Why are we a divided Nation?

yes, the nation is divided. if it were not,then it would be a Marxist state where there is 99% agreement with the Stalin one party. The occasional anomalous dissenting 1% that might arise, are quickly dealt with via reeducation camp where they either learn to accept totalitarian authority or are used for medical experimentation, or have their organs removed and transplanted to aging Stalinist party members.

 

Read a few too many dystopian novels?

 

Right, and Hillary was going to be president....
You Lefties are a riot!

 

OTHERS need to provided "corroborative evidence." You Leftists never do. Your word is sufficient for ANYONE, n'est-ce pas?

 

Your post is an example of why we are divided. We are not telling Canada what they should do. If you do your research on the issue, you will find that Canadians with money come to the US for medical treatment. When it comes to medical conditions that are not an immediate threat to life, the wait is what makes it life threatening. No thank you.

 

Boy, the red-baiting and communist scare stuff never goes away, does it? McCarthy would be proud if he was sober enough - or still alive.

 

Because of the left. The right hasn't moved, despite what leftists would like you to believe. But the left has gotten further and further left, and more and more insane. The more people resist the left's efforts to completely remake America in their own image, the more hysterical and unreasonable the left gets. But that just makes more people leave the left.

It's Official: Democrats Are The Extremists Today

Partisanship: Everyone knows that the country is more politically polarized than ever, but most don't know why. Data from the highly respected Pew Research Center provides a definitive answer. It's because Democrats have moved sharply to the extreme left.

The Pew report — titled "The Partisan Divide on Political Values Grows Even Wider" — is the latest in a decades-long series of surveys it has conducted to gauge people's views on various key issues, including the size of government, immigration, corporate profits, race relations. The authors of the report note the "divisions between Republicans and Democrats on fundamental political values ... reached record levels during Barack Obama's presidency. In Donald Trump's first year as president, these gaps have grown even larger."



https://www.investors.com/politics/...t-democrats-have-shifted-to-the-extreme-left/

 

Canadians who have the wealth for non-life threatening, often optional procedures jump the system in the US. Meanwhile, no one has their life-saving wiped out or has to watch their children die from lack of coverage.

It is not a perfect system, mostly because it has been underfunded by years of right-wing attempts to privatize parts of it, but it works and has not bankrupted the country despite the scare-mongering back in the 60's.

On the contrary, the US has the most expensive and least efficient health care system in the developed world..........I wonder why?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...hat-spend-the-most-on-public-health/39307147/

Despite the fear-mongering back in the 60's that universal health care would bankrupt the country and ruin doctors income, it just didn't happen. Scare-mongering is just scare-mongering. Canada's universal, publicly funded health care system is now a sort of beloved matter of pride among most Canadians:

"Before World War II, health care in Canada was, for the most part, privately delivered and funded. In 1947, the government of Saskatchewan introduced a province-wide, universal hospital care plan. By 1950, both British Columbia and Alberta had similar plans. The federal government passed the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act in 1957, which offered to reimburse, or cost share, one-half of provincial and territorial costs for specified hospital and diagnostic services. This Act provided for publicly administered universal coverage for a specific set of services under uniform terms and conditions. Four years later, all the provinces and territories had agreed to provide publicly funded inpatient hospital and diagnostic services.

Saskatchewan introduced a universal, provincial medical insurance plan to provide doctors' services to all its residents in 1962. The federal government passed the Medical Care Act in 1966, which offered to reimburse, or cost share, one-half of provincial and territorial costs for medical services provided by a doctor outside hospitals. Within six years, all the provinces and territories had universal physician services insurance plans.

From 1957 to 1977, the federal government's financial contribution in support of health care was determined as a percentage (one-half) of provincial and territorial expenditure on insured hospital and physician services. In 1977, under the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Act, cost sharing was replaced with a block fund, in this case, a combination of cash payments and tax points. A block fund is a sum of money provided from one level of government to another for a specific purpose. With a transfer of tax points, the federal government reduces its tax rates and provincial and territorial governments simultaneously raise their tax rates by an equivalent amount. This new funding arrangement meant that the provincial and territorial governments had the flexibility to invest health care funding according to their needs and priorities. Federal transfers for post-secondary education were also added to the health transfer."

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-can...s-publications/health-care-system/canada.html

"But Saskatchewan doctors complained that they would be turned into civil servants, unable to follow their own judgment about what was best for their patients. They argued that medicare was another step down a slippery socialistic slope

"This is like asking the doctors if they would like to try a hanging and if they didn't like it, it could be undone!," said a Saskatchewan doctor.

