Do people 'deserve' universal health care?

[steelish]

This bill is a private members bill. In the Canadian system of government, any member of the house of commons can propose a private members bill, but in order to bring it to debate or get it on the agenda they need to have a certain level of support.

Here the bill has been proposed by a leftist member of one of the most left wing parties in the Country, and was approved for debate by the most right-wing party in the country. Basically it has been approved for debate solely so people can take public recorded stands against it in the house.

It isn't a serious representation of the values of our country. As for all the press, extreme bills make for good press even when they have no realistic support.

Also to provide perspective:

None of the papers you linked are considered neutral or bipartisan. Few of them are even mainstream papers. The ones that are the most right-leaning of the mainstream papers in the city from which that paper is from. There are also some factual errors in some of the articles, and a lot of hyperbole about the implications.

Lastly Canada doesn't have a national health system, we have a federal government that gives money to the provinces and territories, each of which provides their own health system, all of which meet certain national conditions.

So what you're saying is that IF by some miracle it passed, you aren't concerned in any way?

[SadisticNature]

So what you're saying is that IF by some miracle it passed, you aren't concerned in any way?

What I'm saying is its not going to pass and that its an extreme proposal with no mainstream credibility. This means its not something that's a reasonable attack on the Canadian system. So using it on a discussion in US health care to point out a flaw in the Canadian system isn't exactly a sound argument.

This would be akin to me taking the most extreme proposal on either side of the US health-care system and using that to attack US health care.

[DuncanONeil]

What I'm saying is its not going to pass and that its an extreme proposal with no mainstream credibility. This means its not something that's a reasonable attack on the Canadian system. So using it on a discussion in US health care to point out a flaw in the Canadian system isn't exactly a sound argument.

This would be akin to me taking the most extreme proposal on either side of the US health-care system and using that to attack US health care.

You mean like the bills currently in Congress that the majority party can not pass?

[SadisticNature]

You mean like the bills currently in Congress that the majority party can not pass?

I think the most extreme proposal on the left is single payer health care and it has been proposed. The bill isn't even close to the most left-wing plan on the table.

The most extreme proposal on the right are very inadequate versions of tort reform that protect companies from lawsuits but not in ways that ensure those who are legitimate victims are still able to sue, along with various attempts at further deregulating the insurance industry.

I think the proposal on the table is just slightly left of center for the US.

[DuncanONeil]

I think the most extreme proposal on the left is single payer health care and it has been proposed. The bill isn't even close to the most left-wing plan on the table.

True!

The most extreme proposal on the right are very inadequate versions of tort reform that protect companies from lawsuits but not in ways that ensure those who are legitimate victims are still able to sue, along with various attempts at further deregulating the insurance industry.

Companies? I understand the concept of Tort reform was to offer additional protection to doctors. What causes you to make this an issue of company vs individual?

I think the proposal on the table is just slightly left of center for the US.

Were this truly just left of center the ratio of those opposed would not be above 60%. Both the rabid left and the rabid right are joined in opposition, although for different reasons. Those outside of these two camps, that are the ones that actually reason a position are almost universally opposed.
An awful lot of poor legislation has been passed and still survives on the promise that we will fix it later. I think many of us have become fed up with this concept and do not want to suffer another round of "fix it later".

Over and above all of that is once the bill is passed then the regulations are written with no input from either Congress or us. This is where the real scary stuff will come from.

[SadisticNature]

True!

Companies? I understand the concept of Tort reform was to offer additional protection to doctors. What causes you to make this an issue of company vs individual?

Were this truly just left of center the ratio of those opposed would not be above 60%. Both the rabid left and the rabid right are joined in opposition, although for different reasons. Those outside of these two camps, that are the ones that actually reason a position are almost universally opposed.
An awful lot of poor legislation has been passed and still survives on the promise that we will fix it later. I think many of us have become fed up with this concept and do not want to suffer another round of "fix it later".

Over and above all of that is once the bill is passed then the regulations are written with no input from either Congress or us. This is where the real scary stuff will come from.

Most of the doctors are locked into their insurance plan for a certain period of time so the primary beneficiary of Tort reform in the near future would be the insurance companies.

[SadisticNature]

The Fox News Poll asked if people approve of the Obama Health Care plan and got 60% no.

Other polls have asked if Americans support the idea of public health care and got over 60% yes.

When they ask about "Government run health care" the answer is somewhere in the middle.

When people give reasons for their no vote against the Obama bill, they often list claims reported in certain media outlets that are not actually in the bill. So there is clearly bias in the poll data.

True!

Companies? I understand the concept of Tort reform was to offer additional protection to doctors. What causes you to make this an issue of company vs individual?

Were this truly just left of center the ratio of those opposed would not be above 60%. Both the rabid left and the rabid right are joined in opposition, although for different reasons. Those outside of these two camps, that are the ones that actually reason a position are almost universally opposed.
An awful lot of poor legislation has been passed and still survives on the promise that we will fix it later. I think many of us have become fed up with this concept and do not want to suffer another round of "fix it later".

Over and above all of that is once the bill is passed then the regulations are written with no input from either Congress or us. This is where the real scary stuff will come from.

[DuncanONeil]

"When people give reasons for their no vote against the Obama bill, they often list claims reported in certain media outlets that are not actually in the bill. So there is clearly bias in the poll data."

Can I get some examples of these perceived items that are not in the bills presented by the Democrats? However, please avoid "death panels".

The Fox News Poll asked if people approve of the Obama Health Care plan and got 60% no.

Other polls have asked if Americans support the idea of public health care and got over 60% yes.

When they ask about "Government run health care" the answer is somewhere in the middle.

When people give reasons for their no vote against the Obama bill, they often list claims reported in certain media outlets that are not actually in the bill. So there is clearly bias in the poll data.