Should we blame the Nazis for our current healthcare conundrum?

I don't mean this as a personal insult, Sport, but this seems a naive point of view. I'll refrain from making any political comments.

And yet the 'free market' is supposedly more efficient. Why do people believe so strongly in such lies?

 

Because they have heard them so many times.

 

Sadly, learning HOW to think has been replaced by learning WHAT to think.

 

don't you have two parties in canada?

 

Unfortunately, like so many issues political in nature, it's not what is true or reasonable, but who shouts the loudest and who repeats the same untruths most often.

"Perception is reality." is the battle cry and so the fight is to control perception.

Lately I've been hearing that 47% of all worker don't pay any federal or state income taxes. Google says untrue but that doesn't stop the spread of this lie.

And so it is with health care. "You'll have to stand in line to see a doctor." "Death Panels" etc.

And as far as an increase in taxes to pay for it? I'd swap my insurance premiums for taxes any day. They'd have to be less than my employer and I are currently paying if everyone received coverage.

And for those who complain about the bad government programs and how government screws everything up. Did you get your mail today? How were the roads you went to work on? Any lawlessness bother you today? This government put men on the moon and did countless other great things to advance humanity and daily life. Its not perfect but damn good. We are the government after all.

So, who's to blame?? We all are for allowing this health care problem to happen and continue.

So keep talking and complaining and don't give up. Tell any one who'll listen. I don't even care if you agree with me or not. All views need to be heard.

We do need to fix this.

Thanks for letting me vent.

 

Yes. There are many many parties in Canada. There are 3 "big" ones though. The Conservatives, The Liberals, and the NDP (National Democratic Party). Then there are 2 "less big" parties, the Green Party, and the Bloc.

But there are very different systems in place for actual governing. It doesn't always work in Canada, but it always works better than in the states.

Because there are 3 big parties it is not a clear cut "everything they are for, we are against" and visa versa. Also note that the Conservatives are far more liberal than the current US Democratic Party. So essentially, they have removed the "R" from the equation and replaced it with 2 parties that make the "D"s look like "R"s. And whad'ya know, it actually works...

Anyways, once all the members are elected, they form one of 3 different types of governments: A majority, minority, or coalition. Majority is one party gets more than half the seats. Minority is when the winning party does not have more than half the seats but still wants to govern as the leader. Coalition is when they do not get half the seats, but then "team up" with others to form a coalition so that more than half the sides will vote on the key issues.

The prime minister may call for a re-election anytime. If they are not doing their jobs, its election time. Also those inside may pass a vote of no confidence and a general election is called. After this medicare-killing budget was passed, I bet a vote of no confidence could have been passed and all those jerks would have been kicked out. But they have a while longer to sit and wait in this country...

Also, there is a maximum of 1 year possible for campaigns and usually (since the new millennium) they last the minimum number of days which is 36.

So if they had a no confidence vote today, the first monday at least 36 days from now, would probably be an election. No need to campaign for 25% of your active term.

Anyways this is offtopic but I stand by it. Get rid of the R's and watch social progress and economic stability happen. The R's have gotten bat-shit crazy over the past few years but the democrats havent. It is swaying everything too far right. We need some louder democrats. Someone the NDP would be proud to run might start balancing the scales.

 

In the U.S., our "winner take all" approach to government and voting virtually assures that we have only two viable parties. A parliamentary system, like that used in Canada, tends to support many parties. Each system has strengths and weaknesses. Our two party system is one of our big weaknesses.

Tom

 

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie]Big Lie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

 

Yet the winning party doesn't end up with much in the way of power. I don't understand how all the different levels of government were originally designed to work together, but there's so much fighting that nothing gets done. You'd think the 'winner' could govern without needing the 'loser's' permission.

 

Well things would get done if the parties hadn't devolved into pre-school level bickering. It exists on both sides, but nobody should pretend it happens equally on both sides...

"Back in the day" I am sure the people founding the states wanted a better future for the country and all had a common goal in mind.

 

Back in the day, there wasn't a two party system. Nothing in the Constitution mentions two parties.

 

Correct. It was essentially a very multi-party system since usually they had different ideas for what would be best. Then some hybrid of that would be enacted because they worked together and wanted the same outcome, just through various channels to get there. Now you get to choose one of two ideas, neither of which are very good, and the wanted outcomes are very different.

 

well, maybe the experiment isn't working.

 

Perhaps the commonwealth would take the states back if they asked nicely.

 

seems to me, more of our problems are linked to the old 'isolationism vs protectionism' debate. it's not easy being the moral compass for the whole world!

 

The 24 hour news cycle and big money seems to have a polarizing effect. I'm not sure that when the constitution was written they had any idea about many of the modern problems, but they did have some nasty fights.

Just one of the problems of parliamentary systems. It also should be remembered that canada has a much smaller population and economy. It should be easier to govern and to provide public health care.

Read the federalist papers, they definitely knew many of the problems with the American form of democracy. Still, I would not trade it for a different system.

 

I am not sure if his quote was directed at parliamentary systems.

Population is smaller, and the economy is smaller. But taxes and basic rights scale to any size. It should work out to be the same percentage of cost to give basic human rights to all americans as the percentage of cost in canada. Just like the revenues through taxes should be the same percentage in both places. The absolute costs will be much higher for the US. But it won't matter because the absolute revenue will also be much higher.

The benefit of a parliamentary system is that with multiple parties in high positions, you cannot have a pure split on votes because bills have 2 options (pass or not) and there are 3 or more parties. Some from some other side must vote yes or no. So it is not a "well this was a republican bill, so lets not vote for it" or "this is a democratic bill, lets not vote for it".

I am sure that was part of one of the US history classes I had to take, but I do not remember it fully. However it doesn't take a genius to find extreme flaws with the current us political system. The assertion that it works better than having a parliament is absurd.

 

Compass? More like a lighthouse.

 

moths are attracted to our beam.

 

George Washington was much bothered by the rise of political parties. He expressed reservations that they might be the end of our political system, but didn't see how they could be prevented.

Recall that in those days no one knew how our experiment in democracy might turn out. Now that I think about it, we still don't know.

Tom