The Saskatchewan Liberals, led by Ross Thatcher, backed the doctors and attacked Douglas.

"The socialists say, elect us, even with a 35 per cent majority, and we will ram a scheme down your throat."

Douglas was bitterly opposed by the provinces physicians and private health-care insurers. Despite the $115,000 spent during the election on an anti--medicare campaign, Douglas and the CCF won a commanding majority and a clear mandate to proceed. Douglas would soon leave for Ottawa in 1961 to lead the newly formed New Democratic Party, but his provincial successor Woodrow Lloyd would continue the medicare fight.

After a long debate, the law was adopted in November 1961, to take effect the following July 1. The day medicare was born, about 90 per cent of the provinces doctors went on strike.
Initially the doctors had some public support. These KOD (Keep Our Doctors) Committees, with support from the media, launched a well-organized campaign against the government and the medicare plan. Rallies, petitions, panels and advertisements raised the emotional climate to a white heat.
The people of Saskatchewan began to worry. Some wondered what good was a medical care program without doctors.

"Im very glad that the plan has gone in," said one resident. "but Im deeply concerned over the fact that my doctor left me and two children without any proper medical care."

Families with health problems were even more alarmed by the strike.

"I have a family of 5 little girls, one girl is suffering from cerebral palsy," said one father. "Where will I take my daughter? To Montreal? Will the government pay me transportation? Where will I go, tell me!"

The government brought doctors from Britain and encouraged others to come from the US and other parts of Canada to meet the emergency. Local citizens groups organized medical clinics and hired doctors to attend them.
By mid-July much of the KOD support had dissipated. Some doctors were returning to work; the force of the strike was spent. At the beginning of August, the government made some amendments to the Act; one amendment allowed doctors to practice outside the plan.

After 23 days on strike, the Saskatchewan doctors returned to work. But hostilities remained long afterwards; patients resented their doctors' desertion and doctors continued to object to government involvement in medical care. Nevertheless, a 1965 survey found that most doctors favoured continuing the plan.

The Saskatchewan government had opened the door to universal health care. Within ten years of the Saskatchewan strike, the entire country was covered by medicare."


https://www.cbc.ca/history/EPISCONTENTSE1EP15CH2PA4LE.html

Sound familiar......... and the doctors strike was 60 years ago?

 

Currently, the quality of education depends on ones zip code. In my case, charter schools were the best choice. Bad teachers are paid more than great teachers if they have tenure. They cannot be fired and is some cases, spend their day in the rubber room while receiving full pay and benefits. Im sure the union will never allow reform, so a voucher program may be the answer.

Social security is a bad deal. People should be able to opt out.

 

Its good to discuss the extreme scenarios on both sides. That leaves lots of middle ground.

 

When you think about it, the kids receive a basic education as mandated by state law; they are educated in moral values that their families believe in; less chance of interaction with peers who may be involved in drugs, alcohol, etc. and savings on tax dollars. I think it's a win-win scenario for all taxpayers if there were no public schools.

 

I would never tell Canadians what to do. The US is fatter and sicker than ever and it is not the result of a pharm product deficiency. There is no profit in prevention. Until we stop forcing tax payers to subsidize what is making and keeping people sick, it won't matter what healthcare system we come up with.

 

Fear is YOUR modus operandi, not ours.
FEAR climate change - Democrats say
FEAR "racism", imaginary, exaggerated, lied about, but FEAR IT - Democrats, promoting racism and demeaning blacks everywhere
FEAR "bigotry" - Democrats, the worst bigots in America
FEAR "the rich", take their money away and give it to Democrats - Democrats
FEAR guns, all guns; take them away - Democrats
GUNS kill people - Democrats

Republicans expose your socialism and you giggle and call it "scare stuff".
How much laughing did you do on election night, 2016, Giggler?
Still laughing? Trump is sure to win a second term with the insanity of twelve candidates vying to see who is the most radical, the most fear-mongering, the most dishonest and reprehensible. It's very close for all twelve, one a socialist.

 

And we will have a generation of young people that are prepared for a world that does not exist. What kind of people will come from out efforts to shelter kids from being offended, not being picked on a team, and not receiving a trophy for participation.

 

Interesting how the more the legal noose tightens around Trump and the more his criminality is exposed for all to see, the more desperate and unhinged these types of rants from his sycophantic followers become.

