1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What do you pay for health insurance?

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by 93Devil, Jun 29, 2012.

?

Pretty simple, where do you fall?

  1. I have full coverage for me only and i pay nothing

    3.0%
  2. I have full coverage for me and I pay less than $200 a month

    26.9%
  3. I have full coverage for me and I pay between $200 and $500 a month

    16.4%
  4. I have full coverage for me and I pay more than $500 a month

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. I have full coverage for my family and I pay less than $200 a month

    7.5%
  6. I have full coverage for my family and I pay between $200 and $500 a month

    26.9%
  7. I have full coverage for my family and I pay more than $500 a month

    11.9%
  8. I do not have health insurance for myself

    6.0%
  9. I do not have health insurance for my family

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  10. Insurance for my family costs more than $1,000 a month

    1.5%
  1. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    Well that would certainly drive down the cost of health care.
     
  2. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    I wasn't discussing NAFTA. I am not making a spirited defense of anything about the U.S. or its health care system. And all the ad hominem attacks in the world, can't get you out of addressing what I have said. Making it about me, or insulting me, doesn't change the progression of this thread: I have pointed out a few of the things about Canada's system that are failing, as the overall system slowly fails. That was the conversation. Avoiding it, or insulting me, or trying to put me down, or dismissing me in that superior way of yours doesn't change the facts about Medicare in Canada.

    You live in a country with a centralized health care system that outlaws the right for people to compete with it. And it has been predicated on a lie. It is falling apart. It is costly in its own right. Canadians pay high taxes for it. Those high taxes don't actually pay for the system as it even exists, so your country has been running up billions of dollars of debt, even as it rations away services. The debt is eventually going to overrun the country. The system has created doctor shortages, with millions of Canadians without a general practitioner. There are specialist shortages, in particular, because so many have moved to the U.S. to escape the price controls on their salaries that your government has mandated (price controls create shortages, in this case, of doctors and trained medical professionals) and earn what their training commands. There are long waits for procedures, which puts people's lives in jeopardy. At the least it has created a great deal of discontent, as evidenced by just about every public opinion poll you can find. You had the head of one of your provinces -- a successful businessman who some people derisively call "Danny Millions" for his success -- flying off to the U.S. to have heart surgery because it wasn't available in his province under your system. As someone put it somewhere at the time. ... The way you boast about the system (very typically Canadian), it's the equivalent of the head of China having to fly to the U.S. for a decent eggroll.

    You have had a rash of emergency rooms and clinics being shut down across the country because of funding problems (I can link to endless stories), and in major cities, your newspapers the last few years have been filled with horror stories about your emergency rooms being overrun with people who can't get timely care, including some unfortunate deaths.

    What do you want me to do? You insult me. You try to put me down with stupid comments. You act superior. You tell me I am not a person making salient points, but giving you "talking points." They are not talking points when I say something and then give you the evidence (what you are NOT doing). You try to make it into a "tea party" or "right wing" indictment, because in your head, by characterizing me or labeling what I am saying, you think it is an automatic discount of me -- facts be damned.

    I'm not the tea party. I am not "Mr. Economics." I am pointing out salient, factual things. You can respond on point, or as I said, you can act the way you always do on here.

    I link to news stories giving copious examples of the things I am talking about. I purposely picked a couple of aspects of how things aren't working, and just stuck to news accounts within the last WEEK. It's easy, because those stories are a daily occurrence across Canada. But I could do it endlessly, because this isn't "cherry picking," as you first said, it is the reality of Medicare. Anyone with a Nexus subscription can read story after story over the last decade, following the progression of it collapsing (with stories filled with individual horror stories, the escalation of rationing, the doctor shortages) and stories about the macro picture, which is debt, debt and more debt (despite outright lies from politicians, who then have had to backtrack when the actual budgetary problems create crises), on a path toward more cuts and rationing, and then eventually insolvency.

    Don't acknowledge reality. That's your problem. But calling me "Mr. Economics" ain't cutting it. It's the kind of response I'd expect from Mr. Potato Head.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page