a term. After a bit a probing by the interviewer another revelation was uncovered regarding a somewhat templated form of health care (e.g., if you’re 75 years old, have XYZ condition, then you won’t get certain treatments). In effect, a bureaucrat somewhere will have the authority to make life and death decisions, and yes, it was also offered that cost will be a factor. The bottom line of that segment of the program resulted in the affirmation that at some point each of us will have a dollar value placed on our life by a total stranger.