17,500 Canadians Can’t Be Wrong

Since Barack Obama was inaugurated President just over seven months ago, some 17,500 Canadian have come to the U.S. to receive health care.  Just since the President’s health care legislation was introduced in the House of Representatives in March, about 12,500 Canadians have come here for health care.  During that same period, how many Americans have travelled north to obtain health care in Canada because they couldn’t get it here in the States?  

The average wait time for a Canadian to obtain treatment from a specialist after seeing a primary care physician?  About 4-1/2 months.  In the U.S.?  Virtually none.

Want to see a primary care doctor in the U.S.?  Pick up the phone and call one.  In Canada, get in line behind the five percent of the population waiting to get a primary care physician (about 17 million Canadians).

And still there are those in Washington extolling the benefit of a government-controlled, single-payor heath care system .  .  .  like they have in Canada.

284 comments Add your comment

Dr. R

August 28th, 2009
11:34 am

Private insurance companies can compete with a public option at some level, but over time their loss of profits in the quest to be competitive will drive manhy out of business, cutting the number of choices available. For sure, businesses will no longer offer insurance benefits; as soon as the government does so, they will decide to back out (since they’ll be paying taxes on the public plan as well) and let their employees go on the public dole. No sense in them footing the bill for the benefit if their workers can get it elsewhere. My preference would be for all entitlements — health, retirement, etc. — to be means tested and provided only to the indigent and preferrably on a temporary basis, like food stamps and welfare. I don’t want to leave people hungry and sick on the streets, and I’m willing to pay a certain amount in taxes for that. What I don’t want is an absence of choices and a one-size-fits-all govt. plan that endentures me for life. It’s true that such a choice is now not on the table, and I applaud that. But I think it’s just a matter of time befcore it happens because most Americans, particularly those of the self-indulgent generations ages 60 and younger, believe their security and well-being takes precedence over their freedom and independence. Those of my ilk will be but a voice in the wilderness (and that’s probably where I’ll be, sure enough, to get away from you bleeding heart do-gooders and your kumbaya approach to life).

JSon

August 28th, 2009
11:35 am

Yes, Dr. R, Life can be unfair. So if a public plan passes that would help the less fortunate, I hope you won’ t mind.

Les Miles

August 28th, 2009
11:44 am

The Barr Code
17,500 Canadians Can’t Be Wrong

6:00 am August 28, 2009, by Bob Barr
(more…)

* ShareThis
* Print

152 comments Add your comment

DirtyDawg

August 28th, 2009
9:43 am

Hey BOB, where do you get your insurance? Through the Cox folks? You got a company of your own that you purchase stuff through (and write it off)? If you are on your own, then you probably pay between $15 and $20 thousand a year – and that’s if you don’t have any major illnesses or surgeries. Well, good luck on being able to keep that when the paper’s out of business and the market for your prejudice-filled diatribes dries up. Maybe, and I don’t know, or care, how old you are, you’ll be able to make it to Medicare – then you’ll only have to hope that the cost of the drugs you take will have finally been ‘negotiated’ down to an affordable level. Of course, and what am I thinking, as a Congressman – even if for only a short while – you probably sacked away tons of ‘campaign contributions’, maybe even a promise from some health-care insurance company to provide you and yours coverage for life if you’ll just ‘vote for (or against) this one little thing’. I’d really be curious what motivates you BOB, is it Galbraith’s observation that Conservatism is simply the search for a better excuse for selfishness? Or do you have other financial incentives – beyond just not willing to pay what someone else determines is ‘your fair share’ of taxes. Regardless, whatever your motivations they sure ain’t because you care about others – nosiree, that’s not what moves you, is it BOB?

It really does my heart good to read the reaction ‘Conservatives’ have when they find out that they are in the fix that they laughed at for so long about all those others that could ‘just go to Grady’ when they have a problem. When the shoe’s on your foot, it seems a little tight, don’t it?

* Link
* Report this comment

Dave

August 28th, 2009
9:44 am

We’re in this fix because we have been conditioned that someone else should pay for our healthcare/health insurance. Most of us expect the company we work for to pay for it because back around WW2 companies were not permitted to raise wages so they began offering incentives like health insurance to attract employees. It was the government that prohibited the raises, so you could say that the government caused all of this to begin with. If we had all grown up with the idea that we were responsible for our own health care/health insurance (like auto insurance, home insurance, etc) we would not be having this conversation. Why is it that so many people have no problem spending hundreds a month on cell phones, cable TV, hair and nails, etc, but are so indignant about having to pay for their own doctor visits?

* Link
* Report this comment

Atlanta Native

August 28th, 2009
9:44 am

Of course Americans buy prescription drugs from Canada. The Canadian taxpayers are footing the majority of the bill for them.

If Canadian Healthcare is so good, why is it the outgoing head of the program and the ingoing head agree on one thing: the system is broken and needs overhaul?

* Link
* Report this comment

Jennifer

August 28th, 2009
9:44 am

Californication, can you give more detail on the Prime Minister’s wife coming here for treatment?

* Link
* Report this comment

David Chastain

August 28th, 2009
9:46 am

Wait Times in Canada – Government committed to investing $4.5 billion over the next six years, beginning in 2004-05, in the Wait Times Reduction Fund.

