A Canadian doctor on US healthcare

[gibran]

I usually try to keep to the center of aurguements [[ yes I am glad you want healthcare for everyone and yes we cshould all look at these bills critically: that is where we stand in common ground). But to compare Emanual to a Nazi is wrong on many levels. He is Jewish and you can disagree with his politics but to say any Jew is like a Nazi is-------up: I am sorry. secondly whether you agree and you may have valuable talking points, they are lost in the anger. Thatis our point, anger is taking over civil discourse...and we all lose..I never like to lecture a person on a public forum ...[[except some exposters ) so forgive me...but please name, we can make our points without dragging our knuckles.

[gibran]

My experience with Canadian healthcare comes from when I was evaluating and consulting with TBI programs in Toronto...while it is not a perfect system [[MRI was perfect example) everyday problems are handled effectively...It is speciality problems that raise concern. SO a balance between would be great.

[gazhekwe]

That's the way brainwashing works, puts the jackboots on the other guys. Stop screaming. We put up with eight years of Bush and Cheney, who were some dreadfully scary guys. We all survived albeit a bit tattered and spread way too thin. We need to concentrate on getting ourselves out of the mess we are in. Focussing on random imagined horrors will get us absolutely nowhere, so why don't you take a deep breath and slow down and find something constructive to do?

[ccbatson]

Step back and think about what fascism is, apply it [[the definition) to the parties concerned and you will see that radical liberals [[like Obama) are trying to clandestinely do exactly what Fascistic despots of the past had done. The only difference being that they did it openly.

[Gistok]

I want everyone to be covered also but, like I stated in another thread this jumping into a blind bill without knowing what the hell is in it is ridiculous.
It also does not help E. Emanuel is nazi like to say the least and he helped write the damn thing.
Sorry, when it is clear cut, when all people are treated equally under this bill, when we can be positive there will be no rationing nor any favortism played against the people then Ill sign on to it.
Right now, it looks like a Nazi era concentration camp package when its coupled with Mengele's[[Emanuels) essay on who should be favored for medical treatment and who is disposable.
Sorry, I didn't sign on with the Nazis and I certainly won't sign on too this until the people themselves are reassured that the fascists in charge with all their circumvented bullshit czars and all are harmless.
Just way too many creepy paralels compared to other historical atrocities for me to try to start listing.
Wow, I feel like we are back in the first 1/4 of the 20th century in Europe.
Gives me the creeps.

Your pointless Nazi analogies give a lot of folks here the creeps....

[gibran]

The National Health Care Insurance [[NCI)debate has been going on since 1906: It appeared on the world stage in 1880. The first country that passed a national health care system was Bismark's Germany: 2/3rds paid by employers and 1/3 by employees. [[first health-care system not by a socialist or communist: but a conservative country) By 1920 most of the industrialized countries had healthcare systems. In 1906 our labor movement wanted NHI: with people under a certain income level having access to it :shared cost model. At first there was widespread support, until after the war when the AMA pulled out their support. why Because they didn't want Government dictating Health Care [[conservative within the AMA won out) this was their position til 1960's and a primary reason for the formation of the original BC/ BS :
how the AMA and AHA used the same fear tactics the Insurance companies use today:
Socialism [[old tactic new voices), Government control of who you see [[sounds familiar), socialized medicine: Truman explained this really simply: in socialized medicine Doctors work directly for the government-as employees: this is not proposed. In the forties and fifties the AMA with a war chest from the drug and insurance companies launched a blistery campaign to "shout down" any reform..."with the election of a Republican Government the AMA breathed easy [[burrow, 1963) and used the anti-communist "red" scare to back America off [[familiar) It wasn't til Medicare and Medicaid [[which by the way was a tough fight also) gained some ground that in 1975 when there were four new proposals on the table that the four stakeholders were working collective to craft their own version of it and in the end it was again defeated. Carter couldn't gain bipartisan consensus..so it wasn't put forward.

