Republicans reveal their health care plan
- Thread starter Omegadramon
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2003
- Messages
- 15,455
- Reaction score
- 6,726
I figure it shows how archaic a document written in 17-dickity-do is...and how foolish it is to think that it is a set-in-stone law. They use the term "living constitution" for a reason.
Though they also said back in 17-dickity-do that the congress of the US will have the power to provide for the general welfare of the citizenry. And using that logic, sure, medicare sounds legal to me. Because the constitution said that the feds can levy taxes to pay for that ****. Now I know the typical libertarian/conservative (and that's an insult, remember) line is that the "constitution didn't implicitly say that" and that justices are "legislating from the bench", but guess what...that's what the **** the Supreme Court does. They take written law and decide what the gray areas are. So I guess at best it's debatable. And if its debatable, why don't you get the Supreme Court on that. Until the law is challenged, it's the law. And the feds are within their constitutional boundries to provide healthcare for everyone...because, again, its the Congress' job to provide for the general welfare.
In reality, the one cool thing about the constitution is that is was written in a way that is was malleable for the inevitable changes our society would encounter. (i.e. the eventual abolishion of slavery)
Anyway, I'm guessing that's his point.
Are the military and public school system unconstitutional, too? It appears to me that I was entitled to a security force and a free public education until age 18. Viva, Stalin?
Meh...I'm calling bull**** argument, sorry.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2008
- Messages
- 31
- Reaction score
- 0
Wow! Why don't you go get a frickin' education mr dickity-do? You might like to think that your generation is special but, that has been the same opinion of every new generation for the last million odd years. So by your logic this old idea is bogus.
The general welfare does NOT MEAN WELFARE!!! Giving certain groups entitlements, i.e. the poor, the needy, the different, does NOT DEFINE GENERAL!!! Please get an education!
Without the opposing sides of both Liberal and Conservative ideas this place would have been destroyed years ago. Just because someone disagrees does not make them ignorant. The fact that you think insulting is somehow cute or acceptable is a sign of ignorance. Grow up and GET AN EDUCATION!!!
If you want to be told what to do then fine, move back in with your mommy. In the meantime there are those of us who grew up and became responsible adults and we find it demeaning and absurd that some organization (the government) should assume that we are unable to take care of ourselves. Progressives like the idea of eugenics and the idea of social cleansing. How about we let those that are able to grow up and compete to do so. Let me worry about the needy in my own community and I will let you kill yours. In the meantime "DO NOT TREAD ON ME!!!".
Get an education. Learn some real history, not the progressive twist that has been proven wrong time and again. The only SUCCESSFUL and MEANINGFUL governments that have ever existed and can ever make men free have been Republics. Each has fallen the same way and we are witnessing it yet again. Learn from history or it will kill you.
I am not a conservative. I am a free man!
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2003
- Messages
- 15,455
- Reaction score
- 6,726
The hell are you talking about?
"Welfare" as an American term meaning "gov't subsistence" was not really a concept until the 20th century. So I'm not sure why you'd think that I'd think that the 20th century colloquialism is equivalent to the 18th century term.
However, the definition, per Webster's, is "Health, happiness, and good fortune; well-being." That's the definition today as it was back in 17-dickity-do. So the job of the Congress would thus be to ensure the general health, happiness, and good fortune of its citizenry. And it is certainly within reason to think that this would give the Congress a green light to provide healthcare to its citizenry.
Actually, I would argue that they are stymieing progress more than anything else. There aren't really any opposing views in the public lexicon OUTSIDE of the ideas of the Big 2.
No, saying something stupid does.
No, it's a sign of a person that is an argument enthusiast. Like me. Though you are insulting me right now by implying that I'm uneducated. I rather enjoy the irony.
I'd suspect that I'm more well read and more educated than you. I live in BFE and I have nothing else to do but read philosophy books and the internet all day, hell...
Well, you aren't. The government provides a safe society for a person to make their theorized fortune in. And this society has fostered a culture that we are all benefactors in. And as such, we all owe a debt to this society to sustain it. Libertarianism is bull****. Unfortunately, they are all too ****ing stupid to realize that the world doesn't exist in a vacuum where literally nothing else helped them become what they became.
They do? I usually don't worry about progressives. They are usually young people without any power. Then they get money, forget what they used to stand for, and it all works out naturally.
Uhhh...o...k...?
