CanadaCare sends baby to US for treatment

posted at 11:00 am on June 28, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

My friend Michael Stickings links to a story of bureaucratic outrages involving an acutely ill premature baby, but only focuses on one particular outrage while excusing the other.  Because Canada does not have the capacity to deal with the demand for neo-natal intensive care for premature births, the single-payer system sent the critically ill child to the United States for treatment.  Unfortunately, the parents do not have passports which are now required for crossing the border, and the US refuses to allow them into the country without them:

A critically-ill premature-born baby from Hamilton is all alone in a Buffalo, N.Y., hospital after she was turned away for treatment at local facility and transferred across the border without her parents, who don’t have passports.

Ava Stinson was born Thursday at St. Joseph’s Hospital, 14 weeks premature.

A provincewide search for an open neonatal intensive care unit bed came up empty, leaving no choice but to send the two pound, four ounce baby to Buffalo.

Her parents Natalie Paquette and Richard Stinson couldn’t follow their child because as of June 1, a passport is required to cross the border into the United States.

They’re having to approve medical procedures over the phone and are terrified something will happen to their baby before they get there.

Stinson has a criminal record, which makes matters worse for entry to the US.  Obviously, though, this is not a planned diversion but a real medical crisis.  Surely the US and Canada can agree to temporary measures that will allow the parents to cross the border, even if under embassy supervision and security, to join their child.  As Michael notes, keeping them away from their child at this critical juncture is needlessly cruel.

But let’s not place the onus on the US for the need to separate the parents in the first place.  Michael attempts to dismiss the underlying problem:

I won’t get into the relative merits of the American and Canadian health-care systems here. Suffice it to say that there obviously need to be more neo-natal intensive care unit beds up here. Thankfully — and this doesn’t mean that the American system is better (after all, at least the couple and their baby are guaranteed care up here, thanks to our public system, even if it’s not perfect) — there was an opening south of the border.

Well, it’s impossible to look at this situation without seeing the relative merits of the American and Canadian systems.  First, the child would have gotten care in the US, too, regardless of insurance status.  People get emergency care regardless in this country.  There is a difference between health insurance and access to care that some people elide for purposes of political argument.  No one gets turned away from emergency care for lack of ability to pay.

But why wasn’t there a NICU bed for the child in the entire nation of Canada?  The government of Canada won’t pay for more.  They don’t exist to expand supply to meet demand; their single-payer system exists to ration care as a cost-saving mechanism.  In a free-market system, supply expands to meet demand, which is why Canada could subcontract out to a US hospital for capacity.  Michael writes that paragraph as if it was mere luck that an NICU bed happened to be open in the US, but that’s a function of the system, and not luck.  These parents are separated from their child at the moment through the fault of Canada’s government and not the US.

It’s a good lesson for both Americans and Canadians as the administration and Congress attempt to push a systemic overhaul of the US health-care system that will cost trillions and push us towards the same kind of single-payer system that Canada has.  When we handle our health-care system like Canada, where will Canadians send the next NICU case they can’t handle?  And where will America send ours?

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5

If we want to sing Kumbayah, let’s talk about EFCA. I bet we agree on that one.

Ann, we respect people’s rights to expressing their opinions – Wanting to sing Kumbayah is a typical liberal mindset where every one gets along with every one, no matter what the differences are. I HAVE to get along with you whether I want to or not and have to pretend that every thing is peachy.

What people are doing here is to engage you in a rational debate with arguments, facts. Whether you agree with them or not, is up to you – and you dont have to “compensate” by saying that you may share common ground on EFCA.

It doesnt matter whether you are opposed to EFCA or not – the issue here is health care and its failures in a govt run system as opposed to a private system.

Your point about Iowa is something that needs to be backed up by evidence – and even if true why is it that Iowa’s problem should be the nation’s problem ?

If their dumb legislators didnt pass regulations that prevented them from buying insurance from other states like Illinois or Wisconsin, why are 70% of Iowans getting insurance from the same company ? Either they like this company or they dont have a choice because they cannot purchase insurance out of state because of the regulations of your precious Government – the same one that you want providing a public “option” !

No options to buy from other state’s insurance companies BUT only a Government “option” ! Sweet.

nagee76 on June 28, 2009 at 1:15 PM

I won’t get into the relative merits of the American and Canadian health-care systems here. Suffice it to say that there obviously need to be more neo-natal intensive care unit beds up here. Thankfully — and this doesn’t mean that the American system is better (after all, at least the couple and their baby are guaranteed care up here, thanks to our public system, even if it’s not perfect) — there was an opening south of the border.

What an utterly laughable defense.

So this wonderful, single-payer government plan is on par with the current American one because Canada cannot treat it’s infirmed but the U.S. can. But let’s not discuss that relative merits thing la-la-la-la-I-can’t-hear-you-la-la.

That “opening across the border” is saving Canada’s ass and subsidizing its care. American taxpayers and consumers are sustaining the R&D, infrastructure, and the best care in the world despite the costs because the system works better for everyone, even those not of our system. We are serving as their insurance. Everyone complains about having to pay for it until it’s needed; under the “single-payer and we’ll export, maybe, what we can plan,” what do you do when you don’t have that exportable outlet that the non-free market plan inevitably demands? If you’re Stickings, you complain about passports.

But remember, we, and by we, I mean Michael Stickings, don’t want to discuss relativity here.

Pinhead. Disingenuous pinhead.

AnonymousDrivel on June 28, 2009 at 1:15 PM

Done with debate, and onto ad hominem.

That’s easier, for sure.

AnninCA on June 28, 2009 at 1:09 PM

Not to worry. When I’m losing a debate as badly as you’ve lost this one, I look for a fig leaf too before I run away.

It tends to work.

jeff_from_mpls on June 28, 2009 at 1:15 PM

AnninCA on June 28, 2009 at 1:10 PM

Er … free market reform is needed. Tort caps are needed. The refusal of services to people who are here illegally is needed. There are lots of changes that need to be made to the health care industries in the states, but not some backward, illegal step into a federal government-run mess that will destroy all the systems and insure worse care for everyone. The federal government has NO BUSINESS AT ALL in health care and health insurance. NONE. Health care is a state issue, not a federal one. That should be the first point.

progressoverpeace on June 28, 2009 at 1:15 PM

Maybe some of you need to hear why healthcare reform is wanted by people. One poll…72%. Another poll….76%.

Perhaps you need to at least LISTEN to a differing perspective.

AnninCA on June 28, 2009 at 1:10 PM

Those polls are a sham – Just like Obama. You cannot believe anything the MSM & the government spews out there.

You can submit a video here – but do you really think Obama will take the hard questions?

