My Canadian friend and others while having our Bahama dinner party and gabbing the other nite and our discussion turned to comparing the two countries health care.

There's is not free, they do pay some, not like we do.

It is true that you could wait for weeks or months if you do not already have a primary and you will wait if you have a primary because of the patient to doctor ratio. Lack of doctors

Most cases needing a Katscan or MRI wait 4-6 months.

If that is the type of medical that you want then be a fool and support your congressman

Canada has a doctor shortage for a number of reasons. A big one is the imposed reduction in medical school enrollment back in 1993.

Additionally, government restrictions on foreign trained doctors have also reduced numbers. I know when I used to travel in Montreal and Toronto a lot the border guards were very strict about foreigners doing work a Canadian could do.

They also loose doctors to the US where the pay is better.

All that being said, I'd note that my sister who has a LARGE number of Canadian friends says they think their system while imperfect is pretty good.

And that being said, I'd note that the current proposals don't looks much at all like the Canadian system.

-spence

Any healthcare is better than no healthcare
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Obama's plan has a champagne taste and a beer pocketbook.

There is no way a single payer plan is sustainable, anymore than
Social Security, and all of us have been paying into that since we were
teenagers getting our working papers.

Ahh what the H, screw our kids and grandkids. :rolleyes:

Obama's plan has a champagne taste and a beer pocketbook.

There is no way a single payer plan is sustainable, anymore than
Social Security, and all of us have been paying into that since we were
teenagers getting our working papers.

Ahh what the H, screw our kids and grandkids. :rolleyes:

You're right. Which makes it fortunate that a single payer plan isn't the proposal.

You're right. Which makes it fortunate that a single payer plan isn't the proposal.

Only because Obama didn't get his plan passed in 2 weeks and
the Town Meetings attended by the Astra turfs threw a wet blanket on it.

Once employers saw there was a govt. plan available , they would of dropped their plans faster than you could say "lickitey split."

You're right. Which makes it fortunate that a single payer plan isn't the proposal.

but it is the intended end game...the proposal(s) is/are simply a way to get there by slowly choking out(the unwilling) or completely controlling(the passive) what's left the free market...

Only because Obama didn't get his plan passed in 2 weeks and
the Town Meetings attended by the Astra turfs threw a wet blanket on it.

Actually, it's because a single-payer program was never in the Bill.

Actually, it's because a single-payer program was never in the Bill.

JD...is this your version of Spence word games? Obama and a plethera of those involved with the attempt to overhaul the health system have stated in the past, in their own words and not out of context that they support, prefer, WANT a single payer system...they also point out that the understand that they can't go straight to such a system but can "help" it along over time...either you think these folks have changed in their desire for a socialized, government run single payer system or you are complicit in the misrepresentation of what the ultimate goal and result of Obama/Kennedy/Democrat Congress/Marxist care would be...:uhuh:

JD...is this your version of Spence word games? Obama and a plethera of those involved with the attempt to overhaul the health system have stated in the past, in their own words and not out of context that they support, prefer, WANT a single payer system...they also point out that the understand that they can't go straight to such a system but can "help" it along over time...either you think these folks have changed in their desire for a socialized, government run single payer system or you are complicit in the misrepresentation of what the ultimate goal and result of Obama/Kennedy/Democrat Congress/Marxist care would be...:uhuh:
Funny, when I try to articulate what Obama means in your often out of context sound bites, you accuse me of playing word games.

When you do it, in a "guilt by association because they belong to the same party" conspiracy rant...it's all rational and good.

Hypocrite.

-spence

Is it possible to be for a single payer health care plan, then not be for a single payer health care plan?

Below are 2 quotes from the same person. Anyone want to venture a guess as to who said the following?

“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody."

Sounds like he supports a single payer plan, no?

"I Have Not Said That I Was a Single-Payer Supporter’……`I believe it would be too disruptive"

Wait a minute. Now it sounds like he doesn't support a single payer plan. What gives?

Funny, when I try to articulate what Obama means in your often out of context sound bites, you accuse me of playing word games.

When you do it, in a "guilt by association because they belong to the same party" conspiracy rant...it's all rational and good.

Hypocrite.

-spence

just going by the ACTUAL words of OBAMA and many of the individuals involved with this attempt to socialize our healthcare....as always with this bunch you get to see what they really intend and think when they are speaking to the like minded....it's on tape and video Spence, I don't have to postulate about what these people think and spin the way that you do...simply take what they've said and add the language in the proposals and you can easily figure out where they're headed.... but you chose to believe Obama and what he says "today" to further his agenda rather than what his track record shows, that will CHANGE tomorrow and you will have to come up with an entirely new spin, I am consistent, you are constantly spinning and spinning.....
and routinely name calling I've noticed...like a little child...

