Canadian Health Officials: Our Universal Health Care Is 'Sick,' Private Insurance Sho

[Run To State]

“We know there must be change,” Doig said in a recent interview. “We’re all running flat out, we’re all just trying to stay ahead of the immediate day-to-day demands.”

 

Canada’s universal health care system is not giving patients optimal care, Doig added. When her colleagues from across the country gather at the CMA conference in Saskatoon Sunday, they will discuss changes that need to be made, she said.

 

“We all agree the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize,” she said.

 

"(Canadians) have to understand that the system that we have right now — if it keeps on going without change — is not sustainable," Doig said.

 

Link

[BaseballIsLife]

Obama might want to heed the advice of our Northern Neighbors based off this article.

[Clyde]

Obama might want to heed the advice of our Northern Neighbors based off this article.

 

You mean "If Obama is proposing single payer he may want...."

 

These comparisons by many to Canada are tiresome and pointless.

 

My Canadian associate will tell you its not perfect. I tell him ours isn't either. Canada is not looking to go to ours. We're not looking to go to theirs.

[stickymitts]

You mean "If Obama is proposing single payer he may want...."

 

These comparisons by many to Canada are tiresome and pointless.

 

My Canadian associate will tell you its not perfect. I tell him ours isn't either. Canada is not looking to go to ours. We're not looking to go to theirs.

 

I must know, do you fully support the Obama Healthcare Plan?

[Clyde]

I must know, do you fully support the Obama Healthcare Plan?

 

I support aspects of it. However, as I've stated previously on here, very few if any know all of the aspects of any of the 5 plans being floated.

 

Cost is obviously a concern however taxpayers burden in the next 10 to 20 years is only going to get worse so it may be two bad options.

[leatherneck]

I support aspects of it. However, as I've stated previously on here, very few if any know all of the aspects of any of the 5 plans being floated.

 

Cost is obviously a concern however taxpayers burden in the next 10 to 20 years is only going to get worse so it may be two bad options.

 

Isn't that the craziness of the town hall meetings being held? How can you ask people to support the reform legislation when there are 5 different plans being floated?

 

On the other hand, I think you can be opposed to the reform legislation on the simple grounds that you have no idea what the actual law may be and until there is a definite plan that you can study and understand, you are opposed to the legislation moving forward. Unless of course you trust and believe that our elected officials in Congress will do the smart thing on their own. I'm not willing to place that trust in them, because I know that, as a taxpayer, I will be burdened with their decision. I'm sorry but I think I fund enough welfare programs as it is. Perhaps if we were to eliminate other welfare programs I might be more willing to fund someone's health care needs.

[Clyde]

Isn't that the craziness of the town hall meetings being held? How can you ask people to support the reform legislation when there are 5 different plans being floated?

 

On the other hand, I think you can be opposed to the reform legislation on the simple grounds that you have no idea what the actual law may be and until there is a definite plan that you can study and understand, you are opposed to the legislation moving forward. Unless of course you trust and believe that our elected officials in Congress will do the smart thing on their own. I'm not willing to place that trust in them, because I know that, as a taxpayer, I will be burdened with their decision. I'm sorry but I think I fund enough welfare programs as it is. Perhaps if we were to eliminate other welfare programs I might be more willing to fund someone's health care needs.

 

LN - in general even before this fiasco known as town hall meetings, I believe that not much is accomplished at such events. So going to argue that grandma is going to be killed or that X million people are uninsured or.... is ridiculous and unproductive.

 

Your argument is my argument. You can't truly know where you stand unless you are arguing at a philosophical level.

 

Do you consider tax payer money being used for uninsured welfare?

[leatherneck]

LN - in general even before this fiasco known as town hall meetings, I believe that not much is accomplished at such events. So going to argue that grandma is going to be killed or that X million people are uninsured or.... is ridiculous and unproductive.

 

Your argument is my argument. You can't truly know where you stand unless you are arguing at a philosophical level.

 

Do you consider tax payer money being used for uninsured welfare?

 

To your question: I do. I think using my taxes to pay for Section 8 housing is welfare. I think paying more out Social Security money to a recipient than the recipient actually contributed (with investment income allowed) is welfare. I think providing free breakfasts to children in school is welfare. I think welfare payments are, well, welfare. I think lots of federal programs fit within my "definition" of welfare all of which I'm philosophically opposed to but some of which I may be willing to support out of compassion (Get off the floor. I do have some compassion. )

 

Now let me read your rationale why you don't think it is welfare, for I know you well enough to know that you wouldn't have asked the question if you think it isn't. Maybe I'll change my mind.

 

As to the town hall comment about not much being accomplished, I agree. They are used by politicians to get sound bytes and video to later be used hopefully to push the politicians political agenda. Of course when the sound bytes and video don't quite come out the way the politicians hoped they would, the people attending are mobs.

[75center]

Obama might want to heed the advice of our Northern Neighbors based off this article.