On a side note:

6 States Want to Nullify Obamacare With Opt Out Law

http://www.redstate.com/warner_todd_huston/2009/06/28/6-states-want-to-nullify-obamacare-with-opt-out-law/

http://www.youtube.com/blog?entry=20h2yiH79Tc

President Obama is taking your questions this Wednesday in a special online health care townhall event. With healthcare at the top of the President’s agenda, he is opening up the White House to questions via YouTube. Create a 20- or 30-second video question and submit it as a reply video to the video below (go here to get started). He’ll answer some of the most popular questions during the event, which we’ll stream live from the White House YouTube channel.

izoneguy on June 28, 2009 at 1:16 PM

Of course CanadaCare works. They have a fallback, the US medical system.

Exit question: If we follow in Canada’s footsteps, who will be their ‘fallback’ then? Cuba?

GarandFan on June 28, 2009 at 1:16 PM

a capella on June 28, 2009 at 1:13 PM

Hope she is doing OK now! Went through a rare lymphoma with my wife in 2005. I know how hard it is on the spouse and not just emotionally. God bless.

HoustonRight on June 28, 2009 at 1:16 PM

I wonder how many expatriot Cannadian medical personel are working in the Buffalo hospital. Some don’t like to work in Cannada.

burt on June 28, 2009 at 1:17 PM

Done with debate, and onto ad hominem.

That’s easier, for sure.

AnninCA on June 28, 2009 at 1:09 PM

Typically lib.

Just like Pelosi shuts down the debate from the right.

izoneguy on June 28, 2009 at 1:17 PM

Exit question: If we follow in Canada’s footsteps, who will be their ‘fallback’ then? Cuba?

GarandFan on June 28, 2009 at 1:16 PM

Wealthy people will probably go to Hong Kong or Singapore.

Ann NY on June 28, 2009 at 1:18 PM

Here’s a simple article on what regular people think.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/01/opinion/polls/main2528357.shtml

I tried to find a pablum article on this. I know, folks, that my opinion is not crazy.

Healthcare REFORM was THE number one issue throughout the entire election.

I’m not the ones out of step. Maybe not everyone agrees with my own solutions. That’s probably varied, but I’m definitely not alone in seeing the need for change.

AnninCA on June 28, 2009 at 1:18 PM

Of course CanadaCare works. They have a fallback, the US medical system.

Exit question: If we follow in Canada’s footsteps, who will be their ‘fallback’ then? Cuba?

GarandFan on June 28, 2009 at 1:16 PM

Heh, maybe enough doctors and rich evil medical empires can set-up a fantasy island of medical care out of the clutches of Obama???

izoneguy on June 28, 2009 at 1:19 PM

Those polls are a sham – Just like Obama. You cannot believe anything the MSM & the government spews out there.

You know, the left says exactly the same anytime O isn’t adored.

You guys have more in common with the far left than you think.

Pay attention, instead, to the message. Even if the polls aren’t perfect, SURELY you can see a trend of opinion.

AnninCA on June 28, 2009 at 1:20 PM

Some folks have forgotten the reason why the field of economics even exists.

corona on June 28, 2009 at 1:21 PM

There is one other aspect to the Canadian health care system that further perverts its ability to provide what is set out in the Canada Health Act. Institutions are provided operating money through what is referred to as block funding. Under this scheme a hospital, for example, is provided an estimated amount that has to sustain the facility for the budget period, usually 12 months. There is no relationship to the quantity or quality of care provide to the patients. If there is a demand that exceeds this amount the facility has no choice but to reduce service through extended wait lists or referral to another facility that hopefully has capacity left in their budget. NICU care is capital and operating expense intensive. Hospitals are incented to reduce the quality and quantity of health care like NICU in order to stay within budget. The question is often asked, why are wait lists so long and why do facilities curtail services when there appears to be sufficient funding? The answer is simple. Under this scenario fixed expenses, like salaries, are given priority because they are predictable. Variable expenses, like patient care, receive whatever is left over. This is why operating theaters along with entire floors of hospitals stand empty not providing the services they were built for.
By the way, anyone in the know here in Canada is aware that single payer status is not true. There are at least five other systems that provide critical and chronic care to Canadians. Workers compensation, police and military, along with elected politicians are provided priority access to the system. Many of these entities support and patronize facilities that are outside of the public system. One of the most left wing dogmatic supporter of the restrictive current system, Jack Layton, had a hernia operation at the Shouldice clinic in Toronto, jumping the over one year wait that existed in the public system. Your president said that he would want the best care for his family. This means that they will get access for themselves ahead of you and your family. It happens all the time under our “free”, single payer system.

Brian Mallard on June 28, 2009 at 1:22 PM

Healthcare REFORM was THE number one issue throughout the entire election.

AnninCA on June 28, 2009 at 1:18 PM

It was the Dem’s #1 issue, not the nation’s.

moonsbreath on June 28, 2009 at 1:22 PM

No, not today. Sorry.

AnninCA on June 28, 2009 at 1:14 PM

You get paid by the hour, I see. lol

The problem is not greed, when it comes to end-of-life treatment.

It’s that the Hippocratic Oath compels us as a society to preserve life.

What you are doing is distorting the issue, so that you can justify “mercy killings”, as you alrady advocate convenice-based abortions.

Guess what, Ann? Life is not convenient.

To think that it should be is not only morally dishonest, its gullible.

Why is it that people from California tend to think that life is supposed to be gumdrops and roses, when all the time they are living on a fault line?

(P.S. Don’t answer that…We already know the answer…)

bluelightbrigade on June 28, 2009 at 1:22 PM

Er … free market reform is needed. Tort caps are needed. The refusal of services to people who are here illegally is needed. There are lots of changes that need to be made to the health care industries in the states, but not some backward, illegal step into a federal government-run mess that will destroy all the systems and insure worse care for everyone. The federal government has NO BUSINESS AT ALL in health care and health insurance. NONE. Health care is a state issue, not a federal one. That should be the first point.

If you really want to kick all illegal immigrants off of all state programs, go ahead.

It will, of course, devastate the economy even more in So. Cal. We are intertwined. You’re talking about families where some are legal, some are not, cousin gets care, other cousin dies in the street.

Until every Hummer is gone, and we’re all down to walking to the busstop, I personally do not see people in America willing to walk over dying people, muttering to themselves, you don’t legally belong here, so you deserve it.

Talk about cold.

AnninCA on June 28, 2009 at 1:23 PM

Here’s a simple article on what regular people think.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/01/opinion/polls/main2528357.shtml

I tried to find a pablum article on this. I know, folks, that my opinion is not crazy.

Healthcare REFORM was THE number one issue throughout the entire election.

I’m not the ones out of step. Maybe not everyone agrees with my own solutions. That’s probably varied, but I’m definitely not alone in seeing the need for change.

