Both Canada and the US are capitalist societies. The "more socialist" mantra is simply a talking point. If health care can be streamlined, then by all means, let's do so. If we don't, the costs will soon run us into bankruptcy. How much longer do you think we can continue to allow health care costs to increase faster than the rate of inflation? The current system is not sustainable.
No, we absolutely can mortgage the future by continuing to allow health care costs to escalate. Pretty soon, not even the middle class will be able to afford it.
If you want a strict interpretation of the constitution, then 90% of everything that the federal government does is unconstitutional. Such a strict interpretation would have worked well in the 18th. century, but, luckily for us, we now live in the 21st.
Actually, yes I do. I thought everyone knew by now that the US was #1 in health care spending.
I don't know. Do a lot of Canadians come here? The US doesn't rank very high on the list of medical tourism destinations. In fact, we send a lot of medical tourists abroad from this country. If we have the best medical care, why do so many Americans travel abroad?
So, WHO can't be trusted, but the the radio pundits who keep telling us we have the best medical care system in the world have no political agenda, and can be taken at face value. Sure, sure, that's believable.
So, out of pocket expenses are going down, while insurance costs are going up? What conclusion do you draw from that?
"Food insurance"? Now, there's a stretch.
We all need to eat, and so must spend a portion of our income on food. No one suddenly gets a hunger pang that will cost tens of thousands of dollars to satisfy. Your analogy could use some work.
So you'd simply prefer government to be in charge of rationing services.
No, the individual would decide who should be in charge of rationing. He/she could choose the public option, and allow government to decide, choose private insurance and allow the company bureaucrats to decide, or perhaps, if the insurer decided against a particular treatment, could dig into his pocket and make his own decision.
Much as we do now.
We all pay taxes. We seniors probably pay more as a percentage of our income than do working families, as we no longer have mortgage interest deductions, or dependent children for the most part. Nevertheless, it is a huge stretch to say that the government will favor working class people over seniors or youth simply because they pay more in taxes.
Seniors also have a higher percentage of active voters, which gives us a much bigger voice in government than other demographics. Just wait and see if Medicare is allowed to go under, or whether those still working will pay higher taxes to support it.
If, that is, we aren't successful in reining in the cost of medical care through reform. As it looks right now, I'm not too optimistic. My prediction is that nothing meaningful will come from the current partisan wrangling, that medical costs will continue to soar, that fewer and fewer Americans will have access to health care at all, that the cost of private insurance will soon be out of reach of most employers, and that the current public option will require higher taxes. Further, the cost to employers will force more and more corporations overseas where they don't have to pay for employee health insurance.
But, that is just my innate cynicism and pessimism, and it steers me wrong as much as 10% of the time.