 

Hasn't he already said that the system used in Canada would not work here?

[Clyde]

To your question: I do. I think using my taxes to pay for Section 8 housing is welfare. I think paying more out Social Security money to a recipient than the recipient actually contributed (with investment income allowed) is welfare. I think providing free breakfasts to children in school is welfare. I think welfare payments are, well, welfare. I think lots of federal programs fit within my "definition" of welfare all of which I'm philosophically opposed to but some of which I may be willing to support out of compassion (Get off the floor. I do have some compassion. )

 

Now let me read your rationale why you don't think it is welfare, for I know you well enough to know that you wouldn't have asked the question if you think it isn't. Maybe I'll change my mind.

 

A.

 

I do look at all of the above as a form of welfare and , unfortunately, necessary welfare.

 

I don't like that we need welfare in any form however I can't go as far as saying we should not have it. We can all scream about "irresponsibility" on the actions of supposed adults and I wholeheartedly agree. However, the impact of that responsibility also trickles down to their offspring and no way in heck am I comfortable with punishing them in the name of proving a point about responsibility.

 

I think this reform is needed. No questions asked. I can live with the projected $240 increase in the deficit by 2019 and propose we find other ways of paying for it. If I heard the POTUS correctly, he said we pay a HUGE amount of money to insurance companies today that would not be necessary with a public plan. I believe he stated that would pay for about half of the program.

 

I'm sure you're with me that we can tighten up and pay for the rest, right?

[Gunner11]

I do look at all of the above as a form of welfare and , unfortunately, necessary welfare.

 

I don't like that we need welfare in any form however I can't go as far as saying we should not have it. We can all scream about "irresponsibility" on the actions of supposed adults and I wholeheartedly agree. However, the impact of that responsibility also trickles down to their offspring and no way in heck am I comfortable with punishing them in the name of proving a point about responsibility.

 

I think this reform is needed. No questions asked. I can live with the projected $240 increase in the deficit by 2019 and propose we find other ways of paying for it. If I heard the POTUS correctly, he said we pay a HUGE amount of money to insurance companies today that would not be necessary with a public plan. I believe he stated that would pay for about half of the program.

 

I'm sure you're with me that we can tighten up and pay for the rest, right?

 

And what might those be?

[Jim Schue]

And what might those be?

 

I think he said it right below the graf you bolded.

[Clyde]

And what might those be?

 

I'm hardly an expert on the budget but I think you will agree that there is fat, right?

[mcpapa]

To your question: I do. I think using my taxes to pay for Section 8 housing is welfare. I think paying more out Social Security money to a recipient than the recipient actually contributed (with investment income allowed) is welfare. I think providing free breakfasts to children in school is welfare. I think welfare payments are, well, welfare. I think lots of federal programs fit within my "definition" of welfare all of which I'm philosophically opposed to but some of which I may be willing to support out of compassion (Get off the floor. I do have some compassion. )

 

Now let me read your rationale why you don't think it is welfare, for I know you well enough to know that you wouldn't have asked the question if you think it isn't. Maybe I'll change my mind.

 

As to the town hall comment about not much being accomplished, I agree. They are used by politicians to get sound bytes and video to later be used hopefully to push the politicians political agenda. Of course when the sound bytes and video don't quite come out the way the politicians hoped they would, the people attending are mobs.

 

A serious question. Do you consider paying significantly more in health insurance premiums in order to subsidize the cost of care for the 45 million (or whatever the number is these days) uninsured to be a form of welfare?

[leatherneck]

A serious question. Do you consider paying significantly more in health insurance premiums in order to subsidize the cost of care for the 45 million (or whatever the number is these days) uninsured to be a form of welfare?

 

 

Yes I do. But I have the option of not paying those premiums by dropping out of the private health insurance plan. I do not have an option to not pay taxes.

 

I view the expenditure of tax dollars to provide health insurance to the uninsured as just another step towards a greater welfare state. Eventually, it will cause this country to collapse or at least be severely crippled in a time when other countries (ie China) are becoming stronger. I'm not a Chicken Little, the sky is falling person by nature, but I think it would be ostrich-like to not consider the possible ramifications of moving further towards the welfare state. Here's an excerpt for an article written by one of the experts on the fall of Rome (it's long but worth reading and carefully considering. Bolded emphasis added by me):

 

"If," writes Gibbon in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, " a man were called upon to fix the period in the history of the world when the condition of the human race was most happy and prosperous, he would, without hesitation, name that which elapsed from the death of Domitian to the accession of Commodus"-- that is, the period from 98 to 180 AD.

 

Yet in the next century the Roman empire crumbled. There were civil wars between 180 and 285 AD. Of twenty-seven emperors or would-be emperors all but two met violent deaths. Meanwhile, the Persians raided to Antioch in the East and in Europe the barbarians broke through the frontiers. Huge tracts of country were devastated. The middle-class was squeezed out of existence. Farmers and laborers were transformed into serfs. When in 285 AD Diocletion pulled the empire together again, there was but little left of the prosperity of the Pax Romana.