AnninCA on June 28, 2009 at 1:18 PM

CBS is bogus. They are in the tank for Obama so I don’t believe anything they say or publish. Look how that bogus poll was skewed heavy to democratic voters. This poll has been discredited by almost everyone.

izoneguy on June 28, 2009 at 1:23 PM

The federal government has NO BUSINESS AT ALL in health care and health insurance. NONE. Health care is a state issue, not a federal one. That should be the first point.

progressoverpeace on June 28, 2009 at 1:15 PM

With the one exception that it would be nice if insurance companies could work across state lines.

Count to 10 on June 28, 2009 at 1:23 PM

This is pediatric wait times in Ontario:

http://www.health.gov.on.ca/transformation/wait_times/public/wt_paediatric.html

Ann NY on June 28, 2009 at 1:24 PM

Here’s a simple article on what regular people think.

AnninCA on June 28, 2009 at 1:18 PM

CBS is biased, Ann. They don’t count in an honest debate.

Next…

Give us something Peer-reviewed.

That’s right…you can’t.

bluelightbrigade on June 28, 2009 at 1:24 PM

The problem is not greed, when it comes to end-of-life treatment.

Please, the fraud is well documented. It’s really about that Mercedes lease being up, the mistress who is whining, and the inflated price of the McMansion.

Of course, there are some good doctors. I’m simply saying that this field has been flooded with people who have the sole goal of becoming as rich as possible as fast as possible.

AnninCA on June 28, 2009 at 1:25 PM

If you really want to kick all illegal immigrants off of all state programs, go ahead.

It will, of course, devastate the economy even more in So. Cal. We are intertwined. You’re talking about families where some are legal, some are not, cousin gets care, other cousin dies in the street.

Until every Hummer is gone, and we’re all down to walking to the busstop, I personally do not see people in America willing to walk over dying people, muttering to themselves, you don’t legally belong here, so you deserve it.

Talk about cold.

AnninCA on June 28, 2009 at 1:23 PM

*eye roll*
Maybe if they couldn’t get medical assistance here, they would go back to Mexico to get it rather than die.

Count to 10 on June 28, 2009 at 1:25 PM

Ah, the wonders of government efficiency. Michael Savage tore apart Edie Falco/MSNBC for her advocacy of socialized medicine the other day. It was quite fun.

V15J on June 28, 2009 at 1:26 PM

OK, tell me which institutions you approve of. I’ll go dig out their polls.

Let’s not play this game.

You tell me what you respect.

AnninCA on June 28, 2009 at 1:26 PM

in So. Cal. We are intertwined.

AnninCA on June 28, 2009 at 1:23 PM

Keep your SoCal, Ann. Those of us in the real [vs. pretend] USA don’t want the bs that comes out of your state.

Keep your crap at the state level, and don’t ask us to subsidize your mistakes.

bluelightbrigade on June 28, 2009 at 1:27 PM

With the one exception that it would be nice if insurance companies could work across state lines.

Count to 10 on June 28, 2009 at 1:23 PM

Agreed, though states should work this out on their own, as they do with other state issues.

progressoverpeace on June 28, 2009 at 1:27 PM

OK, tell me which institutions you approve of. I’ll go dig out their polls.

Let’s not play this game.

You tell me what you respect.

AnninCA on June 28, 2009 at 1:26 PM

Oh no. You want to be here all day…YOU do the work.

That’s the point of doing research.

bluelightbrigade on June 28, 2009 at 1:28 PM

AnninCA on June 28, 2009 at 1:18 PM

Uh, 2007?

Did you even bother to look at the numbers in the polls?

Most people are Satisfied with THEIR coverage… but are not happy on a National Level…

Now, think about that for a second. They are not deciding this on Personal experience, or reality, but what the MEDIA and Politicians are TELLING THEM!

“AHHHHH… Its a crises! everyone is in trouble!!! We have to do somthing…” says Mr. Government…

Notice how Bambi has STRESSED in all his speeches that there is a CRISES, but if you are happy with what you have, then you can keep it???? ie, the System is in trouble, even though most people are not?

He has to say that because most people have not experienced problems… thus EVERYONE elses health coverage must be horrible… after all, there is a crises, the Government says so…

Romeo13 on June 28, 2009 at 1:28 PM

Since 2000, 42 of the world’s 52 surviving babies weighing less than 400g (0.9 lbs.) were born in the United States.

Had to pull that quote from the article you linked above. While many of these preemies have extensive health issues, I think this says it all.

cs89 on June 28, 2009 at 1:28 PM

LOL* Busted you.

Rasmussen? Will that work?

AnninCA on June 28, 2009 at 1:28 PM

What part of — you cant have the medical care you need without some DMV or Post Office employee saying its ok– is so hard to understand. Single payer system puts the most incompetent and unqualified people in government (an already inefficient and corrupt bunch of cads) in charge of whether you get the medicine you need in a timely manner…..It shows every day doesnt work.

That baby would be dead if it wasnt for the US. How much more evidence do people need. Canadians are guaranteed some fantasy idea of insurance they are not guaranteed actual health care— isnt that the most evil way of getting people to agree to oppressive taxes and government. Promise them nothing but an intent— “we will try to help you, we promise” — when you call in your time of need its “sorry, we just cant help you”– but every one of you have “insurance” so its all good…right?

So friggin’ stupid, i can not take it. Why do socialists and liberals get away with intentions? Failure after failure and they get away with “meaning well”

Nationalized health care is a way to steal your money and give you the least possible for it. It is the end of America if it passes. Where will dying babies go to be saved, then? As long as Obama goes out for ice cream you know the press doesnt care…..

alecj on June 28, 2009 at 1:29 PM

I was up in Alberta for 3 years on a work visa. In Alberta, I had to pay 40 dollars a month for my free health care. I was surrounded by people with horror stories about lack of access. You need an MRI? 8 month wait. You need a specialist? We can do that in 2 months if you’re willing to buy your own tickets and fly to BC.

CanadaCare sucks!!!

hisfrogness on June 28, 2009 at 1:29 PM

AnninCA on June 28, 2009 at 1:26 PM

I threw you a bone by telling you CBS doesn’t count.

Anyone HA reader with a pulse knows they are in the tank.

bluelightbrigade on June 28, 2009 at 1:29 PM

after all, at least the couple and their baby are guaranteed care up here, thanks to our public system, even if it’s not perfect

Hey, pinhead, a “guarantee” of care is utterly meaningless if there’s nobody available to provide the kind of care you need. And if the U.S. gets scammed into a single-payer system by our corrupt government, Canada won’t be able to use our health care system as its back-up anymore. When that happens, you’ll just have to wait your turn for your imperfect Canadian system to provide your “guaranteed” care — and if you happen to die from your condition while you’re waiting (and a lot of you will), well no doubt that’s a price you’re willing to pay for universal coverage, right?

