Not all nurses make that much money! My mom is a manager of a dementia wing in a nursing home, makes $35 an hour and constantly has to put in 2 hours of unpaid work every day just to keep up with the bloody paperwork. A plumber, on the other hand, who does not have 50 some lives under her watch gets about three times that much money per hour.
beef.

continue thread topic.

Originally Posted by Jay

30 million uninsured. That's nearly the population of Canada.

The US has a population of 308 million, so thats about 10% of the population without health insurace, plus a lot of that 30 million are illegal immigrants, but I do see your point. They do need healthcare, but they should've found a better way than to drag down the rest of the 278 million people.

quote=rcrw88;129313]**** yes, stop the brain drain!

Its not that spectacular, but don't you think that something is better than nothing, considering the ideologically-driven opposition? Many americans don't have the luxory of just waiting around until legislators get it just right...[/quote]

Yes, something needed to be done, I completely agreed with that, but from what I remember a year ago, I thought it was gonna turn out completely different. Like I said above, its dragging down a lot of people with it, which is the biggest reason I don't like what they did.

Originally Posted by lmasud

I just think there were much better ways to do this than the system that is proposed. Personally, I think they should cap the salaries of doctors and nurses, people get paid ridiculous amounts in those professions, not to mention open more medical and nursing schools (that goes for both countries), then work on introducing generics sooner to the market. Both of those things would help the middle class.

That is the biggest difference between the Canadian and American health care systems and why at present the US system cant function as a universal health care system. A Canadian hospital/health board is not for profit, where as in the US they are for profit which leads to $20 Tylenol pills.

As much as generic drugs in the market makes it much easier for people to afford there medication, you do have to respect a companies copyright and have to realize that without it drug development would be slowed because a company needs to recoup the loss from the massive R&D to develop a new drug. A patent on a drug is usually halfway through its life before its released as a commercial product. It also surprises me the number of people that by Tylenol and all the other common name brand drugs rather then the identical no name ones for half price.

Either way prepare to pay more taxes because our parents are going to bankrupt us in the near future.

Originally Posted by lmasud

The US has a population of 308 million, so thats about 10% of the population without health insurace, plus a lot of that 30 million are illegal immigrants, but I do see your point. They do need healthcare, but they should've found a better way than to drag down the rest of the 278 million people.

Actually, it was the "47 million uninsured" quote that included illegal immigrants (as well as people who choose not to have health insurance).

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/thi...ion-uninsured/

Originally Posted by JeffB

As much as generic drugs in the market makes it much easier for people to afford there medication, you do have to respect a companies copyright and have to realize that without it drug development would be slowed because a company needs to recoup the loss from the massive R&D to develop a new drug. A patent on a drug is usually halfway through its life before its released as a commercial product. It also surprises me the number of people that by Tylenol and all the other common name brand drugs rather then the identical no name ones for half price.

The problem with the drug companies is that they rip people off just as much as oil companies do. I think they should limit the number of years of a copyright on a drug...thats what I meant by coming, and ya I'm surprised too at the number of Tylenol bottles I see instead of even name brand stuff like Advil.

Originally Posted by J-Met

I did watch that movie, and as much as I like Michael Moore's style, he's known for sensationalism and ignoring facts. I would suggest you look at other, less biased, sources as well.

If Michael Moore put anything in his movie that was biased and incorrect in any way, he would be sued up the ying-yang. His movies are reviewed by attorneys before they are released to ensure he is reporting correctly, so he does in fact NOT get sued for misrepresenting facts.

Originally Posted by J-Met

The senate voted 74-25 in favor of of the bailout

(http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=2&vote=00213)

The house voted 263 to 171 in favor of the bailout

(http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll681.xml)

I think what your referring to is the original vote on the bailout bill, which was struck down, but in the end the congress did support the bailout.

Like I said previously I don't know much about politics, but I'd assume that that is what I would be referring to.

Originally Posted by J-Met

You have a point here. The bailout gave a lot of money to people who seriously screwed up. In a perfect world all those bankers would be subject to the same market limitations as the rest of us and wouldn't have jobs or money. But the fact is, without the bailout, many of the big banks would have collapsed, we would have seen a bank run like what happened at the beginning of the great depression, and we'd very likely be in a great depression right now. Despite what everyone says about the Fed or the Treasury under Paulson, I think they saved us from something that could have been a lot worse.

American banks should of collapsed. They do not help people, especially since they removed whatever laws were in place on borrowing money. I mean banks are a prime example of capitalism. They are constantly making money, and charge you fees to hold on to your money. I mean if you ask me, if students weren't able to have free bank accounts, I'd gladly keep my money buried somewhere or in a safe. Having them charge me money to hold on to my money makes no goddamn sense to me.

Originally Posted by J-Met

Do you have a source that shows these transactions of money giving directly to the legislators themselves? I'm still skeptical that it happens as often as you think, considering bribery is a federal offense.

Like I said before, Michael Moore would not have released his movie if there were inaccuracies in what he was saying. He would be sued, and lose more money than he would make off that movie.