Yeah...you're going to have to be more specific. You're beginning to ramble off on tangents like a crazy person. If you want to talk about the most "successful" and "meaningful" societies, those have been the ones that do not allow power to stratify within the hands of a few. Hence, I'm a fan of highly mixed economies...and the dissolution of political parties.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2008
- Messages
- 31
- Reaction score
- 0
Tangents?
Pick something then. This started out with providing a plan. I proposed the government get their grubby hands out of it. You seem to suppose that they have some legal right to be messing in it. Then, you pick apart my post as if you have nothing better to do. I am not impressed with the assumed education that you imply you have. I am interested in the coherent argument that you can maintain. Pick something, once it is resolved then move on.
By the way, that ability to read does not define education. The ability to read and have original thought may benefit you.
Next.
Pick something then. This started out with providing a plan. I proposed the government get their grubby hands out of it. You seem to suppose that they have some legal right to be messing in it. Then, you pick apart my post as if you have nothing better to do. I am not impressed with the assumed education that you imply you have. I am interested in the coherent argument that you can maintain. Pick something, once it is resolved then move on.
By the way, that ability to read does not define education. The ability to read and have original thought may benefit you.
Next.
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2003
- Messages
- 15,455
- Reaction score
- 6,726
Who says I support the government having control over anything? Honestly, I'm still not quite solid on what I think the best course of action is. Frankly, none of the plans I've seen I'm thrilled about. And that may just be the case...it's a huge **** sandwich and we're just bickering over who gets the biggest bite.
However, I do know that your posts specifically are bull****. And that's because I can easily dismiss them as the crazy talk of a person that wants to support an ideology rather than formulate a plan that best suits reality. And people who are like that are the last people I want doing anything that effects anyone.
It is what it is, playa.
No, no, I'm just saying I'm more educated than you. That in no way implies that I'm highly educated.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2003
- Messages
- 15,455
- Reaction score
- 6,726
lmao...no, that's how a person who doesn't know what the right answer is admits as such. God, you're a tool..
I've told what's what....trying to fix things based upon an ideology is the wrong way to do things. Which is your stance. And it's a bull**** stance. Again, none of the plans out there right now excite me as I can identify potential problems with each. So I haven't formulated a decision on what the best course of action is. Though I'm leaning towards a free-market EXECUTED, however publically SUBSIDIZED solution that recognizes and incorporates preventative medicine as the primary method to reduce healthcare costs. Also, it would be an interesting idea to give tax breaks or credits to those that take charge of their own preventative medicine by staying healthy. We need to try to figure out a way to get all of that meshed together. That way there wouldn't be a stratification of power within the free market (like we have now), nor the gov't. Honestly, that's what I fear the most - and where things go wrong. Power is held by a few privileged individuals, be it a gov't official or a capitalist CEO. However, because there are so many ideologues out there (like you), it probably won't happen because they are so damned narrow minded in their liberal, conservative, libertarian, or whatever the hell it is way of thinking.
So that's where I stand.
Last edited:
The difference is that, in Canada, when the government denies your claim, it's denied... period. No second opinion, no chance to take matters into your own hands. In Canada, using your own monies to pay for care is not legal. Hence, the influx of Canadiens into the US for procedures.
The Canadien government offers everything to everyone, and cannot afford to live up to this promise. The medical resources are simply not available, and the end result is rationing. Some of the liberals may refer to this as "efficiency".
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2007
- Messages
- 48
- Reaction score
- 1
Your opponent has a crass delivery, but what have you contributed? I haven't seen any evidence-based data presented by yourself, only your opinions. The following claims you made are without supportive information or substance:
1) That the general welfare cannot mean welfare.
Says who? What then is the definition of general welfare, and what makes your opinion of what programs should be included more reliable that somebody's else's?
2) Progressive like eugenics.
Which ones? Do you have any evidence that progressives like eugenics? Backing that up is a better approach than just bolding your text.
3) Entitlements is a bad thing.
The entitlements of a powerful federal army, police service, or public schools are not mentioned one single time in the constitution or declaration of independence. What right do you have to claim those unconstitutional entitlements and then dictate which ones others should have?
4) Canada has allegiance to the crown.
Plainly and patently false, and not remotely related to health-care.
5) Canadians use American health care.
Studies by Health Affairs journal clearly show the amount of Canadians using American care by choice is as close to negligible as you can get. This idea was the creation of a political agenda, and has no basis in fact.