In the 1980's there were rising costs of health care, gaps in insurance, maldistribution of personnel and facilities and access to services from poor, disabled, elderly, social class and geography.. Kennedy proposed sweeping changes, "but with the election of Reagan, it ran out of gas"

which leads us to today [[sort of) while a Personal Health CAre System would take the best of both world private contractoring with governent it would use best pratcice sfor delivery...Single payer system would eleminate "highly expenseive multiple, fragmented, duplicative system in place now"...tax revenues Mike would come from the amounts people are paying now for their health insurance but cost could be reduced by having a larger pool to draw down from. Time to review Clinton Plan and their 11 points ...oh yes that was defeated by a Republican Congress too. Biggest foe {Bill Kristol} and who was he at the time Chief of staff to Dan Quayle [[ history does have a way of repeating itself eh Scooter)...

Kristol Memos: in a nutshell: Healthcare is a threat to the Republican Party: aggressive action is needed [[shout it out) with "uncompromising counter-strategy" ...THIS IS WHY YOU ARE HEARING ALL THE SHOUTING...opps I was shouting [[effect)....

so here we go again ..with some of the same players still kicking...and by the way "market -based doesn't work: why monies go to Ex's and Shareholder....

[Retroit]

The praise on this thread for Canada's system is contrary to what I've heard from Canadians. They bemoan the long waits, and have even come to the States for care.

The only reason I can think of why a Canadian or European would praise their system is because they are not familiar enough with the American system and believe all the misinformation from the Left.

[gibran]

They praise it and complain..isn't that just the way anysystem works? the real question is would they give it up if they could have our system infused into theirs..and thatis what this debate is about..not giving things up but gain access, portability and assurance that if you have a condition that you can get help...and perhaps the most important everyone should be covered...

[gazhekwe]

It is very interesting that Michigan's Speaker Andy Dillon [[D-Redford) is proposing a single payer system for Michigan's state employees and retirees, with more of the cost being placed on the employees and retirees.

I received a letter from him in response to a query, including this rationale for the single payer system:

The plan I am proposing will overhaul health care for Michigan's public sector employees and retirees, consolidating the hundreds of different health benefit plans under one roof. Creating this larger pool of customers will maximize efficiency and cost savings, while making health care more affordable and accessible. This move will save taxpayers almost $1 billion per year once fully implemented.



While his plan advocates establishing a statewide health care provider, he still says:

Please note that every public employee, including myself, my colleagues in the House and Senate, the Governor, all public school teachers and many others will be able to choose from the same health care plans. Finally, this is a pro-worker reform proposal. Current contracts in place will be honored, collective bargaining rights will be sustained and patient choice will be preserved.

If you read the original Obama proposals, they were very similar. They did not advocate the doctors working for the government, nor remove choice, nor different providers. This plan simply puts the choices all under negotiation by the State, but allows coverage by different, negotiated providers.

If we can get back on track of discussing the actual issues instead of screaming at each other and waving red flags that obscure the facts, we will make some progress.

[vetalalumni]

I usually try to keep to the center of aurguements [[ yes I am glad you want healthcare for everyone and yes we cshould all look at these bills critically: that is where we stand in common ground). But to compare Emanual to a Nazi is wrong on many levels. He is Jewish and you can disagree with his politics but to say any Jew is like a Nazi is-------up: I am sorry. secondly whether you agree and you may have valuable talking points, they are lost in the anger. Thatis our point, anger is taking over civil discourse...and we all lose..I never like to lecture a person on a public forum ...[[except some exposters ) so forgive me...but please name, we can make our points without dragging our knuckles.

Nice peacemaking effort gibran.

[Gistok]

An MRI? in Canada, within hours? Unheard of...lucky for your friend if true...unlucky for everyone else who missed that rare opportunity.

Even more unlucky for millions in the USA that don't have or can't afford medical insurance to cover such a costly procedure... but that point is always lost on you....

Or you choose to ignore it because it conflicts with your incessant obsession with money... as seen by your 2000+ posts droning on ad nauseum about... socialism... socialism... socialism.... [[2000 more times)...

[gibran]

.

If you read the original Obama proposals, they were very similar. They did not advocate the doctors working for the government, nor remove choice, nor different providers. This plan simply puts the choices all under negotiation by the State, but allows coverage by different, negotiated providers.