Idiot.

AZCoyote on June 28, 2009 at 1:30 PM

In Iowa, 70% of all insured are with ONE company

AnninCA on June 28, 2009 at 12:43 PM

FINAL REPORT: Legislative Commission on Affordable Health Care Plans for Small Businesses and Families; January 2008:

A majority of businesses in Iowa are small businesses, with less than 50 employees and most have less than 10 employees. In the small group health insurance market 28 carriers sell such insurance, but six of those carriers sell over 90 percent of the insurance.

PDF link: http://www.desmoinesregister.com/assets/pdf/D29615219.DOC

So Ann, you are batting average continues to be zero.

Should we trust that your misstatement was simply an error on your part, or should we distrust your intentions, like you recommend we distrust our doctors?

So, for us to answer this, it would help to have a truthful answer to the following question: Are you a doctor or a government agent?

Loxodonta on June 28, 2009 at 1:30 PM

LOL* Busted you.

Rasmussen? Will that work?

AnninCA on June 28, 2009 at 1:28 PM

Nope. Not peer-reviewed.

bluelightbrigade on June 28, 2009 at 1:30 PM

Until every Hummer is gone, and we’re all down to walking to the busstop, I personally do not see people in America willing to walk over dying people, muttering to themselves, you don’t legally belong here, so you deserve it.

Talk about cold.

AnninCA on June 28, 2009 at 1:23 PM

But, it isn’t cold to send an elderly patient with treatable cancer home to die because they fall on the wrong side of a bell shaped curve?

a capella on June 28, 2009 at 1:30 PM

Last year, in LA, a woman died in the ER room. Couldn’t get anyone to even do intake. We regularly have to sue hospitals to STOP dumping patients on the sidewalks in front of the homeless shelters. The people are unable to walk, even talk, half the time.

AnninCA on June 28, 2009 at 12:51 PM

You’re like Obama – you only hear what you want to hear.

The same thing happens in Canada – there was a prominent case in Winnipeg (big city) last year.

You are acting as if hospitals that are funded solely by the government suddenly no longer have to act (well or badly) to manage costs.

You couldn’t possibly be more wrong.

The case that is the impetus for this thread is a result of hospitals managing costs by closing beds. This means that we have to export patients as in this example, and it happens routinely. The only reason this one made the news is because the parents don’t have passports and can’t travel to be with their infant.

Another consequence of closing beds is shortened hospital stays (my father was released 4 days after by-pass surgery), or no stay (as in the case of my mother with the cracked pelvis) and an increasing number of procedures conducted on an outpatient basis. They tried that with mastectomies but it resulted in so much bad press they stopped.

Yet another way hospitals have managed costs is by closing emergency rooms. I live in a very large city that now has only two. This means longer waiting times when you get there, and for many a considerably longer time to get to an emergency room. It also often means that if you have to be admitted, you have to be transferred to another facility because…

Another way hospitals are managing costs is by specializing in certain kinds of care. We have one hospital that does pediatric care, another that does cancer treatment, etc. Patients often have to be moved from one hospital to another for a specific test (e.g. an angiogram). Imagine living 2 blocks from a hospital but having to travel for 45 minutes each way to visit your loved one. Imagine being very ill and being moved in the dead of a Canadian winter to another hospital to have an angiogram done. Imagine being an Orthodox Jewish woman and being put in the same room as several men because that’s the only bed available.

ProfessorMiao on June 28, 2009 at 1:30 PM

With the one exception that it would be nice if insurance companies could work across state lines.

Count to 10 on June 28, 2009 at 1:23 PM

Agreed, though states should work this out on their own, as they do with other state issues.

progressoverpeace on June 28, 2009 at 1:27 PM

The government controls the insurance industry. The government won’t let them compete. SO the governments solution is to burden the 80% of people who are happy with the system so that they can take control of another 1/5 of the American economy. Take Over – Plain & Simple. It will get worse.
The ones on the edge now will be crushed by the government plan.

izoneguy on June 28, 2009 at 1:31 PM

If this dizzy and poorly thought out, 4 trillion boondoggle actually passes, do you think it can be got rid of down the line? Or modified? I hate to think of the future it might usher in. Also, Medicare costs between 3 and 4 thousand a year per recipient including the olbigatory supplemental policy. I wonder if all those who think the health care will actually be FREE are grossly mis-informed. Only Medicaid is free or almost free.

jeanie on June 28, 2009 at 1:31 PM

But, it isn’t cold to send an elderly patient with treatable cancer home to die because they fall on the wrong side of a bell shaped curve?

a capella on June 28, 2009 at 1:30 PM

In parts of Africa, they call it “sending them to the village.”

There’s a reason people bust down the gates to get here.

bluelightbrigade on June 28, 2009 at 1:32 PM

I’d like to see commonsense. When the solution is worse than the problem, THINK!
Ann, who are you to say that the solution is “worse” – it is not your mother that we are talking about – your country has a high number of people living well beyond 100. AND it is the right of the family to make a decision as to whether it is “worse” or not.

No one disagrees that the solution could be “worse” – we are only disagreeing on who exactly should make that call – you/your mother who may want pain relief and are willing to go for the surgery or the Government that will leave you and your mother with NO OPTION.

Are’nt you the same people who vociferously cry that a Government should not come in between a woman and her doctor when it comes to abortion ? You now want the Government telling you what kind of treatment “makes sense” to your own mother ?

Have you EVEN thought about the people who may disagree with you and are now forced into a govt run health care system because of people like you who voted for Obama ? Do these people have a choice on how to treat their elderly parents ?? When a Govt run health care system is in place, they dont have a choice.

This goes from mere political disagreement to affecting a person’s life directly.

The purpose should be to be realistic, keep people comfortable as possible, and none of us are going to live forever.

And what makes you think that the Government is better at doing this ? Even more importantly what role does the Government have in deciding what is realistic and what is comfortable ?

It is at times like these that we are reminded that we are dealing with “liberals” in the true sense of the word. Mark Steyn calls people like you what you are – Statists.

Medical practices that pretend that there’s no end to life don’t help the patient. They may make the family feel better, but not the actual person suffering.And too often, the real motive is greed.
Another typical statist whine – “We know that Greed is the cause of all this” ! God, what is it with you people always ready to trust the Government more than you would trust your own doctor !

Medical practitioners are not doing any “pretending” – when a doctor takes the Hippocratic oath I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone. they mean it. Atleast a great majority of them do – thats why we even have a medical system with all its inefficiencies.

You may have a point about unnecessary tests being ordered by doctors but this would not be end of life cases we are talking about – but even these doctors order these tests so that they can COVER THEIR ASSES and not get sued to millions of dollars by the family accusing the doctor of not provding enough or good medical care.