You cannot just complain about the manners of your opponents, you also have to actually back up what you have to say with more than a priori political assumptions.
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2007
- Messages
- 48
- Reaction score
- 1
I find myself so often in the position of correcting American myth. I am a physician in Canada, very little of what you are saying is reality.
When the government denies your claim......yikes, where do I start?
One, you do not file a claim in the first place, so how can it be denied? I have trouble actually imagining what you even mean. I assume you are simply thinking in American terms and cannot think outside that. If treatment is available and your doctor recommends it, you can get it period. You may have to wait for it, but there simply does not exist a broker who approves or denies claims.
Yes, there is a second opinion. Any legit physician will refer you for one, I have seen it, and done it numerous times. If they are insulted and petty and don't want to refer you, you can simply seek out different doctor yourself. This is commonplace, and there is no legal limitation to this.
No, it is not illegal to pay for care. There are private clinics in some provinces, and private diagnostic labs as well. Many, many drugs are paid for by third party private insurance. The majority of cosmetic procedures done in Canada are private.
No, there is not an influx of Canadians seeking care in the united states. Heath Affairs published a very good paper demonstrating this. The number who seek care by choice in preference to Canadian care is a nearly invisible number.
Yes, resources are rationed to some extent. And Canadians also live longer and have overall better health outcomes by most indicators. And yes, it is more efficient, by definition if you are provided similar outcomes at far less cost, that is more efficient.
Whether the Canadian or American system is the better choice morally or philosophically is a separate debate, and I do not claim to know the perfect moral system. I do however, identify a whack of demonstrably false claims in your assessment. I don't know where you get those ideas, they are wrong. Do you have experience practicing medicine in any system? Have you ever been to Canada?
Obviously, you live or practice pharmacy nowhere near the US/Canadien border.
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2008
- Messages
- 2,569
- Reaction score
- 40
I live and work at the border crossing closest to the largest city in Canada. The only Canadians I see here are those that fell ill while in the U.S.
Sure, there are anecdotal reports of them coming to the U.S., and I'm sure they do. Just think of a dripping faucet, not Niagara Falls.
- Joined
- May 16, 2007
- Messages
- 4,498
- Reaction score
- 1,687
There is nothing more for me to say. Your words damn you better than any faint praise I can heap on you. I warn you if you think you can best Mikey, remember what I said before. In a 25 caliber world Mikey carries a 357 caliber intellect. Match wits with him at your own peril. He'll eat you alive and spit out your bones. I don't advise it. But if you persist, let me know & I'll make some popcorn and watch the festivities.
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2007
- Messages
- 48
- Reaction score
- 1
I don't practice pharmacy, I practice medicine. And yes, its close to the American border. 80% of our population lives within 100 miles of the border. As a likely scientific-minded person, you would know that anecdotes are not information. Here is a study with real numbers:
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/21/3/19#SEC1
As one example, they studied the 3 states closest to the 3 most populated Canadian provinces. Admission to hospital of Canadians in those 3 states made up 2.3 out of every 1000 admissions. 80% of those were to the ER or to have a baby. The other 20% is 'other', some portion of which would be elective. By my count that is a very, very small number.
I know this is a pharmacy forum, but posters are trying to talk about medicine, therefore errors need correction.
Exactly. Here's my anecdote though for those that base knowledge on anecdotes (and if you do, I suggest you stop because you're a professional). In seeing thousands of patients, I can recall only a single person who even considered going southward, and not a single one who reported actually going. That is the reality Canadian physicians see. Hopefully further hard data continued to show this myth for what it is.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2003
- Messages
- 15,455
- Reaction score
- 6,726
And that's a legitimate concern. (At least in the US...I don't think that Canadian system quite works like that) Hence, I think that there should be a mixed solution. I.E. private providers w/ publically subsidized insurance...or maybe something else if someone could come up with a better idea.
And if this is the case, some may argue that it's still a better situation. Because at least the Canadians don't have people without access to care. In fact, one may even say that the US system is one of "rationing" as only those with the proper access and means to access the system can obtain it. And that's one of the arguments that almost disgusts me. Te idea that it's ok for people not to receive proper care because it might make a person wait a few extra days for a non-urgent case. I just don't buy into that line of logic. Not to mention the fact that i'd hope to god with all of the resources our country has, we'd be able to do it better than the Canadians or pansy-ass French. Comparing us to them is like comparing the wealth of Warren Buffett to the wealth of LeBron James. Sure...The King is rich...but he ain't as rich as the Big W...and not even close...