Yes tis is the crux of the opposition to health care reform..It is decades old and an effect tactic..that is why I posted my history lesson..the sad thing is that everytime it gets defeated and millions go to bed each night not covered...

[Mikeg]

I posted a version of this on a different thread that got hijacked, so I though I would include it over here where it is more appropriate.

Why is there declining support and mounting opposition to the President's plan for health care reform and Congress's attempts to put a bill together?

Mainly because the public is beginning to see through the smokescreens and are spotting numerous inconsistencies and starting to see the larger picture.

• Since his inauguration, President Obama has changed his description of his plans from "health care reform" to "health insurance reform."
• Back in June, President Obama told us that "the status quo is untenable" and that it produces too many specialists and not enough primary-care physicians. Then five minutes later he told us that if we are happy with our plan and we are happy with our doctor, then the federal government won't make us have to change.
• President Obama stressed the urgent need for reform and wanted a bill from Congress before their August recess, yet many of the reforms in their draft bills are not scheduled to take effect until 2013
• People watch and hear a video clip of state senator Obama speaking before an AFL-CIO group where he tells them that "I am a proponent of a single payer universal health care plan.... everybody in, nobody out".
• People watch and hear Rep. Barney Frank stating last month that "if we get a good public option, it could lead to single payer and that is the best way to reach single payer".
• Even the liberal press is embracing the Democrat's Trojan Horse strategy of enacting a partial reform of the existing system and then gradually evolving to a single payer system over time.
• Despite Obama's campaign promise of greater governmental transparency and disavowal of dealmaking with lobbyists, we now learn that he and his staff have struck a behind-the-scenes deal with the drug manufacturer's lobbyists.
• The Democrats are unwilling to tell the public how much more their proposed health care/insurance reforms are going to cost us in actual dollars [[taxes, premiums or otherwise) and many folks are suspicious of any politician who claims it will be paid for by "bending the cost curve" [[or any other vague and mealy-mouthed explanation).

Thinking people see, hear and read these kind of things and recognize the contradictions and they wonder if they can trust anyone when it comes to "reform".

Coming on the heels of the unprecedented 2009 federal spending and budget deficit, the public is wary of any reforms that may contribute to even larger deficits down the road.

It's a small wonder then that many people are showing up at their Congressperson's "health care town hall" meetings to tell them they need to "Just Say NO". And in response to the rising opposition, the Democrat leadership is denouncing the protesters instead of responding to them and trying to make a convincing argument for their reform plans and proposed legislation. That approach is very telling and it is bound to contribute to further erosion in public support for the President's health care/insurance reform plans.

[elganned]

Step back and think about what fascism is, apply it [[the definition) to the parties concerned and you will see that radical liberals [[like Obama) are trying to clandestinely do exactly what Fascistic despots of the past had done. The only difference being that they did it openly.

Obviously you are following the Nazi dictum: "Tell a lie loudly enough, and often enough, and people will believe it."

You redefine "fascism" in your own terms and then say, "See! The definition fits the libs!" without mentioning that you've redefined it specifically so it would. That is intellectual dishonesty of the highest sort. You are to be congratulated.

[ccbatson]

Sigh...try this Elganned

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Fascism

[elganned]

"a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism."

Seems your application fails on two terms, bats. Obama can't get his own party to line up for his health care plan, and I don't see any sort of aggressive nationalism happening.

Cherry-picking the parts of the definition that fit your predisposition and ignoring the rest is, in fact, redefining the term. Still stands as blatent intellectual dishonesty.

[ccbatson]

Thank G-d for his failures on these counts Elganned...hopefully many more to follow.

It is encouraging to hear a liberal like you also relieved that Obama is not succeeding in his quest for socialism....hey, wait a minute, happy that Obama is not succeeding...isn't that the same as wanting him to fail? Now where, and from whom have we heard this sentiment recently? It is right on the tip of my tongue....ahh, that's right, Rush Limbaugh.

You are in good company there Elganned.