This is why people keep talking about tort reform – but when you have a Democrat party full of ambulance chasing trial lawyers, you may as well expect to see Santa Claus in the North pole.

nagee76 on June 28, 2009 at 1:32 PM

Last year, in LA, a woman died in the ER room. Couldn’t get anyone to even do intake. We regularly have to sue hospitals to STOP dumping patients on the sidewalks in front of the homeless shelters. The people are unable to walk, even talk, half the time.

AnninCA on June 28, 2009 at 12:51 PM

Even if that were true, which I doubt, it still talks about a capacity issue.

Socializing medicine only exacerbates the problem.

bluelightbrigade on June 28, 2009 at 1:33 PM

If you really want to kick all illegal immigrants off of all state programs, go ahead.

First of all, they are ‘illegal aliens’, not ‘illegal immigrants’. And, yes, I do want them kicked off of any and all state, local and federal programs. I want them kicked out of the country, since they have no right to be here and don’t belong here.

It will, of course, devastate the economy even more in So. Cal. We are intertwined. You’re talking about families where some are legal, some are not, cousin gets care, other cousin dies in the street.

That’s tough. If they are illegally here, they must leave. Period.

Until every Hummer is gone, and we’re all down to walking to the busstop, I personally do not see people in America willing to walk over dying people, muttering to themselves, you don’t legally belong here, so you deserve it.

Please. People walk over homeless people all the time. If you are here illegally, you deserve nothing. If you don’t like it, stay out until you are allowed to come, legally. No one has a “right” to be in America, just because they decide so. It’s our country, not theirs. They have their own countries.

Talk about cold.

AnninCA on June 28, 2009 at 1:23 PM

That’s national sovereignty. Tough. If you don’t like laws being enforced, then you are nothing but a savage who would rather all of society go down the sh!tter. People like you are a threat to the civilized world.

progressoverpeace on June 28, 2009 at 1:34 PM

Most people are Satisfied with THEIR coverage… but are not happy on a National Level…

I’ve always thought the key to polls is reading the real message.

People who have good benefits through their employer are happy. Well, relatively speaking.

But….we ALL have friends who have lost those jobs, ended up without that safety net. Or family members.

I’m convinced that most normal people in this country “get” this problem.

And they know there needs to be a portable plan that can help. It’s great to see my own friends take those 2 jobs, etc., but healthcare still isn’t available. That’s frightening. I think people are willing to work at Trader Joe’s, etc., but we need access to real healthcare to make this transition work.

That is truly why I’m such a proponent of the public option.

AnninCA on June 28, 2009 at 1:35 PM

Agreed, though states should work this out on their own, as they do with other state issues.

progressoverpeace on June 28, 2009 at 1:27 PM

I keep thinking that the Senate would be the appropriate place for this kind of thing, but that would be going back to the idea that the Senators are supposed to represent the governments of the individual states.

Count to 10 on June 28, 2009 at 1:36 PM

That’s national sovereignty. Tough. If you don’t like laws being enforced, then you are nothing but a savage who would rather all of society go down the sh!tter. People like you are a threat to the civilized world.

I take it you’re an immigration is everything nutcase.

AnninCA on June 28, 2009 at 1:36 PM

Annie on the West Coast seems to talk about “suing” a lot. Let me guess. A lawyer. A lawyer who obviously hates doctors.

The number one thing we could do to bring down health care costs is tort reform. Barry dismisses it out of hand. The trial lawyers are his peeps, after all. He loves ‘em almost as much as he loves the unions. And he REALLY loves the unions.

Meredith on June 28, 2009 at 1:37 PM

“…(after all, at least the couple and their baby are guaranteed care up here, thanks to our public system, even if it’s not perfect) — there was an opening south of the border.”

This line stuns me. What good does it do to be “guaranteed care” if the system “guaranteeing” that care is too poorly funded to actually provide it when needed?

Amazing.

Will Americans be going “south of the border” for treatment when ObamaCare becomes reality?

God help us all.

cruadin on June 28, 2009 at 1:38 PM

I take it you’re an immigration is everything nutcase.

AnninCA on June 28, 2009 at 1:36 PM

I take it you’re an immigration is everything nutcase.

Count to 10 on June 28, 2009 at 1:38 PM

no “even if” about it

corona on June 28, 2009 at 1:41 PM

Socializing medicine only exacerbates the problem.

Forgive me if you’ve already read my reply on this. A recent Texas hospital did a review of their ER costs. 90% of the charged costs came down to 11 patients, who had chronic conditions which they couldn’t afford to have treated and, therefore, ended up in ER in crisis.

A lot of these cases were diabetes-related, btw.

There’s a case where prevention saves real bucks. Get them onto a real program? We all benefit.

What’s crazy about this is that the medical profession has lost control of the discussion, too. It happened long ago.

They have told us, for example, for years that anti-biotics do NOT treat viral conditions. Yet, they caved to patients demanding anti-biotics for viral conditions. As a result, we now have serious problems, since anti-biotics have been abused. This is in spite of real medical information.

This is because doctors are enabling more than just drug addicts.

They give into patients, even if it’s bad medicine.

AnninCA on June 28, 2009 at 1:41 PM

jeanie on June 28, 2009 at 1:31 PM

No. There was a good article on this on Powerline.com a few days ago. The conclusion was that between cap and trade and the health care bill, the health care bill is far the most dangerous, simply because it can’t be reversed once put into place and woven into our social fabric, while cap and trade can be repealed.

a capella on June 28, 2009 at 1:41 PM

Forgive me if you’ve already read my reply on this. A recent Texas hospital did a review of their ER costs. 90% of the charged costs came down to 11 patients, who had chronic conditions which they couldn’t afford to have treated and, therefore, ended up in ER in crisis.

A lot of these cases were diabetes-related, btw.

There’s a case where prevention saves real bucks. Get them onto a real program? We all benefit.

AnninCA on June 28, 2009 at 1:41 PM

Sounds like a good case for private charities to take up. You seem interested in it, why don’t you give it a shot?

Count to 10 on June 28, 2009 at 1:43 PM

Annie on the West Coast seems to talk about “suing” a lot. Let me guess. A lawyer. A lawyer who obviously hates doctors.

Not even close. I suspect I’m a doctor’s dream, actually. I actually pay attention, follow directions, and consider my health mostly my responsibility.

I can’t picture me arguing, frankly. I would sue if they removed the wrong kidney or something stupid.

AnninCA on June 28, 2009 at 1:43 PM

AnninCa, national health care always sounds so wonderful in the beginning but the dirty details will evolve and create a nightmare for many US citizens who have no desire to gamble with their health.

My Canadian grandfather received three years of 24-hour, in-home care, which was free of charge, in the mid-80′s and we were blessed with his presence for much longer than we thought due to the largesse of the Canadian health care system.