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2003
- Messages
- 15,455
- Reaction score
- 6,726
It says it right in there. Here is the exact quote:
And, as was debated back when Social Security came out, it was then interpreted that because Congress has the authority to provide for the general welfare (which, again, is defined by Webster's as "Health, happiness, and good fortune; well-being.")
Thus, it can be logically concluded that Congress has the authority to levy taxes to pay for the health of the citizenry.
I mean, ****, it basically says this right in there. Right next to that whole military part you seem to have no problem noticing. Hell.
Keep in mind that the constitution is a LIVING document. Designed to be able to change with the times. Those dudes back in 17-dickity-do certainly didn't envision a world where there were thousands of drugs, bazillions of physicians, electronic billing, and life saving interventions that cost thousands of dollars. Let's just be honest and cut the bull****. The entire "it's unconstitutional" argument is just lame. It's ideological drivel that doesn't stand up to any sort of critical analysis.
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2009
- Messages
- 1,054
- Reaction score
- 7
So we've really resorted to simply bashing Canadian medicine in this argument?
Knowing what I know about both systems, Canadian health care may be flawed (let's be honest, nothing's perfect, so to try and pick holes is a fruitless endeavor), but it's light years ahead of any plan that DC will pass. There are a lot of reasons for this. The bottom line is, the solution is incredibly complex, and no politician in DC (or very few) are willing to take their blinders off and look at the big picture. They're just there to impose their party platform as much as possible, honestly believing that it's going to help. That's why this country has stagnated in terms of progress.
I think I'll be joining my friends to the North come 2013. There's bound to be an opening somewhere. Toronto, Edmonton, Calgary, Vancouver, Halifax...I'm really not friggin' picky on this one.
Knowing what I know about both systems, Canadian health care may be flawed (let's be honest, nothing's perfect, so to try and pick holes is a fruitless endeavor), but it's light years ahead of any plan that DC will pass. There are a lot of reasons for this. The bottom line is, the solution is incredibly complex, and no politician in DC (or very few) are willing to take their blinders off and look at the big picture. They're just there to impose their party platform as much as possible, honestly believing that it's going to help. That's why this country has stagnated in terms of progress.
I think I'll be joining my friends to the North come 2013. There's bound to be an opening somewhere. Toronto, Edmonton, Calgary, Vancouver, Halifax...I'm really not friggin' picky on this one.
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2009
- Messages
- 1,054
- Reaction score
- 7
That argument has been around just as long as the document itself though. I doubt it will ever go away.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2008
- Messages
- 305
- Reaction score
- 0
Right, because Blue Shield is doing so much better?
http://cbs5.com/local/cancer.treatment.denied.2.1007394.htmlCBS said:
The fact that one insurance company isn't covering, and another is covering, the same procedure based on the same rule kinda articulates a certain need for some sort of standard and protocol to be established and enforced across the line.
You're making an extremely scrupulous argument there. Honestly, all you did with that post is pick a small section of the constitution, interpret that section under strict terms, and then you proceeded to make the assertion that judicial activism (and interpreting the constitution as a living document) is an altogether illegitimate way to view the constitution.
From the way you're talking, it's fairly obvious that you like to view things as a strict constructionalist, which is fine. But, you don't need to blindly insult and reject the ideas of those who ascribe to judicial activism.
Let's be honest here: There is a certain degree of interpretation that is required for the constitution. It delegates certain powers of taxation and commerce to the states, and yet the federal government regulates interstate commerce, and the balance between the two is never explicitly stated in the constitution. Instead, we have blunt terms like "national sovereignty" as a sort of blanket for the federal government to cover all of the uncovered pockets, and yet we have the 10th amendment which says that all powers that weren't granted to the federal government get to go to the states.
The preamble to the constitution states the need for a "common defence," which is referenced in the constitution itself, but it never specifically establishes how. Yet, the constitution never specifies how to fund national security, how to organize national security, and how things like a national draft to establish a common defense should fit in with personal liberties and the Bill of Rights.