Is it possible to be for a single payer health care plan, then not be for a single payer health care plan?

Below are 2 quotes from the same person. Anyone want to venture a guess as to who said the following?

“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody."

Sounds like he supports a single payer plan, no?

"I Have Not Said That I Was a Single-Payer Supporter’……`I believe it would be too disruptive"

Wait a minute. Now it sounds like he doesn't support a single payer plan. What gives?

he was taken out of context:rotf2:

Canada has a doctor shortage for a number of reasons. A big one is the imposed reduction in medical school enrollment back in 1993.

-spence

Ya mean they are rationing # of doctors while at the same time there are long patient waits?
Sounds like a Government Plan. :D

Another reason might be a FP makes $210,000 in Canada, a specialist $280,000
which doesn't include OVERHEAD or taxes.

FP would loose 4-6 years of income while they are paying for their education while
the specialist would lose 8 years of income while paying for education.

I'm sure they are waiting with baited breath to get into Med School. :rolleyes:

Wait a minute. Now it sounds like he doesn't support a single payer plan. What gives?

Not to worry, even though the HR 3200 is as clear is as mud and nobody understand it,
and even though he has been trying to explain it to the American people many times for the last 2 months,
it will become crystal clear as he addresses it once more on Sept 9 th.

Just a slight communication problem.:D

JD...is this your version of Spence word games?

No, it's my declaration that the people that actually write the laws (House and Senate) have never put a single-payer program in the bill.

Thus, pissing and moaning about how a single-payer program will destroy the country is just fueling misinformation and takes away from the issues with the HC bill (which are quite numerous) that are *actually included*.

Actually, it's because a single-payer program was never in the Bill.

JD, you better tell Nancy Pelosi then, i just saw her on TV with a blurb from her
Town Hall Meeting stating, "any bill passed by the House will have a Single Payer
Option in it. "
Sounds like the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. :)

JD, you better tell Nancy Pelosi then, i just saw her on TV with a blurb from her
Town Hall Meeting stating, "any bill passed by the House will have a Single Payer
Option in it. "
Sounds like the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. :)

She is such an ass without a clue. "Single-payer option" is an oxymoron. The entire bill is centered around a non-single-payer system.

A lot of Dems are even against a Gov't sponsored public option.

She is such an ass without a clue. "Single-payer option" is an oxymoron. The entire bill is centered around a non-single-payer system.

A lot of Dems are even against a Gov't sponsored public option.

JD..it's the dems that continually change the language when it's convenient...healthcare reform/no, now it's health "insurance" reform...single payer plan/single payer option....government plan/government option......global warming/climate change..war on terror/overseas peacekeeping mission........if you are referring to the house bill, it clearly states that if, after the date that the bill is signed into law, you have any change in your existing health insurance...you will be enrolled in the government option(which sounds like no-option single payer to me), now is the government option still on the table because that varies widely depending on who you talk to?....I think you should have said that "a few" dems are against a government sponsored public option, that would be more accurate, but they will be strong armed to be sure...the entire "plan" and goal is to eventually arrive at a fully government-run single payer(government) system, Obama and his people have openly advocated and in some cases even bragged about their designs to run the private sector out of healthcare...this is not very complicated but you seem to think that you can make a point beating your head against a single word or phrase while ignoring the rest of the issue...this administration and the current congressional leadership are radical leftists....however it is disguised, this health overhaul is being designed by radical leftists and will reflect their beliefs which will not include or accomodate the private sector...

She is such an ass without a clue. "Single-payer option" is an oxymoron. The entire bill is centered around a non-single-payer system.

A lot of Dems are even against a Gov't sponsored public option.

And you have know problem with her deciding on your childrens health fuure? She already ruined their fiscal future. a govornment run program = expensive, poory run, and never will live up to the BS retoric. Just imagine the number of people they will hire to run this fiasco.

She is such an ass without a clue.



Ya, and she's 2 heartbeats away from becoming President.
Scary scenario. :shocked:

And you have know problem with her deciding on your childrens health fuure?

When exactly have I ever said that?

I've been pretty consistent in my distaste for her.

if you are referring to the house bill, it clearly states that if, after the date that the bill is signed into law, you have any change in your existing health insurance...you will be enrolled in the government option(which sounds like no-option single payer to me), now is the government option still on the table because that varies widely depending on who you talk to?....
Where exactly in the bill is this?

There are a lot of items "on the table" depending on whom you talk to. My concern is what's actually *in* the bill. As opposed to what people *say* is in the bill.