Fast forward:

In 2004, another relative in Canada had constant headaches, waited six months to be diagnosed, and another three months to begin treatments. He died of a brain tumor the week before his first treatment.

Most people are opposed to the plan being proposed because they can see the future and they don’t like it. Healthcare reform is worthy of discussion but it has to move past the “feel good” stage, which is where your “72%” seem to want to stay.

sherry on June 28, 2009 at 1:45 PM

Lot of people without that safety net. But forcing others to give up their net so you, your friends and family can have yours is not acceptable. Obama’s plan would reduce the quality and quantity of health care for many in order to provide mediocre and less available healthcare to all. Sorry! But many like the status quo and do not feel it’s their job to provide you and yours with care at the expense of their own. Call them crazy and selfish!! Now, if O can come up with a plan that provides y’all with care and does not reduce or compromise their own–you know what? They’d most likely buy into it. (incidentally, his plan is rumored to still leave a lot of folks out in the cold anyway.)Also, I don’t see obama and company having to jump on his objectionable proposed bandwagon. What if??

jeanie on June 28, 2009 at 1:45 PM

but we need access to real healthcare to make this transition work.

That is truly why I’m such a proponent of the public option.

AnninCA on June 28, 2009 at 1:35 PM

You mean “access to real healthcare” like the Canadian system provided here?

cs89 on June 28, 2009 at 1:46 PM

That is truly why I’m such a proponent of the public option.

AnninCA on June 28, 2009 at 1:35 PM

There already ARE portable plans. You CAN buy your own health insurance.

The entire reason we are in this mess is because of the way the Feds set up the Tax system. They gave COMPANIES a tax credit to offset the costs of healthcare, instead of the individual getting that offset. Thus, when people loose their job, Healthcare costs become prohibitive.

The Repbulican plan put out before the election would give a Tax CREDIT to everyone in America to use to buy Health Insurance, and take that same tax credit FROM the companys, thus disconecting Health Insurance from employment.

What you Libs want though is for the Taxpayer to pay for the health care of the poor. Your plan is simple wealth redistribution, and you have created a “crises” to push that agenda through.

The end result of any government funded plan will be the total elimination of the Private Health Insurance system. People will not PAY for somthing TWICE, and since they will already be paying for it with their taxes, they will move onto the subsidized government plan.

Yes, Obama is nice enough to say you can keep your plan if you are happy with it…. but you will end up paying for it TWICE.

Romeo13 on June 28, 2009 at 1:47 PM

A lot of these cases were diabetes-related, btw.

There’s a case where prevention saves real bucks.

I agree.

Now. Tell that to the doctor who will get sued for telling her patients they are too fat and sedentary and are about to get diabetes b/c of their lifestyle.

I know the ER game. I live in an urban area, and poor people use the ER like its their family doctor.

No SHIT its expensive. Our local hospitals have begun creating urgent-care alternatives to divert these costly patients, and have had succeess in doing so.

The REAL prevention is teaching the “poor” to USE prevention, and to USE a clinic, and to USE a family doctor…all instead of the ER.

The ER is for emergencies. Period.

So…thanks for proving my point, Ann.

bluelightbrigade on June 28, 2009 at 1:47 PM

Annie on the West Coast seems to talk about “suing” a lot. Let me guess. A lawyer. A lawyer who obviously hates doctors.

The number one thing we could do to bring down health care costs is tort reform. Barry dismisses it out of hand. The trial lawyers are his peeps, after all. He loves ‘em almost as much as he loves the unions. And he REALLY loves the unions.

Meredith on June 28, 2009 at 1:37 PM

Will the same kinds of liability still attach to government run programs? Why should predatory lawyers want this to come about? Surely the government will not be liable.

a capella on June 28, 2009 at 1:47 PM

I can’t picture me arguing, frankly.

AnninCA on June 28, 2009 at 1:43 PM

Thank you so much for that! It’s the funniest thing you’ve ever posted. I shall treasure it.

Loxodonta on June 28, 2009 at 1:48 PM

no “even if” about it

corona on June 28, 2009 at 1:41 PM

Sounds like the only issue is that the expert on the scene didn’t think she was showing signs of anything dangerous. Everything else seems to be a reasonable response to that.

Count to 10 on June 28, 2009 at 1:48 PM

Point back to them that the patient’s government can pick up the tab. They can afford it.

Blake on June 28, 2009 at 11:28 AM

Does the Canadian government (or any gov that send patients to us and has socialized health care) reimburse the US hospital for the FULL cost of treatment or do they only pay us what they have set in their system as the cost of treatment, in this case NICU treatment?

Does anyone know?

journeyintothewhirlwind on June 28, 2009 at 1:49 PM

I’ve also already shared this. I was with Kaiser. Throughout that time, Kaiser had horrible PR. People HATED HMOs. Oh, this was the great evil to healthcare.

I loved it. It was logical. I’d take my kid in with that typical stomach bug deal? No overtreatment. They’d make sure it was just that, hand me a print-out. We’d start with bananas, clear broth, work our way up.

This type of healthcare strikes me as actually good. I’ve watched and seen so many people just get deeper and deeper into the idea that a pill can fix everything. Then, they come back and share about all the complications. I just listen in real life. I’m not so stupid as to talk about this in public company. *haha

They are so messed up from all that “care.”

But…I’ll admit. I come from Midwestern “stock.” We don’t much like medical interference. I rejected drugs through menapause, too. Sure enough, now we know some of those drugs really have had bad consequences.

I still recommend my solution. The refrigerator. Yep, open the door, stand in front of it naked, and you’ll be more comfortable in seconds. *haha

AnninCA on June 28, 2009 at 1:51 PM

Count to 10 on June 28, 2009 at 1:48 PM

Yep. And if you actually read the article, the errors in judgement led to ramifications for the hospital and personnel.

Nobody’s saying “just let them die” as the status quo. Probably be some lawsuits and firings, and policy changes as well.

cs89 on June 28, 2009 at 1:52 PM

AnninCA on June 28, 2009 at 1:10 PM

There are polls that show that 86% of people with health insurance are satisfied with their insurance.

Do we listen to those people too?

Or do we just decide that, for a few million people that lack insurance, we need to drastically change the entire system?

As for the stat that 70% of people in Iowa have the same health insurance provider, if true, it doesn’t bug me at all. When free people are allowed to choose what they want, they often choose the same things. 78.4% of Americans identify as Christian – this doesn’t mean we aren’t free to choose any religion we’d like or no religion at all.

JadeNYU on June 28, 2009 at 1:52 PM

If we get single-payer/government/socialized health care here in the US…where will we go when there aren’t beds, nor doctors, nor any other options within the US?

Canada? UK?

Medical “tourism” to China and India seems to be a nascent industry…might be a good investment for the long haul.