In the same fold, the preamble to the U.S. Constitution establishes the goal of promoting the "general Welfare" and "Posterity" of its citizens, but of course it never puts down specifications and limits on how to reach this goal in the constitution. All we know is that the spirit of the constitution (as seen through the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution) was to endeavor to secure the population's welfare and posterity. As in issues of common defense and other goals of the constitution, a certain degree of interpretation, legislation, and government purview is needed to accomplish such a goal. The constitution never makes any delineation as to what we should do to get there. Rather, it simply tells us that it is important to get there.
And so, here we are at the status quo, a situation that is continually changing and is certain to change. As for which direction we should take in order to get to where we want to go... well, the constitution never really says much on that mark, and similarly, whichever way we decide to bite, there is nothing instrinsically unconstitutional about the general principles of each side.
--Garfield3d
Last edited:
If treatment is available and your doctor recommends it, you can get it period. You may have to wait for it, but there simply does not exist a broker who approves or denies claims.
Just what is the average wait time in Canada between the time the patient sees you and the time they actually receive treatment by a qualified specialist? Ill give you clue, its over 18 weeks. Do you consider that reasonable?
Many, many drugs are paid for by third party private insurance. The majority of cosmetic procedures done in Canada are private.
Thats because less than half of all government "approved" safe drugs are actually covered by the government insurance plan.
No, there is not an influx of Canadians seeking care in the united states. Heath Affairs published a very good paper demonstrating this. The number who seek care by choice in preference to Canadian care is a nearly invisible number.
Interesting. Phone surveys as research...Hmm, more than 30% of the facilities queried didn't even respond.
Anyway, in Buffalo and Rochester NY Canadiens are coming here for services (e.g. MRI, Ortho) because the wait times are unacceptable. Its a fact. Don't get your feathers all ruffled up. No one said they were lining up at the border to get in. Perhaps the use of the word "influx" was not the best choice.
And Canadians also live longer and have overall better health outcomes by most indicators. And yes, it is more efficient, by definition if you are provided similar outcomes at far less cost, that is more efficient.
I guess Cancer and Heart Disease are not two of those indicators.
Just what is the average wait time in Canada between the time the patient sees you and the time they actually receive treatment by a qualified specialist? Ill give you clue, its over 18 weeks. Do you consider that reasonable?
Many, many drugs are paid for by third party private insurance. The majority of cosmetic procedures done in Canada are private.
Thats because less than half of all government "approved" safe drugs are actually covered by the government insurance plan.
No, there is not an influx of Canadians seeking care in the united states. Heath Affairs published a very good paper demonstrating this. The number who seek care by choice in preference to Canadian care is a nearly invisible number.
Interesting. Phone surveys as research...Hmm, more than 30% of the facilities queried didn't even respond.
Anyway, in Buffalo and Rochester NY Canadiens are coming here for services (e.g. MRI, Ortho) because the wait times are unacceptable. Its a fact. Don't get your feathers all ruffled up. No one said they were lining up at the border to get in. Perhaps the use of the word "influx" was not the best choice.
And Canadians also live longer and have overall better health outcomes by most indicators. And yes, it is more efficient, by definition if you are provided similar outcomes at far less cost, that is more efficient.
I guess Cancer and Heart Disease are not two of those indicators.
Last edited:
And if this is the case, some may argue that it's still a better situation. Because at least the Canadians don't have people without access to care.
Actually, Canadien government data estimates around 1.7 million Canadians (out of 33-34 million) were unable to access a regular family physician in 2007. Not including the people waiting around for specialist services.
Don't get me wrong. I know our system needs updating. I just not one of the ones that thinks the Canadien model is "light years" ahead of ours. The data simply does not support that conclusion. Modeling our system after theirs would be a lateral move at the very best. I know this, rushing to pass a half-assed bill in the next 30-90 days to satisfy some election promise will do way more harm to our system than good.
Actually, Canadien government data estimates around 1.7 million Canadians (out of 33-34 million) were unable to access a regular family physician in 2007. Not including the people waiting around for specialist services.
Don't get me wrong. I know our system needs updating. I just not one of the ones that thinks the Canadien model is "light years" ahead of ours. The data simply does not support that conclusion. Modeling our system after theirs would be a lateral move at the very best. I know this, rushing to pass a half-assed bill in the next 30-90 days to satisfy some election promise will do way more harm to our system than good.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2007
- Messages
- 48
- Reaction score
- 1
Yes. Rarely will waiting 18 weeks make any difference for a non-urgent situation. If its urgent, you get seen immediately. At a quarter of the cost you pay, its not difficult to see why many see it as a better deal.