 

It seems clear, then, that the causes of the collapse must, like hidden cancers, have been developing during Gibbon's period of happiness and prosperity. Some of the symptoms, at least, can be recognized. To take one example, in the first century of the empire there had still been a vigorous literature. But in the second century AD from Hadrian onward, apart from Suetonius' Biographies of the Emperors, the Metamorphoses of Apuleius, and the Attic Nights of Aulus Gellius, Latin literature is overcome by a sort of indolent apathy. The same apathy began to exhibit itself in municipal life. Financial burdens which were imposed on the local magistrates and senators. By the second century many cities had spent themselves into debt.

 

There was the cost of repairing and maintaining the temples, public baths, and the like. There were also heavy expenditures for civic sacrifices, religious processions, feasts and for the games necessary to amuse the proletariat. The wealthy citizens of the municipalities who were, in effect, the middle-class, began to grow weary of the load: especially since the constantly rising taxation rates were shearing them closer and closer.Furthermore, they were expected to help their communities out of debt by voluntary loans. By the middle of the second century, there were cases where compulsion had to be used to fill the local magistracies. There were other cases, beginning with Hadrian, where, when municipalities got into financial difficulties, imperial curators were pat in change and the cities lost their independence. The people did not seem to mind. As often happens today, they were quite willing to resign their control of affairs and to let the government take care of them.

 

This extension of paternalism was accompanied by a tremendous increase in the personnel of the imperial civil service. Each bureau expanded its field and new bureaux were constantly being created. By the time of Antoninus Pius, who ruled from 138 to 161 AD, the Roman bureaucracy was as all-embracing as that of modern times. Naturally, too, as benevolent paternalism and bureaucracy took over, personal freedom tended to disappear. By the third century, to quote the historian Trever, "the relentless system of taxation, requisition, and compulsory labor was administered by an army of military bureaucrats. . . .Everywhere . . .were the ubiquitous personal agents of the emperors to spy out any remotest case of attempted strikes or evasion of taxes." To the cost of the bureaucracy was added the expense of the dole.

 

Originally, this was passed out once a month. By the time of Marcus Aurelius, there was a daily distribution of pork, oil, and bread to the proletariat. Meanwhile, the expenditure on the public spectacles kept mounting. A hundred million dollars a year is a moderate estimate of what was poured out on the games. There was likewise an attempt to combine subsidy to Italian farmers with charity to needy children. This was called the alimenta and was instituted by Nerva, who reigned from 96 to 98 AD. His system was to lend money at five per cent instead of twelve per cent to farmers with the proviso that the interest should be used to support needy children. Boys received seventy cents a day, girls sixty. And then there was the army. The army was essential to the security of the empire. The cost of it, though, more than doubled between 96 and 180 AD.

 

All these expenditures had to be recovered from the taxpayer. To compound the difficulties, there was an adverse balance of trade. Roman currency, for example, poured into India and the East to pay for luxuries. Even in the time of Nero, Seneca estimated that it cost Rome five million dollars a year to import its luxuries from the East. In a word, though seemingly prosperous, in the second century AD the Roman empire was overspending to such an extent that it was moving to an economic crisis. When in 167 AD Marcus Aurelius was faced by the attack of the Germanic Marcomanni and Quadi, he was forced to sell, is it were, the crown jewels as well as the household furnishing of his palace to finance the war.

 

To add to his troubles a plague, brought back from the East, was ravaging the empire. By 180 AD at least one-fourth of the population of the whole empire, both civilian and military, had perished. In any estimate of the reasons for the decline of Rome, the moral and physical effects of this plague and the later one (252-267 AD , ought not to be omitted. Thus, the seemingly happy world of Gibbon's day was sleepwalking its way to catastrophe. The plague contributed to the decline. But, even before the plague, the Roman world was rotting from within.

 

 

Personally I believe that a lot of the problems faced by teachers in our public schools is that parents are no longer stressing to their children that they need to get a good and solid education in order to be able to provide for themselves and their future families after they get out of high school. I think part of the reason for the change by parents is caused by the fact that there are too many govt programs (ie welfare) that permit people to subsist even if they don't work. I believe that in the name of compassion, not only do we do an injustice to those that receive the compassion, we move towards undermining and weakening our society. Maybe you and I wouldn't give up our jobs to be able to merely subsist, but how many people working to get by would continue to work if they could get by off of the govt welfare system? I think a lot. Such would create significant cost burdens on the govt and ultimately on those continuing to work. Such is the cause of my concerns about the direction we seem to be going with health care reform. It's not a lack of compassion. Not at all. It's due to how I think that compassion will ultimately hurt this country.

 

 

Sorry for the long post everyone, but I cannot explain my opinions and the logic behind them in simple two or three line posts.