And, if and when members of Congress, the White House, or the Hollywood bunch have a critical medical emergency…will they get in line behind others who were in line first for limited available care? Or will they be granted exemptions to policy merely because of who they are?

Imperfect as it is, it is still the best medical care in the world, that which we now have. But, demand, and the free flow of dollars by private medical industry to critical areas is what keeps it the best in the world.

Like Global Climate Change and Government Motors Corporation and all the rest this Administration and this Congress has foisted upon us, socialized medical care will prove to be a deadly disaster.

The proof is already clear.

coldwarrior on June 28, 2009 at 1:52 PM

Forgive me if you’ve already read my reply on this. A recent Texas hospital did a review of their ER costs. 90% of the charged costs came down to 11 patients, who had chronic conditions which they couldn’t afford to have treated and, therefore, ended up in ER in crisis.

A lot of these cases were diabetes-related, btw.

There’s a case where prevention saves real bucks. Get them onto a real program? We all benefit.

What’s crazy about this is that the medical profession has lost control of the discussion, too. It happened long ago.

They have told us, for example, for years that anti-biotics do NOT treat viral conditions. Yet, they caved to patients demanding anti-biotics for viral conditions. As a result, we now have serious problems, since anti-biotics have been abused. This is in spite of real medical information.

This is because doctors are enabling more than just drug addicts.

They give into patients, even if it’s bad medicine.

AnninCA on June 28, 2009 at 1:41 PM

The problem is that healthcare is already about 50% socialized. In a free market you see high quality with doctors competing with eachother for business and this would FINALLY reveal true market prices for drugs. Right now the regulation has left the pharmaceutical industry with only a few major players so competition is restricted and then you have the 10 years thing to become a doctor INSTEAD of apprenticeships that used to be successful, so we now see a shortage of doctors. The government has banned freelance doctors and made them all go into the hospitals or in highly regulated doctor offices. The shortage thereof makes competition difficult because demand is bigger than supply. The government has created and perpetuated the problem ever since it began meddling with healthcare.

In the “wild west” healthcare was cheap, affordable, and everyone got their needs met. It was doctor and patient, no government involvement. The insurance industry came able because of government driving up the prices for everything. Technology drives down prices in every industry…besides healthcare. odd, very odd. then you look and see why this is so. oh yess..because of government!

Libertarian Joseph on June 28, 2009 at 1:52 PM

bluelightbrigade on June 28, 2009 at 1:47 PM

P.S. For being a liberal, oyu certainly are ignorant re: the culture of poverty.

I recommend starting here:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj16n1-1.html

bluelightbrigade on June 28, 2009 at 1:53 PM

Thank you so much for that! It’s the funniest thing you’ve ever posted. I shall treasure it.

I’m definitely intimidating, even in regular life. But I sincerely avoid exercising that.

On-line? Hey, that’s different.

But yeah, I laughed, too. I honestly am very good with doctors and rarely argue.

AnninCA on June 28, 2009 at 1:54 PM

I’m definitely intimidating, even in regular life.

Sure you are, Grrrl.

bluelightbrigade on June 28, 2009 at 1:55 PM

In the “wild west” healthcare was cheap, affordable, and everyone got their needs met. It was doctor and patient, no government involvement. The insurance industry came able because of government driving up the prices for everything. Technology drives down prices in every industry…besides healthcare. odd, very odd. then you look and see why this is so. oh yess..because of government!

That’s a good point, actually. I still don’t understand why cancer treatment is so sky-high.

What’s up with that?

AnninCA on June 28, 2009 at 1:56 PM

it is time we eliminate medicare, medicaid, and ss! Then what will happen? private charity will step in. people will SAVE again. private investments increase, which is very good for the economy. Philanthropy would increase in AMERICA because of the need and the means because people would be keeping more of their own money and thus able to send more to charity

Libertarian Joseph on June 28, 2009 at 1:56 PM

Technology drives down prices in every industry…besides healthcare. odd, very odd. then you look and see why this is so. oh yess..because of government!

Libertarian Joseph on June 28, 2009 at 1:52 PM

Admittedly, the technological advances in health care have tended toward expanding the circumstances in which treatment can be purchased at any price.

Count to 10 on June 28, 2009 at 1:57 PM

Sure you are, Grrrl.

Alas, it’s true. Chalk it up to a very supportive dad. He over-encouraged me. LOL*

AnninCA on June 28, 2009 at 1:57 PM

Socializing medicine only exacerbates the problem.

They have told us, for example, for years that anti-biotics do NOT treat viral conditions. Yet, they caved to patients demanding anti-biotics for viral conditions. As a result, we now have serious problems, since anti-biotics have been abused. This is in spite of real medical information.

This is because doctors are enabling more than just drug addicts.

They give into patients, even if it’s bad medicine.

AnninCA on June 28, 2009 at 1:41 PM

Please provide me with evidence that socialized systems of medicine are less prone to the overprescription of medicines. You can limit yourself to antibiotics if you like, but I’ve already challenged you on this on a more general level and you ignored it and chose instead to misinterpret my comment about the duration and expense of medical training.

ProfessorMiao on June 28, 2009 at 1:57 PM

That’s a good point, actually. I still don’t understand why cancer treatment is so sky-high.

What’s up with that?

AnninCA on June 28, 2009 at 1:56 PM

Presumably, two things: the treatment consumes a large amount of resources, and malpractice lawsuit costs are probably factored in.

Count to 10 on June 28, 2009 at 1:59 PM

Sure you are, Grrrl.

Alas, it’s true. Chalk it up to a very supportive dad. He over-encouraged me. LOL*

AnninCA on June 28, 2009 at 1:57 PM

So that’s why you show up for spankings on HA, isn’t it?

;)

bluelightbrigade on June 28, 2009 at 1:59 PM

Surely the US and Canada can agree to temporary measures that will allow the parents to cross the border, even if under embassy supervision and security, to join their child.

Isn’t the concern suppose to be for the baby? The premature baby does not have the foggiest notion of who his/her parents are, so why spend even more money, on top of all the medical expenses, paying security personnel to watch the parents?

As Michael notes, keeping them away from their child at this critical juncture is needlessly cruel.

It is not cruel at all. Michael either likes to slander people and/or he is very immature or has become hysterical.

MB4 on June 28, 2009 at 2:00 PM

Sure you are, Grrrl.

Alas, it’s true. Chalk it up to a very supportive dad. He over-encouraged me. LOL*

AnninCA on June 28, 2009 at 1:57 PM

So that’s why you show up for spankings on HA, isn’t it?

;)

bluelightbrigade on June 28, 2009 at 1:59 PM

P.S. Less talking, more reading. You have work to do, my child.

bluelightbrigade on June 28, 2009 at 2:00 PM

So that’s why you show up for spankings on HA, isn’t it?

