BoatBanter.com - View Single Post - I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil

Peter (Yes, that one)

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 13:48:47 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)"
wrote:

Mr Gfretwell does not seem to view affordable health care for all as
achievable, and perhaps not even desirable, though every other modern
industrial country has been doing it for many years and at less cost
than the U.S.

I believe the US subsidizes these countries to a large extent
precisely because we do spend as much money as we do.
If everybody bought their drugs in Canada, Canadian drugs would be
more expensive or they would not be available at all because the
companies who reap huge profits in the US would not have that slush
fund to allow the discounts abroad.
You can say a similar thing about medical equipment
The real reason I don't think we will ever get a government system
like Canada is we won't pay that level of taxes.
We won't even pay for what we spend.

So you "believe" that without America, the other first world countries
who have universal, affordable and better health care while spending
much less than America would not have that health care.
That's a new one.
Don't improve the U.S. system because the faults of our system are what
make the systems of the rest of the world work.
I see.
"Belief" isn't fact, and facts are troubling when they contradict
belief.
As I said before, I don't know much about Canada, except that the recent
U.S. health care legislation has nothing to do with the Canadian model.
But you keep mentioning Canada. A familiar talking point from anti-
health care folks.
I did briefly looked at google and found that Canadian health care
spending as a percent of GNP is much less than ours in the U.S.
Perhaps Mr. Don knows why Canadians taxes are high.
Of course they don't pay the health insurance premiums Americans do, or
suffer medical bankruptcies as Americans do, or the worries about
affording health care that Americans do.
All of the facts about health care systems around the world, their
costs, their availability, their accessibility, etc, are readily
available by anybody with a computer connection to the internet.
Those are troubling facts for many Americans, who like to think that
America is a world leader.
But none of the facts matter, do they?
You have quite clearly naysayed everything under the sun.
Your mind is made up that the status quo is the way to go.
And you will grasp at any facile and unsubstantiated argument that comes
to mind to make a case that ends up at the status quo.
Since nobody with your seeming intelligence could be incapable of
knowing or being able to access the facts, it is probable that the
status quo is better for you financially, because you calculate that the
percentage of your income taken by the current system is less than what
it would be if universal health care were a realty.
With universal health care, many others would be able to get life-saving
aid, but it would cost you some dollars.
Why not just be honest and say that?
Nothing wrong with being selfish. It is the American way.
Besides, you are fooling no one.
For all your squealing about about corruption in the politial and
private sectors, you never offer solutions, only complaints.
You are the very definition of "defender of the status quo."
You may as well admit that if you don't put your neck out offering
solutions.
Oh, I think you mentioned using Navy medics to provide services for the
uninsured to keep them out of ER's. You never mentioned any details
about that, such as how the medics get paid, who pays for their
facilities, what are the processes, say, should a patient come in
needing hospital care, and who pays for that, etc., etc.
Sounded a bit vague. Much like the anti-health care opponents offering
of solutions that provide no solution.
That won't do, of course.
Or just come out and say you don't want universal health care if it is
going to cost you anything more than the cost of what you are currently
paying for your own private plans.
That would save a lot of time and dancing around, and would make you an
honest man.
Perhaps I am wrong about you not offering other solutions that don't
maintain the status quo, and wrong about other things I've said, but
those are my impressions. You may correct them if you please, and I
will offer apologies as appropriate.
The family name demands that one be a gentleman, even in disagreement.

Peter