Your point was private care is illegal. That is false. Admit you just don't know how things work here.
This is far stronger evidence than anyone claiming an 'influx' of Canadians has to offer. Pay attention, these are not subjective opinions on the phone, these are the factual records being reported by phone to the researchers. BTW, even using subjective patient symptoms, is a perfectly legitimate way of conducting research, and widely used by top research papers. You don't do research I guess.
I will get my feathers ruffled, because you did not simply a few patients show up, you implied it was a phenomenon. Unless you have data to prove that, you are wrong. Thousands of Americans game the system to get free care in Canada using their friend/family member's address as well. Is this number higher than the number of Canadians going south? Why don't you take time to make an effort and find out rather than just going with your gut and extrapolating your personal experiences or parroting common myths.
Data? Do those worse outcomes result in lower life spans? If not, it makes no difference because even if those particular outcomes are better, our overall system still leads to longer lives. National systems will not be perfect, because no system is perfect. But it overall serves our citizens better than yours serves your citizens, at a fraction of the cost. In the real world that is likely superior.
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2008
- Messages
- 1,043
- Reaction score
- 14
Wrong again. If a person wants an unlisted procedure/drug, there's a mechanism for making special requests.
Whatever Canadians go south for healthcare are balanced by Americans coming north. It's all good.
BTW, it's spelled "Canadian," unless you're French.
There's no such thing as limitless healthcare in any country. I'd never heard of rationing before Americans started going on about it.
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2003
- Messages
- 15,455
- Reaction score
- 6,726
fixed.
Listen to Pharmavixen. She speaks the truth. I absolutely hate being lied to, and it happens far too often with our insurance companies and the politicians that are sleeping with them. The greed is astonishing. Profit should not be made off of peoples' health, period.
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2008
- Messages
- 2,569
- Reaction score
- 40
Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. A very large hospital in Buffalo.
By the way, it's 'Canadian.' I'm sure someone as familiar with that country as you would know that, must just be a typo.
Right. It's the masculine form (in French) as opposed to Canadienne (feminine). ...unless it's become slang to spell it that way when writing in English, as well...I wouldn't know.
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2008
- Messages
- 2,569
- Reaction score
- 40
Yes, in Canadian English. Much like if I were to say colour, armour, flavour, harbour or any number of things. I'm American, and based on your hatred of the Canadian system, you are as well. Americans speak American English.
However, it isn't acceptable to waffle back and forth between using Canadian and Canadien as you have. Pick one and stick with it.
Yes. Rarely will waiting 18 weeks make any difference for a non-urgent situation. If its urgent, you get seen immediately.
I guess these patients were an exception to that rule.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/article661794.ece
Your point was private care is illegal. That is false. Admit you just don't know how things work here.
Apparently, this is still very much a provincial issue.
http://www.canadianmedicinenews.com/2009/01/dr-brian-day-sues-to-overturn-bc.html
Data?
Here you go.
http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/lcd-pcd97/table1-eng.php
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/start-debut-eng.html
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/FASTATS/lcod.htm
www.cdc.gov/nchs/ppt/hpdata2010/focusareas/fa03_charts.ppt
National systems will not be perfect
Correct, because you don't the resources to pull it off. There aren't enough doctors up there to provide all the care you've promised.
I guess these patients were an exception to that rule.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/article661794.ece
Your point was private care is illegal. That is false. Admit you just don't know how things work here.
Apparently, this is still very much a provincial issue.
http://www.canadianmedicinenews.com/2009/01/dr-brian-day-sues-to-overturn-bc.html
Data?
Here you go.
http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/lcd-pcd97/table1-eng.php
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/start-debut-eng.html
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/FASTATS/lcod.htm
www.cdc.gov/nchs/ppt/hpdata2010/focusareas/fa03_charts.ppt
National systems will not be perfect
Correct, because you don't the resources to pull it off. There aren't enough doctors up there to provide all the care you've promised.