Also noted that the more people begin to understand that there is no reason socially democratic policies that work in other developed nations cannot work in the US for the betterment of all Americans, the more Trumpers have to scream "communism" or Stalinism and run hide under the bed with a pillow over their head.

What else would you have me do but giggle at your unhinged dirge? It's funny. Sad, but funny.

Now if you wanted to discuss any of the narrative of the fear I am supposedly promoting in a calm and informed manner, I would be glad to talk about the science of climate change or racism or anything else including how you somehow think you are exposing my socialism when you don't know the first thing about me or socialism.

But If you are just going to huff and puff and turn your face red ranting, sorry, I'm going to giggle....

 

Your post is an example of why we are a divided nation. Attacking those with opposing views as if your opinion is all that matters, makes you no different than the Trumpers.

 

You get what you pay for. American medical care is faster, nicer, and more convenient.

https://www.nationmaster.com/countr...d-States/Health/Quality-of-health-care-system

Meanwhile, the doctor in your article there was right, the doctors weren't interested in socialized medicine, and now Canada is 15,000 doctors short.

"It’s clear we have a problem. The country has approximately 15,000 too few doctors, a figure roughly double the total number of students in all years of study at our 17 medical schools combined. At a doctor-patient ratio of just 2.3 per 1,000 population, we are 24th on the list of 28 industrialized countries. Approximately 1.5 million Canadians cannot find a family physician as a result."

https://www.cunninghamgroupins.com/curing-canadas-doctor-shortage

 

Not at all. You're misunderstanding the system entirely. 'No threat to life' is a medical determination. Eg, waiting 6 months to have your knee repaired can't kill you. If Canadians are travelling to have their knees fixed, it's not because they might die, it's because they don't care to wait that 6 months. I would expect that only a small percentage of Canadians are so impatient, with most happy to wait for their turn.

The problem isn't the system .. which works FAR better than yours. The problem is human expectations. If we regard our every ache and pain as an emergency, and expect to be treated immediately in every circumstance, then public health will never be good enough. You guys are simply spoiled. You would soon adjust to sharing your hospital room, and waiting your turn to do so. After all, the quality of medical care is going to be higher and have better outcomes .. which is far more important than a private bathroom, in any language.

 

Note that I wasn't the one who attacked him nor am I the one resorting to labelling people commies or Stalinists.

My op on this thread was in response to a posters micro rant about. Those labels. Chemengineer then but in with his rant.

I just call it like it is and give back what I get. I've always been open to polite discussion. That seldom happens on these types of threads.

 

Leftists don't merely attack. They beat over the head, they block freeways and streets to protest everything, they destroy signs opposing their Leftist agenda, they smear you as stupid, anti-science, and paint themselves as America's purveyors of reason and brilliance. Nothing left to discuss after they huff away... and giggle.....

 

I haven't done any of those things to you. And I'm willing to discuss anything in a rational calm manner but I'm not responsible for your hurt feelings nor am I going to coddle you if the facts don't back up your position.

You're the one who jumped me with unsults and name-calling.

But that's okay. Here, I'll get you a hanky and so you can dry away the tears and let's discuss any of the so called autrocities leftists have caused you.

Or are you just here to whine and moan?

 

What's more important? "fast, nice, and convenient"? Or better medicine and better outcomes?

 

Cancer is not immediately life threatening. The wait can change that. California has moved in your direction. My health insurance allowed me to see a doctor any time with no more than a 30 minute wait. Now, I am waiting several months, just like you. I am not telling Canada how to run their health care system. That knee injury can easily become a permanent disability in 6 months.

 

I read through your link and the comparisons were for people in the US who actually have adequate coverage and said nothing about who have none or are under covered. It said nothing that I saw that refuted the fact that the American system is the most expensive per capita in the developed world.

I will concede that speed and quality of service is probably better in US in general depending on the type of coverage you are lucky enough to have.

As for the great doctor shortage, I googled some fact-check that refuted that but I can't post as I am on a phone. I will try to put up something for comparison tomorrow.

A lot of the doctor shortage narrative here comes from studies by the right-wing libertarian think tank, Fraser Institute that has been desperately trying to bring privatization of medical services here.

I did read your links though and I'll post some of my own when I'm not on a phone.

 

I've had two surgeries in the last twenty years. I waited less than a week for the first one and the second one, a plate in my wrist for a bad break. They got me in the same night as I had the injury

Yes, there are long waits for some procedures but from my view the system works fine though it needs to be better funded.

My experience is not unusual. Most people have come to understand waitlists in some cases are the cost of having a universal system of coverage.