[EyeBrock]

CKA slacker.

Our healthcare isn't free.

In Ontario we pay a lot of taxes PLUS the Health Care Premium. The Premium alone costs my missus and I another $400 a month over our income tax since the Ontario Liberals brought it to us in 2004.

[Psudo]

But they brought you Dandelions, EyeBrock! And Dandelions are beautiful!

[EyeBrock]

I hate dandelions Psudo! Now crabgrass makes up half my lawn. I feel like burning the whole bloody thing.

A lot of people in Ontario are probably thinking the very same as me about the weedkiller ban. People who maybe voted Liberal......

[andyt]

Psudo wrote:

Although I do agree that there should be more done in the USA to improve the health of the poor, this ranking doesn't prove we need socialized health care. It only proves the international community wants us to have it.

You don't need to go to socialized health care, but a single payer system is probably a good idea. Or, since France seems to do well with both private and public health care, a mix of the two might be the way to go.

If your private system could get it's costs down to other western countries, and cover everybody, and not have people go broke for health care bills, great. So far, no indication of that. That's really the only issue - universal coverage and affordability. Any way to get there is great.

Here's a part of our system you won't like, and I don't either. In BC we have to pay a health care premium. This is not an option, the govt will come after you if you don't pay it. I don't agree with health care premiums because they are a regressive tax. People should be able to opt out of the system if they want, but then the system should refuse to treat them if they get sick. And fine, set up a parallel private system, but then don't whine if some of your taxes go to pay for the public one. More than likely, that's how France does it.

[Quantum_Wizard]

andyt wrote:

Or, since France seems to do well with both private and public health care, a mix of the two might be the way to go.

Incidentally, almost every first world nation has this kind of system, more or less. US and Canada are somewhat unique in this respect.

[Psudo]

andyt wrote:

That's really the only issue - universal coverage and affordability. Any way to get there is great.

Plus technological advancement and availability.

[Psudo]

A thought experiment for you: Say you're put in charge of allocating $10 million in medical funds. Two proposals are presented to you; one will use the $10 million to buy and administer 5 million flu shots, and the other will use it to develop a cure for a rare but brutal form of cancer. Which would you choose?

The metaphor to health care systems (flu shots = single-payer option, cancer cure = US system before ObamaCare) is an oversimplification, but it demonstrates both sides' reasoning well.

[Calbeck]

And of course, the US also has universal emergency care. You will be billed afterwards, but you can't be refused for life-saving care, even if you don't have insurance. And yes, bankruptcy is a hazard for people who rack up hundreds of thousands in medical bills which they cannot otherwise pay. Yet, given the choice between a major financial setback and, er, death, or living but being maimed or crippled, people generally accept that bankruptcy is at least easier to live with.

[Psudo]

andyt wrote:

the projected 2010 deficit is 1.56 trillion, or 10.6% of GDP

It turned out to be $1.29 trillion, or 8.8% of GDP. Lucky us.

Psudo wrote:

Kjorteo wrote:

I'd like to think that even the Democrats understand that bailouts and stimulus bills are one-time emergency things and not a regular part of our yearly budget....

It's possible, but why risk it? =D

Seriously, though, I'd at least like Republicans to get enough votes that Democrats at least have to consult with them occasionally. Maybe spending would reduce if both sides had enough influence to curb the other side's worst excesses.

It seems to me that the current debt ceiling crisis is an example of Democrats leaving spending at bailout/stimulus levels and Republicans trying to move spending back to pre-financial-crisis levels.

[BeaverFever]

Quote:

Study says most corporations pay no U.S. income taxes

Most U.S. and foreign corporations doing business in the United States avoid paying any federal income taxes, despite trillions of dollars worth of sales, a government study released on Tuesday said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/08/12/us-usa-taxes-corporations-idUSN1249465620080812

[Kjorteo]

Psudo wrote:

It seems to me that the current debt ceiling crisis is an example of Democrats leaving spending at bailout/stimulus levels and Republicans trying to move spending back to pre-financial-crisis levels.

Well the current crisis about it comes from an absolute lack of compromise. Psudo and I could probably agree that the debt is far gone enough at this point that the only way to actually pay it down would be some clever combination of raising revenues and lowering expenses, with only the actual details of both over which to nitpick. (Which departments get cut and by how much, which taxes to which groups are played with and by how much, etc.) In Congress, though, it seems Democrats want to raise revenues and Republicans want to lower spending, and some (mostly Republicans from my perspective, but that's probably biased) would apparently rather default than give an inch lest they get Tea Partied in the next primary.

Of course, the backlash against any figure who even thinks about compromise is strong enough that I can sort of see why everyone is scared into their respective corners. Obama has been taking it pretty hard from the progressives for going along with spending cuts and being too easy on the corporations, and Republicans who play along... well....

RedState.com wrote:

Mitch McConnell Just Proposed the "Pontius Pilate Pass the Buck Act of 2011″

(Editor's note: I decided to make the title less incendiary.)

Dare I ask what it used to say?

[Psudo]

I could tolerate some small tax increases and I very much support closing tax loopholes and reducing tax expenditures, but spending is the only issue on the table worth playing debt ceiling chicken over. That single most important budget issue would not be getting the attention it's getting if the Republicans hadn't taken the House, which is pretty much exactly what I predicted. I think that's more than a platform than "stop the Democrats--it doesn't even matter what they're trying to do."

That said, you're right about an extreme faction of right-wingers being ridiculous about platform conformity and I don't like it at all. I'm hoping a good portion of it is negotiating bluster and the typical background noise that extremists always shout into the street and things will quiet down after the Aug 2nd deadline. But that's rather an optimistic hope; I'm sure I'll still be annoyed at extremism even after it calms down.