[/I]
Your little rant about the dudes in 17-whatever didn't know anything about what's going on today proves your ignorance. Many things we practice today are right there in the constitution written in 17-dickity. The fact the we can debate on this thread is stated in the first amendment. The reason we don't have slaves is because of the 13th amendment. It is spelled out in the constitution what taxes are and are not permitted to be levied by the federal government. Sure, the original constitition didn't list everthing and the authors knew at the time that changes were going to be needed in the future. That's why we have added amendments over the years. The house and senate do vote on amendments, and if the majority votes to pass an amendment it still has to be ratified, that is three-fourths of the states must approve before it is written into the constitution. Our federal government is to abide by our constitution and not the other way around.
I'm American, and based on your hatred of the Canadian system, you are as well.
Time to put down the crack pipe. When did I say that "hated" anything. I'm simply providing a different viewpoint. I'm arguing that the Canadien system won't work here. It's got just as many flaws and plenty of critics from within their own borders, including the past president of the CMA.
Pretending that by some magic of legislation we can cover everyone's medical needs is dreamland. Just like Canada, we need more doctors and nurses too. We need to get busy thinking "outside the box" for a solution to the problem and not ram down some bloated bill that is likely to create more problems than it will solve.
Americans speak American English
Really..
Time to put down the crack pipe. When did I say that "hated" anything. I'm simply providing a different viewpoint. I'm arguing that the Canadien system won't work here. It's got just as many flaws and plenty of critics from within their own borders, including the past president of the CMA.
Pretending that by some magic of legislation we can cover everyone's medical needs is dreamland. Just like Canada, we need more doctors and nurses too. We need to get busy thinking "outside the box" for a solution to the problem and not ram down some bloated bill that is likely to create more problems than it will solve.
Americans speak American English
Really..
- Joined
- May 16, 2007
- Messages
- 4,498
- Reaction score
- 1,687
You and you ilk is why the founders devised a republic instead of a democracy. The power of the *****s (aka "the people") needed be constrained just as much as the power of the government.
- Joined
- May 16, 2007
- Messages
- 4,498
- Reaction score
- 1,687
You have proven yourself to be _______________ fill in the blank:
- A *****
- Stupid
- dim
- All of the above
A Canadien is a member of a professional hockey team. Maybe in French or Canadian English it means a person who resides in Canada, but not in American English. And Google is not your friend as this link obviously points out.
The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe canadien
ENGLISH/FRENCH
- Joined
- May 7, 2008
- Messages
- 915
- Reaction score
- 0
No.
En francais, Canadien is acceptable. In English, it is Canadian, as you previously stated.
You can't expect much from him though...he doesn't know the difference between your and you're.
On a somewhat related note, **** THE MONTREAL CANADIENS
- Joined
- May 7, 2008
- Messages
- 915
- Reaction score
- 0
"or Canadian English".........nope.....French...yes.
- Joined
- May 16, 2007
- Messages
- 4,498
- Reaction score
- 1,687
You are a living embodiment of the old adage that Figures never lie, but liars always figure.
You have one link that says there are plenty of surgeons and not enough operating rooms and you have one link that says there are not enough doctors.
Lets look at:
Health Outcomes Often Better in Canada than US. Review:
No matter what your position. The present system in the USA is not sustainable. Look at what health care costs did to General Motors. It is doing it to the entire country. We spend more money than any other country on earth as a percentage of GDP and per capita and we don't have better health outcomes than Canada or Europe.
- Joined
- May 16, 2007
- Messages
- 4,498
- Reaction score
- 1,687
I was trying to give him/her the benefit of the doubt.
The term bothers you that much? Go figure. I live within a few miles of the border. It's pretty common here. Would it make you feel better if I got in the car and drove the 10 miles over the border and did a repost? No need to be calling names.
Last edited:
We spend more money than any other country on earth as a percentage of GDP and per capita and we don't have better health outcomes than Canada
We do. But it's not quite that simple.
http://www.nber.org/aginghealth/fall07/w13429.html
We do. But it's not quite that simple.
http://www.nber.org/aginghealth/fall07/w13429.html
- Joined
- May 16, 2007
- Messages
- 4,498
- Reaction score
- 1,687
Do you read what you link to? The outcomes are equal or slightly better in Canada and they are not going broke like we are. They cover all of their citizens and all outcome studies to date do not count the uninsured so that skews everything in favor of the US. If you added in all of the uninsured and added that to the costs and the outcomes we would look even worse by comparison. The only thing in there is wait time and patient satisfaction. Please read my analogy about the foundation of your house. Everybody like's their house until it crumbles down around them. I'm not saying the Canadian system would work here. I want you to admit our system is broken and explain how you would reform it. If you think our system is fine and sustainable, I can have a more meaningful conversation with a wall or tbone44 they are both equally intelligent.
