Obama Care

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Joe, I'm not sure Saden is suggesting that the only thing necessary for government intervention to work is "more money". Your arguments are solid, but that part weakens it.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

Joe, I'm not sure Saden is suggesting that the only thing necessary for government intervention to work is "more money". Your arguments are solid, but that part weakens it.

Let me rephrase, if enough governmental resources can be applied - then a government can solve any societal ill.

Originally Posted by saden1

I want universal healthcare and I'm willing to make the sacrifices necessary to get it...that includes raising taxes, negotiating better drug prices and health services costs through the power of sheer numbers of patients. There is no reason to believe the government can['t] do this. I'm willing to cut the budget and dispense with wasteful spending, the problem is though you and I disagree on what constituents wasteful spending and where cuts can be made.

Howeever, and ultimately, whether it is employing individuals to "negotiate better drug prices" or to manipulate costs "through the power of sheer numbers of patients", governmental resources cost someone something. (Further, I would suggest, when he does actually define a position, saden requires the influx of governmental funds in some form or another).

Whether it is through the cutting off of other services or the raising of new revenue, governments rely on money to provide the public sector with goods and services. Without money government cannot act, without action governments can't solve anything. Thus, regardless of how he cuts it, Saden's position that governmental action can solve health care's ills -regardless of the existing market forces - boils done to a requirement that government spend money - lots of it. Further, it is a leap of faith that if we just spend enough money, marshall enough resources, government intervention can - not just solve the problem - but create a world better than our current situation regardless of private interests.

Ultimately, saden applies the age old cruelty of socialism - if we trust in the corporate whole, all will be well even if a few individuals are injured along the way. In this particular case, the individuals are likely to be our children.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Let me rephrase, if enough governmental resources can be applied - then a government can solve any societal ill.

I don't want to get into this argument, because you and Saden are more educated on the topic than I. However, a government is made up of people, and I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest they can do anything they put their minds to. IMO, the root problem is self-interest (i.e.: pork barreling, job security, bribes, etc).

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

I don't want to get into this argument, because you and Saden are more educated on the topic than I. However, a government is made up of people, and I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest they can do anything they put their minds to. IMO, the root problem is self-interest (i.e.: pork barreling, job security, bribes, etc).

I understand you don't wish to get dragged in and it is not my desire to do so but - I want to make sure we keep it defined here.

Yes. A government is made up of people. People who don't work for free. Some work cheap, some work through a sense of dedication, but for government to act - money is required to compesate the individuals through whom it acts.

You say that the root problem (not sure if you mean in general with government or as it is specific to health care) is "self-interest". I would disagree - the root problem is greed whether individual, corporate or public. A healthy reliance on self interest (again, whether individual, corporate or public) insures that economic problems are viewed through the prism of many eyes and likewise tested. It is only when one or more of these groups goes beyond legitimate self interest (either intentionally or not) that the market gets skewed.

I would agree that the current health care situation is such that it is difficult to tell where self-interest has crossed into greed and which players have made the crossing. To me, that is the ultimate question in resolving this issue and until it is done all is wind and fury.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I understand you don't wish to get dragged in and it is not my desire to do so but - I want to make sure we keep it defined here.

Yes. A government is made up of people. People who don't work for free. Some work cheap, some work through a sense of dedication, but for government to act - money is required to compesate the individuals through whom it acts.

You say that the root problem (not sure if you mean in general with government or as it is specific to health care) is "self-interest". I would disagree - the root problem is greed whether individual, corporate or public. A healthy reliance on self interest (again, whether individual, corporate or public) insures that economic problems are viewed through the prism of many eyes and likewise tested. It is only when one or more of these groups goes beyond legitimate self interest (either intentionally or not) that the market gets skewed.

I would agree that the current health care situation is such that it is difficult to tell where self-interest has crossed into greed and which players have made the crossing. To me, that is the ultimate question in resolving this issue and until it is done all is wind and fury.

Totally agree -- greed, not self-interest, is much more accurate.

I ultimately think for any government to work, people must undergo a shift in thinking. A shift from egoic thinking to one of conscious thinking. Until that happens, I guess our best bet is to minimize the power of government. If/when that happens, Communism will be the government of choice (let the flames begin). Fortunately, I think I can feel the tide turning.

[dmek25]

•According to Statistics Canada, the official government statistical agency, "In 2005, the median waiting time was about 4 weeks for specialist visits, 4 weeks for non-emergency surgery, and 3 weeks for diagnostic tests. Nationally, median waiting times remained stable between 2003 and 2005 - but there were some differences at the provincial level for selected specialized services.… 70 to 80 percent of Canadians find their waiting times acceptable" "Access to health care services in Canada, Waiting times for specialized services (January to December 2005)," Statistics Canada, http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepu...75-XIE/82-575-
seems like about what we have here in the U.S. right now

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by dmek25

•According to Statistics Canada, the official government statistical agency, "In 2005, the median waiting time was about 4 weeks for specialist visits, 4 weeks for non-emergency surgery, and 3 weeks for diagnostic tests. Nationally, median waiting times remained stable between 2003 and 2005 - but there were some differences at the provincial level for selected specialized services.… 70 to 80 percent of Canadians find their waiting times acceptable" "Access to health care services in Canada, Waiting times for specialized services (January to December 2005)," Statistics Canada, http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepu...75-XIE/82-575-
seems like about what we have here in the U.S. right now

I know people love using the Canadian system as an example, and it may be one to model, but I still ask for an example where the country has similar demands and structures to the US. If you are going to include countries who fall under our defense shield, as Canada does, then please realize that their Government's obligations are substantially less. and if we are going to do this type thing, and significantly reduce defense spending, then lets start by doing the reductions and getting our budget in line.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by dmek25

•According to Statistics Canada, the official government statistical agency, "In 2005, the median waiting time was about 4 weeks for specialist visits, 4 weeks for non-emergency surgery, and 3 weeks for diagnostic tests. Nationally, median waiting times remained stable between 2003 and 2005 - but there were some differences at the provincial level for selected specialized services.… 70 to 80 percent of Canadians find their waiting times acceptable" "Access to health care services in Canada, Waiting times for specialized services (January to December 2005)," Statistics Canada, http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepu...75-XIE/82-575-
seems like about what we have here in the U.S. right now

And here's an article detailing how different the numbers are. Those numbers you're referencing come from the Canadian government, who chose to represent them in the most positive light possible. The truth is wait times are much worse than they let on.

http://www.thewarpath.net/parking-lo...tml#post566223

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by dmek25

•According to Statistics Canada, the official government statistical agency, "In 2005, the median waiting time was about 4 weeks for specialist visits, 4 weeks for non-emergency surgery, and 3 weeks for diagnostic tests. Nationally, median waiting times remained stable between 2003 and 2005 - but there were some differences at the provincial level for selected specialized services.… 70 to 80 percent of Canadians find their waiting times acceptable" "Access to health care services in Canada, Waiting times for specialized services (January to December 2005)," Statistics Canada, http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepu...75-XIE/82-575-
seems like about what we have here in the U.S. right now

Go no further than wiki to blow the above argument up.

Health care in Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wait times
One of the major complaints about the Canadian health care system is waiting times, whether for a specialist, major elective surgery, such as hip replacement, imaging procedures such as MRI or Cystoscopy, or specialized treatments, such as radiation for breast cancer. Studies by the Commonwealth Fund found that 57% of Canadians reported waiting 4 weeks or more to see a specialist; 24% of Canadians waited 4 hours or more in the emergency room.[24]
A March 2, 2004, article in the Canadian Medical Association Journal stated, "Saskatchewan is under fire for having the longest waiting time in the country for a diagnostic MRI—a whopping 22 months." [25]
A February 28, 2006, article in The New York Times quoted Dr. Brian Day as saying, "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."[26] The Canadian Health Coalition has responded succinctly to these claims, pointing out that "access to veterinary care for animals is based on ability to pay. Dogs are put down if their owners can’t pay. Access to care should not be based on ability to pay." [27] The CHC is one of many groups across Canada calling for increased provincial and federal funding for medicare and an end to provincial funding cuts as solutions to unacceptable wait times [28]. In a 2007 episode of ABC News's 20/20 titled "Sick in America," host John Stossel cited numerous examples of Canadians who did not get the health care that they needed. [29]
According to the Fraser Institute, treatment time from initial referral by a GP through consultation with a specialist to final treatment, across all specialties and all procedures (emergency, non-urgent, and elective), averaged 17.7 weeks in 2005.[30][31] However, the Fraser Institute's report is greatly at odds with the Canadian government's own 2007 report.[32]
Since 2002, the Canadian government has invested $5.5 billion to address the wait times problem.[33] In April 2007, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced that all ten provinces and three territories would establish patient wait times guarantees by 2010. Canadians will be guaranteed timely access to health care in at least one of the following priority areas, prioritized by each province: cancer care, hip and knee replacement, cardiac care, diagnostic imaging, cataract surgeries or primary care.[34]

Canadians visiting the U.S. to receive health care



Some residents of Canada travel to the United States because it provides the nearest facilty for their needs. Some do so on quality grounds or because of easier access.

• According to a September 14, 2007, article from CTV News, Canadian Liberal MP Belinda Stronach went to the United States for breast cancer surgery in June 2007. Stronach's spokesperson Greg MacEachern was quoted in the article saying that the US was the best place to have this type of surgery done. Stronach paid for the surgery out of her own pocket.[45] Prior to this incident, Stronach had stated in an interview that she was against two-tiered health care.[46]
• When Robert Bourassa, the premier of Quebec, needed cancer treatment, he went to the US to get it.[47]
• In 2007, it was reported that Canada sent scores of pregnant women to the US to give birth.[48] In 2007 a woman from Calgary who was pregnant with quadruplets was sent to Great Falls, Montana to give birth. An article on this incident states, "There was no room at any other Canadian neonatal intensive care unit."[49]
• Champion figure skater Audrey Williams needed a hip replacement. Even though she waited two years and suffered in pain, she still did not get the surgery, because the waiting list was so long. So she went to the US and spent her own money to get the surgery.[50]
• A January 19, 2008, article in The Globe And Mail states, "More than 150 critically ill Canadians – many with life-threatening cerebral hemorrhages – have been rushed to the United States since the spring of 2006 because they could not obtain intensive-care beds here. Before patients with bleeding in or outside the brain have been whisked through U.S. operating-room doors, some have languished for as long as eight hours in Canadian emergency wards while health-care workers scrambled to locate care." [51]
• While some Canadians have gone to the US to receive health care services, the numbers are few and insignificant when compared to the population as a whole. Also note that travel costs to the US as well as other expenses make this trip to the US affordable only to those that have the money to do so. Many health care lobbyists in the US are using the argument that Canadians come to the US for treatment because they want to block a public option in the US.

Pretty damning of that country's system when the Premier goes out-of-country to get treatment. And he came here to use our "terrible" system.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

can you define these countries, and please try to use countries that would face problems similar to ours, and not ones with homogeneous populations, or ones that have no major government outlays for things that our country obviously does.

LOL...why don't you just say we're unique so please don't use the Germans, Dutch, Japanese, Swedes, Danes, Norwegians, etc, etc?

Hate to inform you but everyone has major government outlays and whether the population is homogeneous is irrelevant (unless of course you think being a diverse nation is a hindrance).

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by saden1

LOL...why don't you just say we're unique so please don't use the Germans, Dutch, Japanese, Swedes, Danes, Norwegians, etc, etc?

Hate to inform you but everyone has major government outlays and whether the population is homogeneous is irrelevant (unless of course you think being a diverse nation is a hindrance).

Nice, but irrelevant dodge. Unless you want to plead ignorance to the effects that the diversity of the US culture has on healthcare demands.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

LOL...why don't you just say we're unique so please don't use the Germans, Dutch, Japanese, Swedes, Danes, Norwegians, etc, etc?

Hate to inform you but everyone has major government outlays and whether the population is homogeneous is irrelevant (unless of course you think being a diverse nation is a hindrance).

Wait, in addressing how best to provide health care services to a diverse population with a vast range of economic, racial and religious variations - all of which can impact on the choice, needs and costs of health care provided, it is irrelevant that most social/universal health care systems don't need to address the diversity or size of our population? You believe that a comparison of signifcantly smaller, basically homogenous populations is of significant value to extrapolate to our society?

I would agree there is some value in such comparisons and information but would suggest that such would be minimal given the inherent and substantial differences between the US and the countries you name. Now, if France, Germany and England had a joint universal health care system that actually worked, then I would be very interested.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Wait, in addressing how best to provide health care services to a diverse population with a vast range of economic, racial and religious variations - all of which can impact on the choice, needs and costs of health care provided, it is irrelevant that most social/universal health care systems don't need to address the diversity or size of our population? You believe that a comparison of signifcantly smaller, basically homogenous populations is of significant value to extrapolate to our society?

I would agree there is some value in such comparisons and information but would suggest that such would be minimal given the inherent and substantial differences between the US and the countries you name. Now, if France, Germany and England had a joint universal health care system that actually worked, then I would be very interested.

Throw Turkey, Serbia, and Croatia, and maybe we could see a reasonable comparison.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Wait, in addressing how best to provide health care services to a diverse population with a vast range of economic, racial and religious variations - all of which can impact on the choice, needs and costs of health care provided, it is irrelevant that most social/universal health care systems don't need to address the diversity or size of our population? You believe that a comparison of signifcantly smaller, basically homogenous populations is of significant value to extrapolate to our society?

I would agree there is some value in such comparisons and information but would suggest that such would be minimal given the inherent and substantial differences between the US and the countries you name.

Diversity has nothing to do with it and last time I checked these countries also struggle with poverty issue though some not as bad. Health care is strictly a monetary issues...those that can afford it and those who can't. The difference is their poor can walk into a hospital or clinic and get treatment and ours can't.

Honest, I can't quite comprehend what difference diversity makes in the field of health care? Care to elaborate with something more than "it has, don't you think," specifically why you think it does. Also, France is very good example of a diverse country with a successful universal health care and relatively low poverty rate.

Now, if France, Germany and England had a joint universal health care system that actually worked, then I would be very interested.

Are you intimating universal health care at the state level might be a better solution than a federal one?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by saden1

Diversity has nothing to do with it and last time I checked these countries also struggle with poverty issue though some not as bad. Health care is strictly a monetary issues...those that can afford it and those who can't. The difference is their poor can walk into a hospital or clinic and get treatment and ours can't.

Honest, I can't quite comprehend what difference diversity makes in the field of health care? Care to elaborate with something more than "it has, don't you think," specifically why you think it does. Also, France is very good example of a diverse country with a successful universal health care and relatively low poverty rate.




Are you intimating universal health care at the state level might be a better solution than a federal one?

Are you so simplistic as to think that is even a basic valid point? It is false on so many levels you truly are reaching and in this case I will let you go try to find the answers yourself.

Of course you also re-iterate and strengthen JoeRedskins point that GDAS questioned by saying that you were not saying it is all basically a money issue. Because you just stated it is, at least in your opinion.