;)

bluelightbrigade on June 28, 2009 at 1:59 PM

Narcissism.

Loxodonta on June 28, 2009 at 2:02 PM

Please provide me with evidence that socialized systems of medicine are less prone to the overprescription of medicines. You can limit yourself to antibiotics if you like, but I’ve already challenged you on this on a more general level and you ignored it and chose instead to misinterpret my comment about the duration and expense of medical training.

I don’t think anyone has explored that. But I think it’s a terrific question, frankly.

It’s authentically at the basis of some of my own opinions. I think greed is really actually fueling some major medical issues. We’re overdosing. We’ve also ineplicably encouraged lawsuits with all this “freedom” talk.

Here’s a snippit. Friends of mine adopted a child with behavior problems. They took her to UCLA. After observing, UCLA said, “This is a parent/child issue. She’s fine, chemically speaking.”

The mother couldn’t tolerate the answer. She is always shopping for doctors to label her child.

I won’t share the end of that story. It’s too sad. But something is “off” when you can’t take the best advice available.

AnninCA on June 28, 2009 at 2:04 PM

Narcissism.

Today’s favorite label. It’s used constantly on left blogs, too.

Congrats. You’ve merged.

AnninCA on June 28, 2009 at 2:05 PM

I’m definitely intimidating, even in regular life. But I sincerely avoid exercising that.

On-line? Hey, that’s different.

But yeah, I laughed, too. I honestly am very good with doctors and rarely argue.

AnninCA on June 28, 2009 at 1:54 PM

Based on this thread, I’d say that you are deaf, as in unable to hear what people are saying to you.

ProfessorMiao on June 28, 2009 at 2:06 PM

They are so messed up from all that “care.”

But…I’ll admit. I come from Midwestern “stock.” We don’t much like medical interference. I rejected drugs through menapause, too. Sure enough, now we know some of those drugs really have had bad consequences.

I still recommend my solution. The refrigerator. Yep, open the door, stand in front of it naked, and you’ll be more comfortable in seconds. *haha

AnninCA on June 28, 2009 at 1:51 PM

Well, that’s lovely. And you’re lucky. You’re talking about things that you have some choice about. Wait till you get something that is a real ailment, and let’s see how you eschew the medication and treatment then.

Maybe you never will. In that case, I’m sure you’ll chalk it up to your inherent superiority, too.

I’m grateful to my doctors and the researchers who have made it possible for me to continue living. And I’d like to continue living, even after I get to the point where Obama says we can’t count “spirit.” Which means – we count age, and whether or not the person is worthy of treatment.

Alana on June 28, 2009 at 2:07 PM

Narcissism.

Today’s favorite label. It’s used constantly on left blogs, too.

Congrats. You’ve merged.

AnninCA on June 28, 2009 at 2:05 PM

Go read, Ann.

You’re way off topic and embarrassing yourself.

I’m only telling this b/c I care. :)

bluelightbrigade on June 28, 2009 at 2:08 PM

I think greed is really actually fueling some major medical issues.

Greed is the engine that creates the incentive for new innovation. Without greed we will would have no microsoft, no burger king, no malls, no computers, no APPLE, no ipods, no cell phones. they didn’t put them on the market for the “common good,” honey

Libertarian Joseph on June 28, 2009 at 2:09 PM

Based on this thread, I’d say that you are deaf, as in unable to hear what people are saying to you.

Today, I’ve read every post. I can’t respond to everything.

I’m the only opponent here today. It would be impossible to answer everyone! Even if I did, it would just generate “narcissist” comments.

Suffice to say, I think public option should be tried. Hey, if it fails?

Then, fine. Ditch it.

But I think it’s a real solution that could help and make sense.

I do agree with Hillary on this one, however. It has to be mandatory.

And it’s obviously not going to be free.

AnninCA on June 28, 2009 at 2:09 PM

it’s ironic that the best thing for the “proletariat” is free market capitalism. you want democracy in the economy? that’s how you do it. not with big government and special interest unions backed up by government. that’s just plain ol’ fascism and communism

Libertarian Joseph on June 28, 2009 at 2:11 PM

(after all, at least the couple and their baby are guaranteed care up here, thanks to our public system, even if it’s not perfect)

Which is why the kid had to come here.

It’s amazing. Not only do they think these things, but they actually write them down.

Jim Treacher on June 28, 2009 at 2:12 PM

I’m only telling this b/c I care. :)/blockquote>

Of course, I don’t believe you or care.

Seriously, I talk about this on left blogs, too. They really DO think their massage therapists are legitimate medical expenses.

LOL*

Some of the fears of the right are legitimate. It WILL have to be controlled.

What I don’t get? So? Just say, public option gets you THIS.

List it out, just like we now do with private policies.

We know how to do this.

AnninCA on June 28, 2009 at 2:12 PM

Please provide me with evidence that socialized systems of medicine are less prone to the overprescription of medicines. You can limit yourself to antibiotics if you like, but I’ve already challenged you on this on a more general level and you ignored it and chose instead to misinterpret my comment about the duration and expense of medical training.

I don’t think anyone has explored that. But I think it’s a terrific question, frankly.

It’s authentically at the basis of some of my own opinions. I think greed is really actually fueling some major medical issues. We’re overdosing. We’ve also ineplicably encouraged lawsuits with all this “freedom” talk.

[anecdote deleted]

AnninCA on June 28, 2009 at 2:04 PM

I asked because this issue is prominent in your litany of complaints about the current US medical system and is one that, by implication, you imply will be resolved with a government plan.

If you cared to do a modicum of research, you would find that the problem of overprescription is an extremely serious one in Canada, despite our government-funded single-payer system. But then I’d be repeating myself.

This is why I think you’re deaf, Ann. You aren’t hearing what people are telling you.

ProfessorMiao on June 28, 2009 at 2:13 PM

AnninCA on June 28, 2009 at 2:09 PM

Ann, you know that once the public option is “tried” it can never be “ditched”…look at Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, which are horribly funded and going bankrupt…why do you want to add more to the kitty?

ladyingray on June 28, 2009 at 2:13 PM

Greed is the engine that creates the incentive for new innovation. Without greed we will would have no microsoft, no burger king, no malls, no computers, no APPLE, no ipods, no cell phones. they didn’t put them on the market for the “common good,” honey

I’ve thought about this alot, and history really helps me sort this out. Capitalism out of control leads to exactly where we are at. Then, we’ve always reined them back. Sometimes, we overreact and slap down too many restraints.

I’ve decided, personally, it’s a give and take system.

AnninCA on June 28, 2009 at 2:15 PM

ProfessorMiao on June 28, 2009 at 2:13 PM

It’s selective deafness…you know, like that a child has?

ladyingray on June 28, 2009 at 2:15 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5