Unfortunately, the opposition isn't critical of what their peers say. If *insert radio/tv show host* starting bitching about something in the bill, many take it as truth instead of investigating the facts. For instance, "Is the government really going to force grandma to sit down with a panel to determine how they're going to let her die?" Due Diligence isn't really the name of the game.

Now, I haven't payed any attention to HC since the Congressional break because nothing would have changed. The written Bill being debated hadn't changed, thus the points I have issue haven't changed. There is so much misinformation being spread, sometimes I forget what's up and down. Hopefully when fishbones reads this, he'll correct any possible errors I made.

Where exactly in the bill is this?

There are a lot of items "on the table" depending on whom you talk to. My concern is what's actually *in* the bill. As opposed to what people *say* is in the bill.

Unfortunately, the opposition isn't critical of what their peers say. If *insert radio/tv show host* starting bitching about something in the bill, many take it as truth instead of investigating the facts. For instance, "Is the government really going to force grandma to sit down with a panel to determine how they're going to let her die?" Due Diligence isn't really the name of the game.

Now, I haven't payed any attention to HC since the Congressional break because nothing would have changed. The written Bill being debated hadn't changed, thus the points I have issue haven't changed. There is so much misinformation being spread, sometimes I forget what's up and down. Hopefully when fishbones reads this, he'll correct any possible errors I made.


which bill JD?...you say "the bill"...there's the bill from congress, the Kennedy version in the senate and whatever bill version is in Obama's head....and the dems are spewing different versions/views/interpretations of each...it's the dems that you should be asking to provide clarity but that's not the game, seems that depending on which dem you talk to something is in, something is out...we're all waiting for Obama's "new and improved version"...you seem to find it hard to imagine that these radical leftist actually don't want to run healthcare through government....and you seem perfectly content to believe that they are honest in what they are putting forth...thought you were smarter than that...:)

Make all of your decisions based on these facts:

Obama is a Socialist as stated in his own book.

The way Dictators control the population is through Public Education and by controlling Medical Care.

which bill JD?...you say "the bill"...there's the bill from congress, the Kennedy version in the senate and whatever bill version is in Obama's head....and the dems are spewing different versions/views/interpretations of each...

There's actually only 1 bill, with a version in the House and one in the Senate. You may be surprised by this.... but that's how every law is created.

As such, I'm talking about the bills that could actually become law. As seen below:
House Version
http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf
Senate Version
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/08/14/senate.health.care.bill.pdf

The discussion should be about the above, not some hypothetical bill that Republicans are drafting via the media.

Hopefully when fishbones reads this, he'll correct any possible errors I made.

I can't find any errors, JD. There is so much confusion even among the lawmakers that no one really understands the Bill as it's currently written. There's just too much confusing language. There have been several politicians that have been documented saying they are in favor of the single payer option, although they now are backtracking. I believe that if there wasn't so much of a public outrcry against it, Obama and several others would have liked to make it a single payer option. But, he underestimated that many people in this country don't want all decisions being made for them by the government.

you can continue to be a smart ass but again, it's the dems running around with vastly different versions of what's in the bill, what will be in the bill, what cannot be in the bill...when it will be voted on....and Obama is going to give yet another lame ass lecture on the subject that noone will watch....seems to me his extended 15 minutes are up.."the bill" is now less popular than Hillary Care...the actual debate should be...why are they continuing to cling to this farce?

STATISTS will be STATISTS

jd "She is such an ass without a clue." QUOTE

YOU ARE AWARE THAT "SHE" IS INTIMATELY INVOLVED WITH THE WRITING OF THIS "BILL" ?

you can continue to be a smart ass but again, it's the dems running around with vastly different versions of what's in the bill, what will be in the bill, what cannot be in the bill...when it will be voted on....

I'm not being a smart ass, just accurate. I see no point in arguing "what might be" when there are a number of issues with "what is". My issue with the Repubs when it comes to this issue is that I think they're conflating the subject and merely working towards next year's elections, as opposed to logically addressing the issues within the bill. My issue with the Dems is that in my opinion the bills *drafted* do not effectively address the issue of rising health care costs. Does anyone even remember that is where this all started - to curb rising costs?

jd "She is such an ass without a clue." QUOTE

YOU ARE AWARE THAT "SHE" IS INTIMATELY INVOLVED WITH THE WRITING OF THIS "BILL" ?

I disagree. The bill will have to be completely redrafted should there be a change to a single-payer system. If the Democrats want to have Health Care Reform formally drafted and voted on before the end of the year, they don't have that kind of time.

Does anyone even remember that is where this all started - to curb rising costs?
You're missing the point. ScottW doesn't think there's a problem with the current system, so he's perfectly happy just exploiting the situation by spouting random and/or false information to cause confusion.

