The Jobs Britons Won't Do

[Amianthus]

Now, how can a healthcare program be paid for by taxpayers and not be Federal?

Hmmmm.

Is it perhaps provincial? Canada has stronger "state's rights" (provincial rights) than we do. You know Sirs, instead of attacking other systems without even knowing how those countries' Governments operate, why don't you learn something about them first? Don't you think that might be a good idea?

Canadian Healthcare might be funded at the Provincial level, but the guidelines are Federal.

[sirs]

Canadian Healthcare might be funded at the Provincial level, but the guidelines are Federal.

Like what we refer to as an unfunded mandate, that's coming from the Fed.  That's kind of what I thought, yet Js insists I have no clue.  Go figure

[_JS]

Canadian Healthcare might be funded at the Provincial level, but the guidelines are Federal.

Like what we refer to as an unfunded mandate, that's coming from the Fed.  That's kind of what I thought, yet Js insists I have no clue.  Go figure

It is not "an unfunded mandate."

You don't have a clue Sirs, because you don't know how Canada's government even works. Or do you?

I have yet to see you explain any of this.

1. This article and why it is useful.
2. How other systems actually work.
3. Why such systems would not work here.
4. Why those systems cost less per patient and as a percentage of GDP than ours?
5. Why people in those countries have a better opinion of their healthcare systems than we do of ours?
6. You keep speaking of a forest, but let's hear it! Where is this logical, cogent essay?

All I've heard is cliche and a constant reference to experience, but no actual argument. When is it put up or shut up time?

[sirs]

Canadian Healthcare might be funded at the Provincial level, but the guidelines are Federal.

Like what we refer to as an unfunded mandate, that's coming from the Fed.  That's kind of what I thought, yet Js insists I have no clue.  Go figure

It is not "an unfunded mandate."  You don't have a clue Sirs, because you don't know how Canada's government even works. Or do you?  I have yet to see you explain any of this.  This article and why it is useful.

Been there, done that.  It simply adds yet another unintended repercussion of applying a UHC system.

You keep speaking of a forest, but let's hear it! Where is this logical, cogent essay?  All I've heard is cliche and a constant reference to experience, but no actual argument. When is it put up or shut up time?

Well, if you're going to act like knute, I'll endeavor to steer clear.  If we can keep civil, I'll go into more detail tonight, if you wish

[_JS]

Been there, done that.  It simply adds yet another unintended repercussion of applying a UHC system.

How? Please give a synopsis of this article to those of us who don't quite fathom how Mark Steyn is tying all these seemingly different issues together.

If we can keep civil, I'll go into more detail tonight, if you wish

I have note once acted uncivil. I'd certainly like to hear it. But don't expect to receive hallelujah's from a choir afterwards.

[sirs]

Been there, done that.  It simply adds yet another unintended repercussion of applying a UHC system.

How? Please give a synopsis of this article to those of us who don't quite fathom how Mark Steyn is tying all these seemingly different issues together.

Strange, I don't think I ever claimed Steyn was making that point.  I distinctly recall myself indicating this I was making that point.  Steyn's strike is specific to Steyn's article.  My point is including that into the myriad of other strikes against UHC

If we can keep civil, I'll go into more detail tonight, if you wish

I have note once acted uncivil. I'd certainly like to hear it. But don't expect to receive hallelujah's from a choir afterwards.

The referencing that I shut up if I didn't answer your question they way you wanted it, was the example that facilitated my response.  And no, I don't expect any hallelujah, either

[sirs]

I have yet to see you explain any of this.

1. This article and why it is useful.

Asked and answered......it presents yet another spoke in the wheel of why a UHC is fatally flawed to begin with, with our system of Government

 

2. How other systems actually work.

They work in their own way....meaning, they do provide health insurance to everyone.....at the cost of both quality of care, insidious bureacracy, and exponential waiting periods

3. Why such systems would not work here.

Asked and answered already.  Besiudes the core reason that it's not a Constitutional mandate for the Fed to provide health care for everyone, the simply observation of every other Government intervention, demonstrating the reams of overregulation, inane bureacracy, sordid inefficiency (check out Katrina, and the recent article posted by Lanya, regarding Medicare), the already overtaxed middle class, and the economic hit this country would take (much like Kyoto would have wrought), produce hordes of reasoning as to why it would not work here

4. Why those systems cost less per patient and as a percentage of GDP than ours?

As Bt has already addressed, please produce a similar political process of those countries that mirror ours, including what their Constitutions outline as Fed mandated vs facilitated. 

5. Why people in those countries have a better opinion of their healthcare systems than we do of ours?

I'm confident I could locate many an opinion of those who'd claim that despite the FED and LITIGIOUS facilitated negatives of our healthcare system, they'd still chose ours, given the full picture of what UHC entails.  The simple fact of those who come HERE for our healthcare, vs those that leave here to go elsewhere is beyond overwhelming, & is proof postive for me

6. You keep speaking of a forest, but let's hear it! Where is this logical, cogent essay?

See above.  You can use spokes or trees, the conclusions are still the same.  As well intentioned as Federally prescribed UHC might sound, the negatives FAR outweigh the positive of simply covering every breathing person.  Best approach it Constitutionally, and allow the states themselves decide of they want to enact their own versions of UHC, as that is what the Constitution outlines in the 10th amendment

[Plane]

  The Post Office is moveing in the opposite direction.

   Competition from private enterprise and new means of information delivery are makeing the Post office redundant .


     Why would the government run health care system be garunteed to operate effeciently?

     Do we trust the government so well that we will trust them to determine who will and won't live?