[rb336]

fascism, best defined by the guy who invented it, is corporate nationalism. it is the opposite of socialism in both philosophy and form. it attacks workers groups with a vengence. the state exists for the coroprations, and the corporations for the state. it is an amalgamation of political and economic elites with extreme xenophobic nationalism

[gazhekwe]

Hmm, this is interesting in light of this doctor's input. To reprise, one of his five points:

:Lesson No. 1: A single-payer system would eliminate most U.S. coverage problems.

On costs, Canada spends 10% of its economy on healthcare; the U.S. spends 16%. The extra 6% of GDP amounts to more than $800 billion per year. The spending gap between the two nations is almost entirely because of higher overhead. Canadians don't need thousands of actuaries to set premiums or thousands of lawyers to deny care. Even the U.S. Medicare program has 80% to 90% lower administrative costs than private Medicare Advantage policies. And providers and suppliers can't charge as much when they have to deal with a single payer.

And now, this, this morning on NPR:

[T]he new president of the Canadian Medical Association says her country's health care system is in deep trouble. NPR News' Carl Kasell introduced this report:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/morning_roundup/

[ccbatson]

Hitler was the leader of the National SOCIALIST Party, and was a raging collectivist. Just because he utilized a form of socialism under the guise of corporate cooperation, does not diminish the fact that the 2 ideologies are so closely linked as to be inextricable.

[ccbatson]

Gaz...Mark Levin made an excellent point today that hadn't occurred to me as follows: Is having health care as a high percentage cost of GDP by itself a bad thing? So long as basic needs, and other wants are fulfilled by virtue of a healthy economy, it doesn't matter that the percent of GDP is high for something as important and valuable as health care.

Futhermore, taken together, health care as an industry is growing today while other industries are contracting. At 19% of the economy [[meaning that 19% of people employed are in this growing industry), switching to a single payer system would threaten the economy at large [[easily pushing unemployment rates up by 5% or more).

[gazhekwe]

So long as basic needs, and other wants are fulfilled by virtue of a healthy economy,

Well, that isn't happening, is it? Nor has it. Basic needs are not being met.

[elganned]

Thank G-d for his failures on these counts Elganned...hopefully many more to follow.

It is encouraging to hear a liberal like you also relieved that Obama is not succeeding in his quest for socialism....hey, wait a minute, happy that Obama is not succeeding...isn't that the same as wanting him to fail? Now where, and from whom have we heard this sentiment recently? It is right on the tip of my tongue....ahh, that's right, Rush Limbaugh.

You are in good company there Elganned.

Your facetious attempt to define my position for me is childish at best.
I am relieved that Obama fails the test of being a fascist. It does not follow that I hope he fails in all his endeavors, since his endeavors cannot by definition be chategorized as fascistic.

It's a simple sylogism:
1. You say he's a fascist.
2. He fails to rise to the definition of a fascist.
3. You are wrong, Q.E.D.

Not that you will ever admit it, but the facts speak for themselves.

And BTW, if I were in Rush Limbaugh's company I would probably be arrested for assault because I couldn't resist the temptaion to punch him in the face.

[rb336]

Hitler was the leader of the National SOCIALIST Party, and was a raging collectivist. Just because he utilized a form of socialism under the guise of corporate cooperation, does not diminish the fact that the 2 ideologies are so closely linked as to be inextricable.

the word socialist meant nothing in the context of the Nazis. they were far from socialist, as the record very clearly shows. Tell me ONE company they nationalized - there were none, not even defense contractors. stop acting the simpleton bats, i know it serves your dogma, but i know you are not that mindless. it was an anti-labor, anti-poor. it had nothing to do with socialism, especially not the kind of socialism you claim Obama is trying to bring. yet again, your use of ALL CAPS was less than convincing.

oh, and stop relying on long-discredited people like Mark Levin. you might actually learn something

[elganned]

Hitler was the leader of the National SOCIALIST Party, and was a raging collectivist.

Specious reasoning. Labels and names are not defining, merely identifying.

Or do you assert that China is a "republic" because it calls itself the People's Republic of China? Or perhaps that North Korea is "democratic" because it's official name is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea?