| bblackwood wrote on Thu, 13 August 2009 07:00 |
| PookyNMR wrote on Thu, 13 August 2009 01:50 |
I think the 'constitutional' angle on this is weak. I'm a bigger fan than most for following the constitution. But there are areas of social good that could not be foreseen that do need to be addressed. Health and education are basic necessities for a prosperous nation.
|
It's how we read the constitution that separates us here.
You're talking to someone who thinks the Dept. of Education is unconstitutional and that education (along with healthcare, etc) are State's rights / responsibilities under the 9th and 10th Amendments. I don't believe it's the Federal Government's business to do anything other than legislation to deal with the actual issues causing our healthcare costs to be so high (and it's not purely due to profit, as the media is cramming down our throats).
I think some fair points are made in this article.
On a foundational level, it appears you have a more modern view of the US - a country with 'provinces' like many others who are weak compared to the centralized government. I contend that the genius of the founding fathers is that we are indeed a collection of 'states' - much like 5o individual countries held together in a union with a centralized government that handles the defense of the country as well as interstate commerce (not completely unlike the European Union in design). This design allows people of each state to determine what they need without those from across the country determining otherwise. We've gotten a long way from that, I understand, but don't expect those of us who appreciate the beauty of the original plan to support things that push us further from the original design.
So you can call the argument 'weak' if you wish - I'll just have to disagree.
|
So do you also not believe in paying income tax? That's not in the constitution? Is the IRS illegal?
While that article had a few notable ideas that might help, it further propagated propaganda about Canada that is not true.
For one, bureaucrats do not cal the shots on what's insured and what's not. The ministry of health controls the list of insured services. Doctors make the call as to whether or not a procedure is done based on whether or not it will help the patient. It's care driven, not dollar driven.
As for 'waiting lines' they skewed the statistics by not mentioning the wait times for various procedures. Sure, I may wait one or two days for my XYZ operation to be booked. Or maybe a week or two for an appointment to the specialist. What the article doesn't mention is that there are waiting lines in America too.
And yes, Canadians do want supplemental health dollars (like HSA's, we have HSP's which are a little more progressive) to cover things that the public insurance plan does not. If I want dental care, eye care, massage therapy, acupuncture, alternative therapies, etc, we still have the option to do so.
I understand how the union of states works. Our provinces are not that different in relation to the federal government.
In fact, even though we have some national health mandates, it's the provinces who do all the administration and delivery of the services. I am under the Alberta health care plan. It just so happens that my Alberta health care plan covers me anywhere in Canada.
Where our health system is federal is consolidating the ability to be single payer (via taxation) and helping negotiate with providers for fair prices on services.
Your federal government also collects tax. In a single payer system, they would need to collect and distribute health dollars to the individual states. They would also set a minimum standard of care that each state needs to give it's citizens. They could also help in negotiating fair prices with providers.