Originally Posted by J-Met

Obama does have power to make laws without going through congress. Its called an executive order. Bush used them all the time. Obama didn't want to use this because he, unlike Bush, actually believes in democracy and the constitution. Executive orders are messy and sometimes disputable, but the veto is not. If a bill comes forward wanting to repeal health care, Obama has the power to strike it down with the stroke of a pen.

Ok, so Obama believes in democracy. He stands by the constitution. Yet if the health care bill was appealed, he can change it? Sounds like he would then be contradicting himself and following in the foot steps of Bush. And if he were to do something like that, he also would lose the faith of many American citizens would oppose the bill, and have little to no chance come re-election, especially if senate becomes more republican in the upcoming election. The American people are angry (republicans), and the minute more republicans come into office, showing how many non-governmental citizens are unhappy with the bill's passing, Obama's not going to be an amicable person for much longer.

Originally Posted by lmasud

I just think there were much better ways to do this than the system that is proposed.

Agreed.

Personally, I think they should cap the salaries of doctors and nurses, people get paid ridiculous amounts in those professions,

Ummm you obviously have a limited comprehension of the situation. Yes some specialists earn large amount of money, but many family doctors in the US have trouble earning money. Malpractice is very high (one of the things this bill lacked was tort reform). For example an OB/GYN in the states can end up paying around $100,000 a year in malpractice even when very experienced. Many doctors in the states also have two secretaries: one to deal with patients and one to deal with the myriad insurance companies. These figures are all deducted from the gross salary figures you see. Add in very high med school and college debt in the states even for those who went all public post-secondary.

not to mention open more medical and nursing schools (that goes for both countries),

Nevermind more spaces in the states. They need to be more affordable.

then work on introducing generics sooner to the market.

Yes because we all know that no one working in the pharmaceutical industry is middle class. The US's long protection time on drugs is essentially subsidizing drug development in other countries with relatively short protection periods.

The fact is that there aren't too many legal Americans that cannot afford healthcare

That's not the only reason why people go uncovered. There is a high dependence on employer provided health care which, besides negative economic effects, also leaves many Americans periodically uncovered. This bill actually makes this problem worse.

which is why there is this much oposition to public healthcare....most people don't want to pay extra for others.

They already do through the people who end up catastrophic in the emergency room and have to be treated.

Those that can't can be taken care through government programs, the US government is rich enough for that

The US government is deep in debt and deficits, not to mention unfunded liabilities. They are so far in a hole, few people think there's a remotely easy way out.

Originally Posted by shes-a-diva*

Ok, so Obama believes in democracy. He stands by the constitution. Yet if the health care bill was appealed, he can change it? Sounds like he would then be contradicting himself and following in the foot steps of Bush. And if he were to do something like that, he also would lose the faith of many American citizens would oppose the bill, and have little to no chance come re-election, especially if senate becomes more republican in the upcoming election. The American people are angry (republicans), and the minute more republicans come into office, showing how many non-governmental citizens are unhappy with the bill's passing, Obama's not going to be an amicable person for much longer.

Okay, you really don't understand the American system of government. Executive orders are vastly different things than bills. Executive orders have quite a bit of limitation when it comes to legislative stuff (ie passing of bills, or laws), they are really powerful in terms of military usage. The US president can technically go to war without the consent of the US Senate or Congress, like Bush did with Iraq initially. The president's right to veto has nothing to do with his executive privileges, and you should know that a veto can be overturned by a 2/3 majority in congress (if I remember my grade 8 american history class properly).

Not to be offensive or anything, but two thirds of your argument had to do with something you saw in a Michael Moore movie, thats really not a strong argument. Corruption and bribery are part of every government at some degree, and yes banks make money, they are a business just like McDonalds, or a neighborhood corner store. If the banking system collapsed, we would be in a depression right now, so at a moment of panic the US government pretty much gave them whatever they wanted

Originally Posted by shes-a-diva*

If Michael Moore put anything in his movie that was biased and incorrect in any way, he would be sued up the ying-yang. His movies are reviewed by attorneys before they are released to ensure he is reporting correctly, so he does in fact NOT get sued for misrepresenting facts.

Like I said before, Michael Moore would not have released his movie if there were inaccuracies in what he was saying. He would be sued, and lose more money than he would make off that movie.

You don't have to lie to mislead. Michael Moore (and likely Fox News, and others) have lawyers to make sure that what they say is not outright untrue even if it only gives half the story.

Moore's movies are arranged in such a way as to lead those who know little about politics (as you yourself admit to), who are predisposed to believe his views (as you clearly are) or both, to the conclusion he wants you to, even if the outright statement of the conclusion would get him sued.

American banks should of collapsed.

In a perfect world they would have.

They do not help people, especially since they removed whatever laws were in place on borrowing money.

Many of these laws were removed in order to help those who could not afford the "American Dream" to get their slice of suburbia. The problem was not the greed of the bankers but rather the greed of the American public as a whole.

I mean banks are a prime example of capitalism. They are constantly making money, and charge you fees to hold on to your money.

Ok, so the people who keep your money safe from fees and in fact PAY YOU INTEREST in your money should just do this all for free?

