This is the United States Congress we're talking about not the German Bundestag. Logic and thoughtful consideration had nothing to do with it - ever. Pharmaceutical companies, insurers and medical associations lobbied it into whatever makes them most profitable. We're now mandated into buying the same bad insurance products with a few minor concessions like the ban on denial based upon pre-existing condition.
When I first heard of Obamacare I thought that the US would have looked at the various medical services systems in other country and put a plan together that took the best practices being used and avoided the pitfalls (as much as possible since no system is going to be perfect). But I don't that's what happened.
From what I understand, US citizens will be required to buy health insurance from the same pool of companies they currently buy from (so that maintains the status quo regarding private insurers as well as any benefits (or lack thereof) of competing private companies). What changes is that you cannot be denied by the insurers due to pre-existing conditions. Also, if you don't buy insurance you will be fined.
Is that essentially correct?
Yes. The mandate to buy insurance (mostly from the same insurers already doing business) came with a few provisions about pre-existing conditions. More classes of insurance plans were also introduced, including some "affordable" alternatives for low-income subscribers. These plans are lower-cost, but drastically limit health care services. The fine for not purchasing a plan supposedly comes in the form of an income tax penalty. Not sure how that affects people without incomes.
Originally Posted by gordo
The whole thing began with great intentions but was reduced to political grandstanding point scoring.
Thanks for all your clear answers. Very helpful to understanding what's going on south of our border.
We're so close the the US in so many ways that, for me anyway, it is confusing when I don't understand how the US has arrived at many of the positions it has on some of these basic issues.
thanks again! gordo
A question for you or any others on the PP from North or South America:
Originally Posted by gordo
Why do people from the US solely get to call themselves generically American? How do you feel about it?
Two questions for a Canadian to completely baffle almost anybody from the US...
What is parliamentary democracy and how does it works?
Who is the US' largest trading partner?
From my experiences the average American doesn't understand the basics of their own government or the very brief history of their country. I'd bet that in the plant where I where I work less than 20% of the people could name the two US Senators that represent them. Maybe, that's more universal globally than I would like to believe. Anyway, congratulations you are possibly now more informed than the average US voter.
Nobody knows how the parliamentary system works...but it seems to! LOL :-D
Originally Posted by chevalier
Canaduh is by far the largest supplier of oil to the US. The chart here is very informative: US Petroleum Imports by Country � The Cost of Energy
Canada is also the US's largest trading partner.
Well calling themselves "American" is much easier than calling themselves United Statesians so they are forgiven - as long as they still refer to their country as the US eh!
I think Canada would be the US's Largest trading partner followed by China and then Mexico and Japan
They trade because they can't afford to buy. ;-D
Originally Posted by Cornishpastythighs
Most Americans have no idea we but more oil from Canada than we do from Saudi Arabia. When we demonize the oil exporters we do not mean you guys, just those middle easterners........
Daniel T Roll
no tackled this, so...
8) Religion...This seemed to be a much bigger issue with the Republicans than with the Democrats since the Republicans had religious leaders give presentations while the Democrats did not. Also Romney constantly mentioned his faith in his talks. Is religious affiliation a criteria for presidency? I.e. if you're not a "Christian" (I understand that Mormons are not viewed by all as Christians) you cannot be a presidential candidate?
What the many media outlets showed you is not necessarily what happened. I bounced around the networks and noticed that many did not show the religious leaders speak at the DNC. However, they were there.
Apparently the networks show their audience what they want to. I think that distorts the message.
"Very confusing" sums it up pretty well. And the more you read on the subject, the more confused you'll most likely become, especially that you'll never know the real truth anyway. The issue with Iran is that it's run by fanatical religious fundamentalists and it did issue specific threats towards Israel. Actually, Canada just recently severed ties with Iran in a really surprising move (I'm from Toronto, BTW).
Originally Posted by gordo
Israel isn't interested in any "military action" against Iran. It's only interested in destroying Iranian nuclear facilities and live on quietly knowing they don't exist. Obviously, they'd prefer Iran to shut them down itself.
You may know that Israel destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981... that is few months after Iran destroyed the same reactor, but the French repaired it again. Not surprisingly, Iran didn't complain then (let alone there's an opinion that Israel coordinated its actions with Iran). It was a controversial action back then. But after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait a few years later, nobody really shed a tear about that reactor.
A few years ago, Israel also quietly destroyed Syrian nuclear reactor. Syria didn't make any noise and never even admitted it because... umm... they weren't supposed to have any nuclear reactor.
Anyway, I'm just giving you some background and perspective. Should Israel destroy the Iranian reactor? I really don't want it to happen because the situation will be quite nervous. Is it a good idea to leave Iran alone? I think all of us will sleep more quietly knowing that Iran doesn't produce any nuclear materials. Bottom line - none of us here knows if this action is justified - and never will.