Sean Hannity would call him a great American.

-spence

I'm not being a smart ass, just accurate. I see no point in arguing "what might be" when there are a number of issues with "what is". My issue with the Repubs when it comes to this issue is that I think they're conflating the subject and merely working towards next year's elections, as opposed to logically addressing the issues within the bill. My issue with the Dems is that in my opinion the bills *drafted* do not effectively address the issue of rising health care costs. Does anyone even remember that is where this all started - to curb rising costs?


sorry about the smart ass remark, it wasn't meant in a mean way..I just feel like you are sticking to a circular argument...you expect particulars on a fishing website that can't even be provided by elected officials and the administration...the bill is not intended to curb rising costs which is why that is not effectively addressed in your opinion...between the house and senate version there's nearly 2000 pages of vague legal muck, so mucky that I can cite the specific part of the bill and you can say, "it doesn't say that" in virtually every case, this was done intentionally...the intention is clearly government take over of the American healthcare system...which is why it needs to be opposed...show me any place in the nearly 2000 pages where government is limited? and I want the names of those 50 million uninsured people without healthcare.....prove that they actually exist:uhuh:

Sifting through that a bit, you're at my point.

The initial declaration for the need of Health Care Reform was to curb the exponentially increasing costs for health care. In many cases, the current administration and Congress has done a relatively good job identifying problems. My issue with the above mentioned politicians is their execution of the solution to the problems they effectively identify.

Health Care Reform has evolved from something necessary to curb costs into a plan so that all citizens have health care.

I want the names of those 50 million uninsured people without healthcare.....prove that they actually exist:uhuh:

That would be a good start, because again #s have been thrown around
from 5, 12, 23, 27, to 50 million. Once the true # is proven, the next step should be what are the costs and how will we pay for it.

Essential marketing questions.

Health Care Reform has evolved from something necessary to curb costs into a plan so that all citizens have health care.

I think you have that reversed.

Were it not for progressive reformists and the ideal of a single payer system, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

-spence

"progressive reformists"...now there's an oxymoron for ya JD..

and you should substitute fallacy for ideal (of a single payer system)..too many examples of utter failure around the world to be considered an ideal in any sense of the word...like socialism and communism :)

"progressive reformists"...now there's an oxymoron for ya JD..

and you should substitute fallacy for ideal (of a single payer system)..too many examples of utter failure around the world to be considered an ideal in any sense of the word...like socialism and communism :)

Oxymoron? Oy...

-spence

Having read portions of the bill, it is CLEAR to me that it is purposely written to hide what is really going on. If the plan is simple and well designed it can be written in way less than 1018 pages of doublespeak. An intelligent person should be able to write the legislation in clear language that can be understood and implemented by anyone. Look a the Great Documents of history, they are all simple and to the point.

Healtcare needs fixing, no doubt- There are 15 million who need and can't afford healthcare, not 50, once you remove those who choose not to have coverage and non-citizens.

1) Tort Reform-the major factor(s) causing increases, unnecessary testing and malpractice insurance--Never happen because virtually all lawmakers are lawyers...

2) Transportability and elimination of pre-existing conditions, when you change insurers you should not have to have a waiting period greater than the tiem it takes for preexisting conditions to lose thier coverage.

3) Allow us to go out into the marketplace and buy insurance like we buy car insurance. Also allow individuals access to the network not only employers. In RI we have BCBS and United, why not let there be some competition...

4) Expand medicare to cover the 15 million who truly can't afford or don't have access to healthcare, then reform medicare to eliminate the rampant fraud... example-a third party bought medical equipment on my relative's medicare account and had them shipped to my relative's home when they were away for the summer and picked them up when the carrier dropped them there.... Imagine what we would find if we turned over a few more stones...

5) Low cost catistrophic coverage so those who choose not to have coverage can get coverage in the event they are in an accident.

A little disturbing.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Health-care-reform-means-more-power-for-the-IRS-56781377.html

A tax credit? So lemme get this straight. People are being taxed up the ass and some can't afford to pay their taxes and they want to force these same people to have to spend more or be penalized?

What am I missing?

An individual who couldn't afford the coverage would get an offset credit, so no, the same people who couldn't afford it wouldn't be asked to pay more...assuming of course the credit actually covers the entire cost of a plan.

A lot of this would ultimately be funded by those who could afford it, through higher taxes on higher income earners.

-spence

If Nancy is saying that there will be a single payer system, then she is really saying that there will be no government health plan, the dem senators are afraid that they will not be re-elected in 2010 if they vote for it.

I can't wait for Sara in 2012 :jump1: Imagine she could be the house whip, WOW! I just :drool: over her.