I never before realized that you had such a subtle and comically absurd sense of humour, Kirk!
McConnell froze....
- Thread starter jalimon
- Start date
She's moderate by Canadian standards and appears bright and hard-working for her constituents, albeit perhaps a little unrealistic about what can be reformed given the state of American politics.
I don't see anything "radical" about universal health care and decent social programs. But then, I'm a Canadian.
Aiming high isn't too bad a fault.
She's quite smart, watch her in debate.
As I mentioned before to Valcazar and others, on the MERB site I stacked up U.S. govt social spending and Canadian govt. social spending (Federal, State & Local). The numbers are not radically different if you take into account how many Americans have private healthcare (and still want private healthcare). There are a great deal of U.S. social programs for food, housing, education, etc. I suspect Canada has a similar ABC of programs. This ignores the administrative inefficiencies and overlap.
In recent years, the universal healthcare argument in the U.S. has seemed to go beyond Obamacare. Progressives think there should be one size fits all heath insurance. That doesn't seem politically palatable to most Americans.
Then there is the uncomfortable fact that Canadian GDP per capita has fallen further behind the U.S. So even if the U.S. is not as generous relatively to Canada, it's possible through GDP growth the U.S. is doing more for its citizenry on an absolute basis.
Progressive politicians and progressive media will always be calling for more social spending. In general I would say if one is on the bottom quartile economically, Canada is probably a better country to live but for more reasons than just govt. social programs and support.
I would be shocked if most Americans would prefer private to state-purchased health care. My impression is that the health care industry and the insurance industry have such vast economic and political clout that they can block any attempt to make health care state-purchased / single-payer.
I'll see your link on comparitive US and Can social services stats, if you have it.
I'm sure the single mothers in South Central and other low income areas really benefit from that increased GDP....
There is currently not nearly enough political support for govt. mandated single payer healthcare regardless of the red-tape and administrative costs inherent with private insurance. The healthcare and insurance industries don't have to do a lot to persuade the public.
I have worked with Canadian ex-pats here. Everyone of them told me they preferred private heath insurance over Canadian universal healthcare. Of course, those are just anecdotes from white collar professionals (not executives per se) who are in organizations with good coverage.
I suppose it all depends on your sense of equity. Butler would rail against our health care system, but I told him most Americans don't have the expectation that health coverage would be exactly the same. Obviously, there are political inconsistencies in that almost all Americans accept Medicare as the universal coverage for seniors.
When 85 million people are either under insured or have no insurance I'd call it a failure. That its consudered a commodity and not a human right is the core issue.
Change the news coverage to tell the truth about costs and benefits and those numbers change. The success of Medicare says it all
Maybe so, but people like free stuff.
Trying to get them to trade their private coverage for govt. supported coverage is a different political calculus.
That's not what your article says.Why would San Francisco recall the District Attorney? Why would other progressive prosecutors be threatened by recalls? Are these California voters losing their minds? The problems with prosecutors aren't real? These recall battles tend to be settled between progressive Democrats and moderate Democrats. There's no Fox News or conservative voices instigating dissent
California keeps electing progressive DAs — then pushing to recall them
Pamela Price is latest progressive California district attorney to face a recall push.www.politico.com
It implies it is mostly being driven by backlash by entrenched cop interests.
And that the San Francisco recall in particular was driven by massive spending by rich conservatives.
Of course, the whole "Progressive DAs are being rejected" narrative kind of fell apart in the 2022 midterms since the progressive DAs did pretty well.
It really seems to be a local, case-by-case thing with no real trend.
Yes they have.
Sharp decrease this year so far: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/06/us-murder-rate-decline-crime-statistics/674290/
Went down in 2022. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/30/briefing/crime-murders-us-decline.html
Doesn't seem to have receded to 2019 levels, I think, but after the 2020 spike, went up some in 2021 and have been going down since.
I know there are rumours he might try to push back against the law they passed that forces him to pick from people the GOP selected, but I'm not sure I buy it.
I'm sure that depends on who is paying for it and how good your job is, which is the point of the debate.
American health care and social services works for the rich, not for the middle class and not all for the poor.
But one faction being dominant and the other ones currently being subservient still means it is made up of competing factions.
It's just that one is winning pretty easily right now.
It's important to remember how difficult it was to achieve in other countries.
Canada managed it by having to fight down a Doctor's strike and by massively paying off the entrenched interests.
The UK as well, I think that was the one where "stuffed their mouths with gold" was the way it was described.
I might be misremembering and that line is from somewhere else.
But the universal healthcare argument was always going to go beyond Obamacare.
Even if a full single-provider system was put in, the argument would continue.
Healthcare is incredibly difficult and no one has ever discovered a perfect solution.
Actually they do have to do a lot.
There is a reason they spend so much on the issue.
Keeping that political support low takes work.
That absolutely is a factor.
Having friends on both sides of the border, the only ones I know who are happier with their US healthcare situation are ones in high-end white collar jobs with very good coverage and a couple of cases with elective surgeries. Everyone else I know who has tasted both sides has been happier with the Canadian situation.
But that's a limited selection of people as well, of course.
Healthcare hits everyone literally close to home about as much as any issue. I have not seen any polls that show a majority of Americans have an interest in giving up private insurance for govt. insurance. The medical and insurance community don't have to sell it that hard. It's just ingrained in our culture. While Democrats polled support single payer govt. healthcare, their numbers are not large enough to make this a galvanizing issue.
As you noted, changing is difficult. It's also a conundrum. Someone who likes Medicare now likely wanted their employer provided insurance just ten years prior and still might favor it.
It's a limited selection of people and people's politics might influence their perception.
Nothing is free.Every developed country on earth has socialized healthcare except the US. And you morons think its good...
Most of the medication and healthcare science procedures and guidelines are developed in the US but are 3 to 20 times cheaper in all other countries. Mainly because of single buyer regulations. You guy seems to like to be f3cked in the ass i guess.
Health is a lottery. It needs to remain free for everyone. From the billionaire to piss poor dude.
From what I understand France has a public-private mix. With Obamacare firmly established and more money going to Medicaid, our system doesn't have the major gaps that existed years ago. As I mentioned before, some of the Canadians bemoan that we don't have a single payer system. I'm not convinced that the U.S. needs to adopt this system. I think each system brings it's own set of problems.
Of course, if you are a liberal Canadian you believe govt. provided single payer healthcare is the best system.
If the U.S. allows medical products and pharma companies to make good profits, it certainly makes it easier for other governments to fix the price. There is a certain idealism that hits healthcare. For some reason those who tend to believe in free markets and the profit incentive, throw that to the wind with medical care providers, pharma, etc.
No system is perfect, but I think the U.S. health system does underwrite tremendous medical advances that gives the whole world benefit. It's idealistic to think patented pharmaceuticals and medical products just exist and would under any system.
Last edited:
