A.M.A. Opposes Government-Sponsored Healthcare Plan

[xr7g428]

LOL, no I've been "retired" for many years now - even though I am not of retirement age. It is interesting that you only question a linked source if is NOT a conservative source. I don't recall you challenging a single conservative source. . . and even use one in your rebuttal: The Capital Research Center is a conservative think tank whose stated mission is to do "opposition research" exposing the funding sources behind consumer, health and environmental groups.

 

So using your claim to question "both" sides (I think these groups are every bit as toxic as their right wing counterparts), then their analysis is also totally bogus -- and yet you use them as your basis for defining the source which clearly states that it is a compilation of CBO stats.

 

Typical - talking 'bout shooting yourself in your own foot . . . didn't quite think that one through, did you?

 

Nice ad hominem attack there. I guess you couldn't really refute that your pie chart was not the product of CBO, and your

attribution was an outright lie. And then you couldn't refute the information about the nature of your source, so what the heck, just attack the poster.

 

I used Wikipedia for the information I posted. The source was correctly identified within Wikipedia, and within the post. If you doubt that I question "conservative" sources, you might want to check with FMCCAP. Like I said, both sides are toxic. At some point the middle will stand up to ideologue like you just like we did to the religious right. Don't get a all confused and believe that everyone who voted for Obama drank the cool-aid.

 

So if you have an issue with the facts, lets hear it, otherwise, you are the one with the foot problem. LOL!

[Ron W.]

I'd ask you to re-read this part....

 

 

Looks to me like that decision (in theory) would not be yours to make, regardless of your ability (or willingness) to pay. That's what he's saying when he says, "in the aggregate".

 

And don't forget this story.

 

The difference with the second story is we're talking of persons participating in a public program. Obama is suggesting (in aggregate) that even people who have the means shouldn't get the choice either.

 

Not disagreeing with you just saying it would be nice to have the choice.

 

http://www.euthanasia.com/bystate.html

 

Only Oregon permits physician- assisted suicide.

[RangerM]

Not disagreeing with you just saying it would be nice to have the choice.

 

http://www.euthanasia.com/bystate.html

Euthanasia is mercy killing, and what you do when you shoot a lame horse.

 

Again, (in the article) the decision to obtain (or provide) medical care isn't made by the patient or relatives, but by a group of "doctors, scientists, ethicists".

 

All I'm saying is that if your only choice is assisted suicide, or (as Obama indicated) "death by denial of care", what choice do you have?

 

Wouldn't you at least like the option to live?

[Ron W.]

Yes the choice should be made by the person affected. The point I was trying to make is even if you're Bill Gates or Alan Mulally :poke: :beerchug: only Oregon offers that choice.

Suppose I could move to Oregon next. :shades:

Edited July 6, 2009 by Ron W.

[RaZor]

Good catch!

 

I looked at that first table, whose heading was " Tax Cuts are Largest Contributor to Reemergence of Large Budget Deficits," and I raised an eyebrow myself. There was nary a mention of the increase in government spending.

Taxes = revenue. What happens when an entity cuts their revenue/income? Does a deficit emerge? D'uh, of course, spending also adds to deficits -- but what happens to one when their cut their own revenue (income - especially in the time of war)? So my question here would be: were you just as concerned about government spending during the same period depicted in the graph that resulted in the Fed deficit going from a surplus (budgeted) in 2000 -- from a $5.1 trillion deficit to explode to over $12 trillion -- or are you just concerned about it now?

 

Oh, and don't forget that that does not include the IOU's to SSA borrowed during that period, or, even a true accrual of the cost of the Bush (Iraq) War which most economists place at roughly $3 trillion -- when all is said and done (even though less than a trillion shows up on the books). And I seem to recall that all of the eager war mongers promoted it as a free, cheap or self-financing war, remember that?

 

People get all bent out of shape when the trillion figure comes up - even if it has to do with investing it in modernizing and improving our health care system and that it is really a good bargain— especially when contrasted with the maddening way that we have thrown away tax dollars over the past 7 years. Again, undoubtedly the worst example of wasteful spending in recent memory is the war in Iraq, that imperialistic misadventure so beloved by the same conservative thinkers who incessantly bemoan the supposedly unaffordable price of health reform.

 

I know it is really hard -- and confusing -- for many to understand, or even have an inkling of what this is all about -- and when big numbers are thrown out there -- good lawd almighty, this just cannot be good.

 

But let's look at this in another light----> America’s current health care system wastes considerably more than a trillion dollars every year. We know that because countries such as France, Germany, Japan and Finland, with standards of living pretty much comparable to ours, spend roughly half what the United States spends annually on health care per citizen . . . and they cover everyone and achieve better results.

 

So if the total cost of American health care over the coming decade reaches $40 trillion, (as many economists expect -- based on HC cost increases over the last decade), then we will be “wasting” approximately $20 trillion, or $2 trillion a year.

 

Now let's compare with those figures, what the proposed HCS reform is estimated to cost -- based on the CBO scoring estimate of $1.6 trillion over 10 years -- to reform the U.S. health care system. Which would you prefer, $2 trillion per year, or $1.6 trillion over 10 years?

 

Yes, I know hearing numbers that are so big can be really daunting (especially for some that has never held, or had $10,000 in their hand or wallet) -- and confusing, and yes, a trillion dollars is really a very significant amount of money, even on a scale as large as the American economy ($1.6 trillion represents only about 1 percent of the $170 trillion in gross domestic product that Americans will produce over the same period).

 

To put it in another perspective, had we avoided the stupid waste of $2 trillion or $3 trillion on the war (and provided Al Queda with the best recruiting tool ever), we could have paid for a long list of things that would have improved the lives of the American people, enhanced their productivity and secured their future . . . and made our economy stronger - instead of near collapse.

 

What could we have done that would have been better choices?

 

1) we could have moved rapidly toward alternative energy sources and reduced our dependence on foreign sources of oil for about $500 billion - for me this could be very critical as I think that the Saudis have been lying through their teeth for a very long time and we may one day be faced with a really critical oil shortage - and not be prepared. Maybe you trust the Saudis - I don't.

 

2) put a huge dent in illiteracy (a major problem) and come close to achieving universal literacy in the United States for about $5-6 billion

 

3) and we still would have a substantial sum remaining to build new schools, roads, bridges, railways and other badly needed infrastructure . . . you know the infrastructure of our own country (many experts in the infrastructure field estimate that we accrue +/- $300 billion of needed repairs every year - and we haven't been doing anything about it for a long time)

 

Now I didn't place the above in order of importance . . . but hopefully it will give an idea of what we have squandered just with our spending on the Bush War. Most conservatives that I know (or have known) have one burr under their saddle and that is for everyone to work - to have a job - and not be on welfare. Just imagine all the jobs that were thwarted by us spending $2-3 trillion on Iraq instead of our own country (and people that could have been working) instead of billions going to Cheney's old company on a no bid basis and that now calls the middle east its home.

 

Perspective is difficult for many these days. I'll give you another example - maybe it will clear things up for you -- about the revenue/tax cutting and the cause of problems.

 

Everyone here has read the almost constant bashing of Cally-forn-I-aye problems. macattak1 has given his analysis of all that is wrong with Calif and why he is now happy to reside in Mn. But he left out one important fact of why Calif is, and has been, in a can't win budgetary scenario for over two decades: Proposition 13 Tax Revolt of 1978.

 

Not only did it (Prop13) cut their revenue by limiting property taxes to 1% of the value of properties (which cut property taxes by 57% for most), it also contained language requiring 2/3 majority in both legislative houses for future increases in all state tax rates or amounts of revenue collected, including income tax rates. That makes it very difficult to reform any legislative deficiencies as 2/3rds is a major obstacle.

 

The $5 billion dollar surplus that existed in 1978 evaporated in a short time with services and education funds slashed to practically nonexistent. Since it has been written into it's constitution, California has slid into depression almost continuously since then (circling the economic drain). There are some that can't see the forest through (for) the trees.

[RangerM]

People get all bent out of shape when the trillion figure comes up - even if it has to do with investing it in modernizing and improving our health care system and that it is really a good bargain— especially when contrasted with the maddening way that we have thrown away tax dollars over the past 7 years.

Couple of questions.

 

Exactly what is this "modernization" that the trillion dollar figure is supposed to achieve? Be specific. What is behind the times and will be brought up to date?

 

What are the ways it will be "improved"? Improved how? By doing what, exactly?

 

And why is it a good bargain if (as you say) we already spend more and achieve less?

 

But let's look at this in another light----> America's current health care system wastes considerably more than a trillion dollars every year. We know that because countries such as France, Germany, Japan and Finland, with standards of living pretty much comparable to ours, spend roughly half what the United States spends annually on health care per citizen . . . and they cover everyone and achieve better results.

Exactly what are the better results that can be solely attributed to their healthcare systems? Be as specific as possible, excluding all other possibilities such as culture, diet, levels of physical activity, crime rate, and levels of drug abuse. Also, explain how their healthcare systems' achieve better results, excluding any benefits from America's (far) superior level of medical innovation.

 

What could we have done that would have been better choices?

 

1) we could have moved rapidly toward alternative energy sources and reduced our dependence on foreign sources of oil for about $500 billion - for me this could be very critical as I think that the Saudis have been lying through their teeth for a very long time and we may one day be faced with a really critical oil shortage - and not be prepared. Maybe you trust the Saudis - I don't.

Domestic oil and gas are "alternatives energy sources" to foreign oil. Nuclear is a prime choice over coal for electricity production. What's wrong with those? They ARE more economical (ie less expensive) than the wind, solar, or biofuels at our current state of technology.

2) put a huge dent in illiteracy (a major problem) and come close to achieving universal literacy in the United States for about $5-6 billion

What exactly is stopping people from learning to read right now? Even if my daughters never went in a school, they'd still learn to read and write, by virtue of me/my wife teaching them.

 

If there are people who don't value their educational opportunities right now, how is $5-6 Billion going to motivate them? Are you going to pay the parents......to be parents?

 

3) and we still would have a substantial sum remaining to build new schools, roads, bridges, railways and other badly needed infrastructure . . . you know the infrastructure of our own country (many experts in the infrastructure field estimate that we accrue +/- $300 billion of needed repairs every year - and we haven't been doing anything about it for a long time)

I'll agree that infrastructure is important, and agree that moneys should be committed there, but only insomuch as it encourages development. $1 Trillion in infrastructure spending would buy you more than $1 Trillion in Healthcare.

 

Not only did it (Prop13) cut their revenue by limiting property taxes to 1% of the value of properties (which cut property taxes by 57% for most), it also contained language requiring 2/3 majority in both legislative houses for future increases in all state tax rates or amounts of revenue collected, including income tax rates. That makes it very difficult to reform any legislative deficiencies as 2/3rds is a major obstacle.

It's too bad that in addition to the 2/3 requirement to raise taxes, they didn't require a more stringent requirement on spending. Spending is what has got them in trouble.

Edited July 7, 2009 by RangerM

[napfirst]

Couple of questions.

 

Exactly what is this "modernization" that the trillion dollar figure is supposed to achieve? Be specific. What is behind the times and will be brought up to date?

 

What are the ways it will be "improved"? Improved how? By doing what, exactly?

 

And why is it a good bargain if (as you say) we already spend more and achieve less?

 

 

Exactly what are the better results that can be solely attributed to their healthcare systems? Be as specific as possible, excluding all other possibilities such as culture, diet, levels of physical activity, crime rate, and levels of drug abuse. Also, explain how their healthcare systems' achieve better results, excluding any benefits from America's (far) superior level of medical innovation.

 

 

Domestic oil and gas are "alternatives energy sources" to foreign oil. Nuclear is a prime choice over coal for electricity production. What's wrong with those? They ARE more economical (ie less expensive) than the wind, solar, or biofuels at our current state of technology.

 

What exactly is stopping people from learning to read right now? Even if my daughters never went in a school, they'd still learn to read and write, by virtue of me/my wife teaching them.

 

If there are people who don't value their educational opportunities right now, how is $5-6 Billion going to motivate them? Are you going to pay the parents......to be parents?

 

 

I'll agree that infrastructure is important, and agree that moneys should be committed there, but only insomuch as it encourages development. $1 Trillion in infrastructure spending would buy you more than $1 Trillion in Healthcare.

 

 

It's too bad that in addition to the 2/3 requirement to raise taxes, they didn't require a more stringent requirement on spending. Spending is what has got them in trouble.

All very good questions.....the same ones that every taxpayer should be asking.....for specifics......but don't hold your breath waiting for an answer....

[grbeck]

But let's look at this in another light----> America’s current health care system wastes considerably more than a trillion dollars every year. We know that because countries such as France, Germany, Japan and Finland, with standards of living pretty much comparable to ours, spend roughly half what the United States spends annually on health care per citizen . . . and they cover everyone and achieve better results.

 

You do realize that virtually every European nation gives its citizens the option of purchasing private health insurance, and virtually everyone who can afford to supplement their government provided plan does so? And that, overall, virtually the same percentage of total U.S. health care is paid for by government plans (Medicare, Medicaid) as the European nations?

 

You also realize that virtually all European nations are cutting benefits and instituting higher copayments as they struggle to pay for the cost of their government plans? The French plan, for example, is running a deficit that is currently at $13 billion, and rising.

 

And many of the "better results" are the results of habits and genetic traits. Asians, for example, tend to have long lifespans. If the U.S. wants to improve its life expectancy rankings, perhaps it should encourage large numbers of Asians to come here, and bring their habits with them.

 

Here are a few reasons why the American tab for health care is higher than in Europe:

 

1. Mexicans can use American health care services and avoid payment. Consumers who don't pay run up the tab very quickly.

2. People in the U.S. who pay for health care get a lot of it.

3. America enforces drug patents, allowing them to make enough money to fund research. Other countries use tactics - and outright threats - to infringe patents, which reduces the cost of drugs in the short term. They can do this because the U.S. market allows the drug manufacturers to cover the cost of developing the drugs.

4. Statistics can be skewed, making them meaningless. In the U.S., a baby delivered live who dies within an hour has a recorded lifespan. In some European countries, a baby that dies six hours after birth is considered a stillbirth, and not counted in the infant mortality rate. This difference in record keeping makes the U.S. look bad. The U.S. is also more aggressive about saving premature babies, or severely handicapped babies. In Europe, they are more likely to let the baby die right away, which is not recorded in the infant mortality rate.

5. Rationing health care by a private insurance company opens the company to lawsuits. It is harder to sue a government plan that rations health care (and they do - try to get a kidney transplant in Great Britain, for example, after the age of 55).

 

The problem is that many Americans LIKE that our health care system operates that way, so I doubt that these reforms you tout will change these reasons. So health care "reform" is unlikely to bring down these costs by the amount that you tout. That amount could charitably be described as wildly optimistic.

 

To put it in another perspective, had we avoided the stupid waste of $2 trillion or $3 trillion on the war (and provided Al Queda with the best recruiting tool ever), we could have paid for a long list of things that would have improved the lives of the American people, enhanced their productivity and secured their future . . . and made our economy stronger - instead of near collapse.

 

If the war is such a good recruiting tool for Al Queda, then what tool was the organization using during the 1990s, when it attacked American interests overseas, and then prepared for the attack on September 11, 2001? And how many times has the U.S. been attacked by Al Queda since 2001?

 

Everyone here has read the almost constant bashing of Cally-forn-I-aye problems. macattak1 has given his analysis of all that is wrong with Calif and why he is now happy to reside in Mn. But he left out one important fact of why Calif is, and has been, in a can't win budgetary scenario for over two decades: Proposition 13 Tax Revolt of 1978.

 

Not only did it (Prop13) cut their revenue by limiting property taxes to 1% of the value of properties (which cut property taxes by 57% for most), it also contained language requiring 2/3 majority in both legislative houses for future increases in all state tax rates or amounts of revenue collected, including income tax rates. That makes it very difficult to reform any legislative deficiencies as 2/3rds is a major obstacle.

 

The $5 billion dollar surplus that existed in 1978 evaporated in a short time with services and education funds slashed to practically nonexistent. Since it has been written into it's constitution, California has slid into depression almost continuously since then (circling the economic drain). There are some that can't see the forest through (for) the trees.

 

Time to inject some facts (from non-partisan sources) into the discussion over the fiscal woes of California:

 

*Twenty-five percent of California's revenue comes from income taxes paid by the 144,000 richest taxpayers. If one of those taxpayers leaves, it has a major impact. Lots have left.

*California already has a very progressive income tax structure - the rate is 10.3 percent for incomes above $1 million. Only six states have top income taxe rates above 8.5 percent. California's income tax rate for lower income people is 1 percent, which is LOWER than most other states.

*A very high percentage of personal income tax revenues come from households earning over $100,000 annually. (Unfortunately, that is not a very high income in places such as Los Angeles and San Francisco - price a decent house in a neighborhood with good schools in those metropolitan areas. An annual income of $100,000 won't go too far in those areas.)

 

The simple fact is that the progressive system and increased tax rates for the wealthy that you advocate on other threads won't close the deficit - California already has this system, and it is facing record deficits. This progressive, high-tax structure is succeeding in driving the productive people to Nevada and Arizona (maybe those states were lobbying for California to raise its income tax rates). Want to raise it higher - which eliminating that 2/3s majority voting requirement for tax increases will make it easier to do? I'm sure that Nevada and Arizona would just LOVE that move by Sacramento.

 

Blaming all of this on Proposition 13 is a smokescreen. The idea that we can "tax the rich," or that everyone who is hit hard by higher income taxes under a progressive structure is some sort of Donald Trump wannabee, is a fantasy. There aren't enough rich people in California to feed this level of spending. THAT is the real problem. Lots of not-so-rich people get hit, too. Many of them end up leaving. The state collects $0 in taxes from these people.

 

Let's look at education spending in the Golden State:

 

*For the 2005-06 fiscal year (the most recent year available), California ranks about the middle in per-pupil spending, not near the bottom, as some critics have suggested. The national average was $9,138 in 2005-06. California was at $8,486, with New York the highest at $14,884 and Utah the lowest at $5,437 – one of 22 states, in fact, that fell below California's level.

*In terms of school revenues, California was 25th among the states at $10,264 per pupil, just under the national average. It was above average in per-pupil income from federal and state sources and about $1,700 per pupil below average in local revenues, thanks to Proposition 13, the 1978 property tax limit measure.

*Meanwhile, California elementary-school students rank 46th among the states in math, 48th in reading, 49th in science.

*California is also second from the bottom in fourth-grade reading scores on national achievement tests, ahead only of Washington, D.C. But Washington is very near the top in per-pupil income and spending at $18,332 in revenue and $13,446 in spending.

*Many states nearer the bottom in per-pupil spending, including Utah, outrank California in test scores and other measures.

 

So much for the idea that insufficient spending because of Proposition 13 is crippling California's educational system, or that spending more money somehow automatically translates into higher student achievement. Those are myths. There's very little correlation between the amount of money a state spends on public education and how its students fare in academic tests, dropout rates and other measures of educational performance.

 

What effect did Proposition 13 have on California's ability to collect state and local property taxes? Not that much:

 

*Even with Proposition 13, California ranks in the middle of the pack when the states are ranked on combined state and local property tax collections.

*Local taxes collected had well exceeded their pre-Proposition 13 levels by the late 1980s.

 

Nor did Proposition 13 throttle the growth of state government:

 

*California's state government grew faster than either its income or population. Between 2003 and 2007, spending grew 31 percent, compared with a 5 percent population increase.

 

The idea that California can't spend anything on services because of Proposition 13 also does not stand up to scrutiny:

 

*The percentage of residents on welfare in the Golden State is now more than triple that of the rest of the U.S. If it reflected the rest of the country, California would have 800,000 fewer people receiving welfare.

*While caseloads in the rest of the U.S. dropped over 30 percent in the mid-2000s, California’s increased by approximately 6 percent.

*As a result, though it has only about 12 percent of the total U.S. population, California’s share of the welfare caseload has risen from 22 percent in 2002 to over 30 percent in 2008.

 

The "legislative deficiencies" are caused by rampant overspending, not the 2/3s voting requirement for any tax increase, or Proposition 13.

Edited July 7, 2009 by grbeck

[grbeck]

All very good questions.....the same ones that every taxpayer should be asking.....for specifics......but don't hold your breath waiting for an answer....

 

It's much more fun to bash those eeeeevil Republicans, free trade and tax cuts, as opposed to facing the facts.

[Hemiman]

I'm a little late to this party, but I'll chime in.

 

From 1997 - 2003 I was managing a large engineering project. I hired 12 Canadian's to fill vacant possitions I had. ALL but one, said the Canadian health care system sucked.

 

They would argue endlessly about it. Didn't matter how many facts or personal experiences they discussed, the one guy could never be swayed. Some of the stories of family members waiting for treatment only to find it was too late when they did get treatment, were unbelievable.

 

I still keep in touch with some of those guys, (even the lib) and their minds haven't chaged one bit. However, the lib has purchased US insurance and sees a US doctor now. Says it's for convienience, (he's still working and living here. Two hrs from his home in Toronto).

 

I'll take their word for it.

[Edstock]

I'll take their word for it.

They're entitled to their opinions. As a Canuck, mine is that our system is pretty good. Can always be better, but compared to most health care systems around the world, it does a pretty good job. And most important, for those who don't have money, it provides a security that may be all they have. For young families and old folks with low incomes, it seems to have an appeal.

[RangerM]

The new standard operating procedure is what language is the best manipulation. (It's not enough for the idea to stand on it's merits. It just needs better marketing, per the article)

As Democrats hustle to pass legislation by August, strategists say they need to prove to this bloc of voters — insured, but worried about the stability of their coverage — that they will personally benefit.

 

“The American people are ready to make a leap, but they need to be convinced of the value of what they’re buying,” according to a memo from Third Way, a centrist think tank and strategy group, based on a survey by Benenson Strategy Group, one of Obama’s pollsters. “Stability can offer that.”

 

The seven-page memo, which has begun circulating on Capitol Hill and through the administration, was provided to POLITICO ahead of its public release Monday.

 

Obama and Democratic lawmakers learned the lessons of Bill Clinton’s failed reform effort in 1993-94 by focusing this time less on covering the 47 million uninsured than lowering costs and protecting the choice of doctors and plans for those who are covered.

 

But they need to make a more visceral case for overhauling the system, said Jim Kessler, the vice president for policy at Third Way, who co-authored the memo with Anne Kim, director of the group's economic program.

 

“Most of the current words used to describe and sell reform are computational words — cost, access, quality,” Kessler said. “They are Mr. Spock words, not Dr. Spock words. … You need to use terms that are warm, evocative and emotional.”

 

Kessler and Kim took issue with some of the very messages Obama and other Democrats have used to frame the debate. Obama's three principles for reform, as listed on the Organizing for America website, are "reduce costs, guarantee choice and ensure affordable care for all."

 

“To make reform a personal imperative (i.e., to answer the question ‘what’s in it for us?’), reformers must make a substantial offer to the middle class that truly reflects their health care circumstances and is something that they feel the government can actually deliver,” the memo states.

 

“Simply maintaining that Americans will be allowed to keep their own doctors or their current coverage if they like it is not a meaningful offer. Rather, they are defensive arguments implying that health care reform will cost middle-class Americans, not help them. These arguments may even inadvertently buttress the notion that health care reform is not about them but about someone else (‘don’t worry, you won’t be affected’).”

 

Insurance-market reforms in the Democratic plan, such as prohibiting insurers from denying coverage or charging higher rates based on preexisting conditions, are “actually game-changing stability offers for the middle class — offers that haven’t been explained because of the complexity of reform and the handful of controversial issues that have dominated the debate,” Kessler and Kim wrote, sidestepping any discussion of the public insurance option.

 

Third Way suggests an alternative messaging frame: “Stable coverage that cannot be taken away from you through life’s ups and downs. Stable costs that won’t eat away an increasing share of your paycheck. Stable quality so you can get the treatment you need, when you need it, and from the doctor you choose.”

 

The House Democratic Caucus has already incorporated the “stability and peace of mind” message into its daily talking points, according to the June 23 memo distributed to members. There are now four buzz words: cost, choice, quality — and stability.

Edited July 7, 2009 by RangerM

[grbeck]

If by "stability" they mean stable costs, they are pursuing a pipe dream. New technologies drive up costs. In the 1960s and 1970s, many conditions and diseases that were a death sentence can now be treated. But those new treatments cost more money.

 

As someone said, too many people want 2010 health care at 1960 prices. That's just not possible.

[macattak1]

...

 

To put it in another perspective, had we avoided the stupid waste of $2 trillion or $3 trillion on the war (and provided Al Queda with the best recruiting tool ever), we could have paid for a long list of things that would have improved the lives of the American people, enhanced their productivity and secured their future . . . and made our economy stronger - instead of near collapse.

 

What could we have done that would have been better choices?

 

NOTHING Because you can't spend deficit savings. Period. There is no such thing.

 

One can not consider buying a car, then come to the conclusion that $25k is $25k one does not have, and then consider not spending it a $25k savings that can then be spent on HD TVs, RVs, new furniture, etc.

 

So nothing could be done with that money because it is not money. It is deficit.

 

And to be honest. The only deficit spending I would ever approve of would be War time spending and Little Else. Certainly not for every day needs. Because, that should be illegal, right?

 

Peace and Blessings

[Trimdingman]

If by "stability" they mean stable costs, they are pursuing a pipe dream. New technologies drive up costs. In the 1960s and 1970s, many conditions and diseases that were a death sentence can now be treated. But those new treatments cost more money.

 

As someone said, too many people want 2010 health care at 1960 prices. That's just not possible.

 

 

New technology is supposed to create efficiencies, which reduces costs. In the real world, that is how it works. In a world where monopolies control the cost of an essential service, there is no way to go but up.

[napfirst]

Some of what we can look forwar to!!!!!!!

 

 

Mafia corruption puts Italian healthcare system in 'state of emergency'

 

Link

 

 

DIY healthcare: Patients urged to treat themselves as Government seeks to save NHS funds

 

Link

 

Pensioners in U.S. outwit the British with sharper memories

 

Of note:

The average 75-year-old from the U.S. is as smart as a 65-year-old Briton. Greater standards of living, higher levels of education and better healthcare are all thought

to have helped Americans remain quick-witted.

 

Link

 

Our health service is now worse than Estonia's

 

 

 

Link

[suv_guy_19]

Neither the UK nor the US are in the top 10 for standard of living or life expectancy.

[napfirst]

Was Canada’s health care the problem?

 

Link

 

 

Mountain-bike enthusiast Suzanne Aucoin had to fight more than her Stage IV colon cancer. Her doctor suggested Erbitux—a proven cancer drug that targets cancer cells exclusively, unlike conventional chemotherapies that more crudely kill all fast-growing cells in the body—and Aucoin went to a clinic to begin treatment. But if Erbitux offered hope, Aucoin’s insurance didn’t: she received one inscrutable form letter after another, rejecting her claim for reimbursement. Yet another example of the callous hand of managed care, depriving someone of needed medical help, right? Guess again. Erbitux is standard treatment, covered by insurance companies—in the United States. Aucoin lives in Ontario, Canada.

 

The ugly Truth about Canadian Healthcare system

 

Socialized Medicine Leaves a Bad Taste in Patients' Mouths

 

According to a national poll, four out of five Canadians are unhappy with their socialized health care system. Doctors in Manitoba apparently agree: Almost half of them have left the province in the past decade alone.

 

Link

[napfirst]

More than 400 Canadians in the full throes of a heart attack or other cardiac emergency have been sent to the United States because no hospital can provide the lifesaving care they require here.

 

Most of the heart patients who have been sent south since 2003 typically show up in Ontario hospitals, where they are given clot-busting drugs. If those drugs fail to open their clogged arteries, the scramble to locate angioplasty in the United States begins…

“I definitely believe that it is very bad planning. …We’re simply unable to meet the demand, but we don’t even know what the demand is.”

 

Read that last line again: “We’re simply unable to meet the demand, but we don’t even know what the demand is.”

The Canadian system is supposedly one of the main models upon which the coming American health care revolution will be based. And yet this wondrous Canadian system seems to be more and more incapable of providing relatively common medical procedures to Canadian citizens, even in Canada’s most populous province. Because the system is controlled by a bureaucracy, it doesn’t respond to market pressures (goodness knows that most of the time, bureaucracies barely respond to political pressure) and in fact can’t even figure out what the market is demanding. All of this results in the Canadian government relying on the supposedly inferior US system to provide lifesaving care in many instances. No wonder 3 out of 4 Canadians live within easy driving distance of the US border.

 

 

 

Link

[napfirst]

Wait times for surgery,

medical treatments at all-time high: report

 

The average wait time for a Canadian awaiting surgery or other medical treatment is now 18.3 weeks, a new high, according to a report released Monday.

That's an increase of 97 per cent over 14 years, the report says.

 

Is this what we want?

[suv_guy_19]

You just keep trying with your mostly outdated stats (manitoba added 83 physicians last year). No one has ever said that our single payer system is perfect (it isn't socialized), but your system isn't perfect either. Though problems exist with our systems, Canadians generally have very good health outcomes. We'll stick with our system and continue to make improvements while you continue to argue over the direction of yours.

 

As for that cancer drug, it's surprising that it wouldn't be covered by OHIP, unless of course, it's experimental or not approved for use by Health Canada or Ontario Health. Then it would only be used on a case by case basis, if it could be used at all.

[suv_guy_19]

Is this what we want?

 

 

Where's the link for this one?

 

Wait times are steady to down and that can be seen as document by the Canadian Institute for Health Information.

[Deanh]

You just keep trying with your mostly outdated stats (manitoba added 83 physicians last year). No one has ever said that our single payer system is perfect (it isn't socialized), but your system isn't perfect either. Though problems exist with our systems, Canadians generally have very good health outcomes. We'll stick with our system and continue to make improvements while you continue to argue over the direction of yours.

 

As for that cancer drug, it's surprising that it wouldn't be covered by OHIP, unless of course, it's experimental or not approved for use by Health Canada or Ontario Health. Then it would only be used on a case by case basis, if it could be used at all.

has the cancer drug even made it through the FDA farce here yet? talk about beaurecratic BS to get proven drugs passed here that have proven history on other shores.....

[napfirst]

Where's the link for this one?

 

Wait times are steady to down and that can be seen as document by the Canadian Institute for Health Information.

Here's your link

[napfirst]

You just keep trying with your mostly outdated stats (manitoba added 83 physicians last year). No one has ever said that our single payer system is perfect (it isn't socialized), but your system isn't perfect either. Though problems exist with our systems, Canadians generally have very good health outcomes. We'll stick with our system and continue to make improvements while you continue to argue over the direction of yours.

 

As for that cancer drug, it's surprising that it wouldn't be covered by OHIP, unless of course, it's experimental or not approved for use by Health Canada or Ontario Health. Then it would only be used on a case by case basis, if it could be used at all.

Yeah you stick with yours....that's funny, because you don't have a choice unless you move here.....I still have choices......