Just use Bill O'Reilly's logic!
http://tpmtv.talkingpointsmemo.com/?id=3060320
http://tpmtv.talkingpointsmemo.com/?id=3060320
Do you read what you link to? The outcomes are equal or slightly better in Canada and they are not going broke like we are.
And then it goes on to discuss how IMR and LE are affected by many other factors.
I'm not saying the Canadian system would work here. I want you to admit our system is broken and explain how you would reform it.
See post #123.
And then it goes on to discuss how IMR and LE are affected by many other factors.
I'm not saying the Canadian system would work here. I want you to admit our system is broken and explain how you would reform it.
See post #123.
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2008
- Messages
- 1,043
- Reaction score
- 14
Duelling links! I want to play too! What fun!
(BTW, it's spelled, "Canadian" if you're using English; "Canadien" is French. No exceptions. To use "Canadien" in an English context is wrong, wrong, wrong, unless it's used in an English sentence as a proper noun, like "In a stunning upset, the Montreal Canadiens lost to the Toronto Maple Leafs in 7th game of the Stanley Cup final.")
To rebut one of the previous links, that "many sick Canadians go to the US for care," I'd make two points:
1) When you read the article, it says, 150 people since 2006. Out of 30 million people.
2) Doesn't say how many Americans snuck north to scam healthcare using Canadian friends'/relatives' health cards. A comparison would only be fair.
"US Healthcare Lies About Canada"
"US Healthcare Lies Part II
As newspapers go, the National Post isn't exactly at the apex of left-wing thought. But even right-wing people in Canada favour nationalized healthcare; you saw how in that previous link, Dianne points out how it's good for business.
Why do Republicans lie about Canadian health care?
From the last link:
This post is getting cumbersome, but let me include one more from south of the border:
Debunking Canadian healthcare myths
(BTW, it's spelled, "Canadian" if you're using English; "Canadien" is French. No exceptions. To use "Canadien" in an English context is wrong, wrong, wrong, unless it's used in an English sentence as a proper noun, like "In a stunning upset, the Montreal Canadiens lost to the Toronto Maple Leafs in 7th game of the Stanley Cup final.")
To rebut one of the previous links, that "many sick Canadians go to the US for care," I'd make two points:
1) When you read the article, it says, 150 people since 2006. Out of 30 million people.
2) Doesn't say how many Americans snuck north to scam healthcare using Canadian friends'/relatives' health cards. A comparison would only be fair.
"US Healthcare Lies About Canada"
"US Healthcare Lies Part II
As newspapers go, the National Post isn't exactly at the apex of left-wing thought. But even right-wing people in Canada favour nationalized healthcare; you saw how in that previous link, Dianne points out how it's good for business.
Why do Republicans lie about Canadian health care?
From the last link:
This post is getting cumbersome, but let me include one more from south of the border:
Debunking Canadian healthcare myths
Duelling links! I want to play too! What fun!
No doubt. Your own past CMA president even knows your system is broken and needs reform. He's all for partial privatization. Here's a few things he said last year (2008) about your system to the globe and mail.
"Reform is essential. Limited access, reductions in work force, restricted access to technology, long waits that negatively affect the economy and funding pressures cannot be ignored. We must stimulate competition, efficiency and accountability, and we must recognize the need for sustainability"
"We must encourage private sector investment - and international trade in medicine. This will allow us to maintain a system that is sustainable and in which no one is denied necessary care based on inability to pay"
And let's not forget his classic quote in the New York Times, and one of my personal favorites, "This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week and in which humans can wait two to three years."
No doubt. Your own past CMA president even knows your system is broken and needs reform. He's all for partial privatization. Here's a few things he said last year (2008) about your system to the globe and mail.
"Reform is essential. Limited access, reductions in work force, restricted access to technology, long waits that negatively affect the economy and funding pressures cannot be ignored. We must stimulate competition, efficiency and accountability, and we must recognize the need for sustainability"
"We must encourage private sector investment - and international trade in medicine. This will allow us to maintain a system that is sustainable and in which no one is denied necessary care based on inability to pay"
And let's not forget his classic quote in the New York Times, and one of my personal favorites, "This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week and in which humans can wait two to three years."
Last edited:
Similar threads