I mean if you ask me, if students weren't able to have free bank accounts, I'd gladly keep my money buried somewhere or in a safe. Having them charge me money to hold on to my money makes no goddamn sense to me.

Services aren't free.

Originally Posted by arathbon

Agreed.



Ummm you obviously have a limited comprehension of the situation. Yes some specialists earn large amount of money, but many family doctors in the US have trouble earning money. Malpractice is very high (one of the things this bill lacked was tort reform). For example an OB/GYN in the states can end up paying around $100,000 a year in malpractice even when very experienced. Many doctors in the states also have two secretaries: one to deal with patients and one to deal with the myriad insurance companies. These figures are all deducted from the gross salary figures you see. Add in very high med school and college debt in the states even for those who went all public post-secondary.

Family doctors, yes...I know they don't make all that much...most after paying off their staff dont make more than 80K a year, but thats not where the American people get hit with the huge fees. For example, our family doctor in the states charges $50 per visit for those without insurance. With insurance, its something like $10 for us. 50 is expensive, but still its not overly expensive. On the other hand, I remember when my mom got pregnant with my brother. The bill came out to something like $60K (I'm not kidding) before the insurance took care of it...we ended up paying something like $3K i believe. Its the specialists, hospitals fees, and pharmaceuticals that really kill


[quote=arathbon;129324 ] Nevermind more spaces in the states. They need to be more affordable. [/qoute] I actually think most med schools are quite affordable. Most students that make it into med schools usually have really high marks, which means they usually get full-ride through their undergrad years to begin with. I have three friends right now who got into med-school last fall, neither of them are spending a penny out their pocket.

Originally Posted by arathbon

The US government is deep in debt and deficits, not to mention unfunded liabilities. They are so far in a hole, few people think there's a remotely easy way out.

Yes, they are in deep debt, but its the US, they are a money-making machine. Really, the stats say 30 million uninsured, but its more like 15 million actual citizens that are truly uninsured. They could cut fat from other areas or increases taxes slightly, and they would easily be able to take care of those people

@ lamsud - I don't get where you get the idea more than half of my opinion is based on something Michael Moore said.

My original point was that the health care bill passing means nothing because there is still a chance for appealing it. I was using his movie to compare my reasoning behind it, and the fact that this stuff is broadcasted off every American news station. I've also read several articles about the pros and cons on CNN's website. The movie was basically an easy example to explain why I think it means nothing.


@arathbon - My whole opinion on the health care bill does not revolve on what he said in one movie. There are other sources online and published that address the healthcare matter. Banks should of collapsed and it was a stupid idea to bail them out if you ask me. I also don't think that the American public was solely to blame for their spending habits. I mean if there were still laws on borrowing do you honestly think were complaining that much? Look what happened to these people, they're probably off in a lot worse of a predicament now. There absolutely had to have been some sort of inside deal with that decision, because the government supported the banks, which does nothing to help all those who got foreclosed on for the bank's deceptiveness. And I would rather have my money buried or kept in a safe, opposed to being charged to have someone else protect it from fees and keep it safe. Your argument of interest holds no real merit because interest rates don't actually allow you to earn anything substansial. I'd rather keep my $1000.00 on hand than keep it in a bank collecting $0.03 a month.

Originally Posted by lmasud

F They could cut fat from other areas ... and they would easily be able to take care of those people

like military spending?

snap.

If movies couldn't have biased and false information, Michael Moore wouldn't be able to release movies.

He has been sued several times, the cases generally get thrown out because of the strength of his legal team. You also can't sue someone for saying something untrue in a movie, unless its slander/libel. Its generally for when he cuts up interviews with people to make it look like they hold opinions they don't. That's why all the Iraq war veterans sued after Fahrenheit 9/11.

This site talks about a lot of his false claims http://www.moorewatch.com/

Originally Posted by lmasud

Family doctors, yes...I know they don't make all that much...most after paying off their staff dont make more than 80K a year, but thats not where the American people get hit with the huge fees. For example, our family doctor in the states charges $50 per visit for those without insurance. With insurance, its something like $10 for us. 50 is expensive, but still its not overly expensive. On the other hand, I remember when my mom got pregnant with my brother. The bill came out to something like $60K (I'm not kidding) before the insurance took care of it...we ended up paying something like $3K i believe. Its the specialists, hospitals fees, and pharmaceuticals that really kill

Its worth noting that because insurance companies basically operate in a way where they arrange bulk payments to doctors, they can get away with saying "Y'know, we owe you this much, and if we walked you would lose it all. Sure we could have a lengthy court battle, but keep in mind we have a legal team on standby. Why don't you just accept 50% and we'll call it even?" This raises the cost on people who don't pay with insurance.

Its even worse with Medicare and Medicaid, I seem to recall reading that average reimbursement was about 10%. That's the reason many doctors have stopped accepting them.

Originally Posted by Taunton

like military spending?

snap.

They are never gonna cut that, and IMO for a good reason too. They wanna be a super-power, and bully people around, having a strong military is necessary.

btw, whats a u of toronto ad doing on macinsiders???

took long enough!!