“The Wait Times Reduction Fund will augment existing provincial and territorial investments and assist jurisdictions in their diverse initiatives to reduce wait times. This Fund will primarily be used for jurisdictional priorities such as training and hiring more health professionals, clearing backlogs, building capacity for regional centres of excellence, expanding appropriate ambulatory and community care programs and/or tools to manage wait times.”

Link: http://snurl.com/rghkk

* Link
* Report this comment

Tracy

August 28th, 2009
9:46 am

“five percent of the population waiting to get a primary care physician (about 17 million Canadians)”
Five percent of Canada’s population is 1.7 million. An error of this sort makes it difficult to trust the other figures in the article.

* Link
* Report this comment

Michael Smith

August 28th, 2009
9:48 am

Evidently off his meds, “Dual Citizen” asserted:

DEMAND IT PEOPLE, IT IS A RIGHT IN ALL BUT ONE CIVILIZED COUNTRY…..THIS ONE!!!!!!

A right to healthcare? Since healthcare is a product of human labor — like all the goods and services we enjoy — a “right” to healthcare is the claim to a right to another man’s labor. It is the claim that someone else must labor — involuntarily, i.e. whether they like it or not — for your benefit.

But there can be no such thing as the right to another man’s labor — because there is no such thing as any sort of right to involuntary servitude on the part of others.

* Link
* Report this comment

The Lemmer

August 28th, 2009
9:48 am

No one here (unless I missed it) is talking about the real problem. Healthcare costs in this country will be lowered when Congress passes a powerful TORT REFORM LAW!!!

Unfortunately, that’s not going to happen since the American Association of Justice (what a b.s. name for a bunch of plaintiff’s attorneys) is a lobbying heavyweight and continues to grease the palms of any Dem on the Hill.

Doctors can afford to be doctors under the current sue-your-butt-in-a-flash system.

What say you?

* Link
* Report this comment

Les Miles

August 28th, 2009
9:49 am

JackLeg, could it be that the long gone jobs are not coming back and that the ones that replace them will not provide the income of the ones lost. Do you think that prices for essential items such as health care will decrease proportionally? Under the present system JackLeg? Do you trust the benevelancy of today’s insurance industry to give up such a large percentage of their profits for the common good? Do you think they are going to do as others have had to do? Trim the fat, give up bonuses, etc?

What is getting lost in this argument is that it is COST that is the problem. And nothing prior to this debate was doing anything to provide a catalyst for the profiteers in the present system to lower cost. The best possible solution is to provide a competitor that the private insurance monolith can’t drive out of the market.

* Link
* Report this comment

Hoping For Rational Debate

August 28th, 2009
9:50 am

Wealthy folks who build expensive homes on the beach who can’t get insurance for those expensive homes because insurance companies know that it would be a sucker bet on their part, what do they do? They get insurance from the government of the good ole USofA who sees fit to provide special insurance for rich people to have fancy homes where nature says they should not be. But people who can’t get health care coverage because insurance companies only want to insure healthy people, what do they do? They just die for the most part. Anyone who thinks that is fair is beyond heartless IMO.

* Link
* Report this comment

Ry

August 28th, 2009
9:53 am

TG – The current proposal overall does not promote a single payer system directly. However, there are parts of the bill that very much support that and in looking to the future, the impact of the bill is projected to lead to a government run system. It is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. If you actually read the bill…oh wait that campaign promise from Obama about transparency and the general public having a chance to read bills before they are voted on never happened. Why do you think he wanted to rush the bill through so quickly? Also, healthcare is not the most important issue in this country at this time. It is the economy and jobs. If the approximately 15 million people who can’t afford health insurance had a job, then guess what they could afford it. Obama loves to say that there are 47 million uninsured in this country. However, a large portion of those can afford health insurance and choose not to get it. Why should tax payers foot the bill for those who simply choose not to buy insurance even though they can afford it? That is part of the problem, people do not want to take responsibility for themselves and want the government to pay for everything, even if it means lower quality care. Social Security is bankrupt, Medicare is bankrupt, the postal service is bankrupt. Why does anyone think the government can provide quality healthcare without going bankrupt?

* Link
* Report this comment

Dale

August 28th, 2009
9:55 am

Hoping for Rational Debate…so you are saying that it is wrong for the govt to provide insurance for the folks on the beach, but they should provide insurance for another segment of the population? I say two wrongs don’t make a right and I say govt doesn’t belong in the insurance business period!

* Link
* Report this comment

Trey

August 28th, 2009
9:58 am

Atlanta Native, actually he has every right to talk against the plans of the Government, as an American if he does not like something the Constitution provides him the right to disagree and talk about the Government’s plans.

* Link
* Report this comment

Citizen

August 28th, 2009
10:01 am

DeborahinAthens I have known plenty of Canadians that did not like their healthcare. My parents worked for Nortel who originated in Canada. Healthcare is one of the reason they put in for transfers down here and did not go back once Nortel tanked. Teh waits and the approvals were all to much.

Also lets just assume that Germany or the UK has better healthcare (not that they do) Europe nationalize the passenger rail industry and you have clean safe bullet trains crossing the continent. The US does the same and we have Amtrak. The politicans will make sure we get crap pork barrel picked coverage just as we do under medicare and the VA.

If you wnat to lower costs pass tort reform.

If you want shorter lines for Emergency care tighten border control and ship the illegals back.

* Link
* Report this comment

Yurtle_the_turtle

August 28th, 2009
10:01 am

Gail

I understand and hear you very well. I have had several shoulder dislocations and have had to pay them myself, although I had BCBS also. And dental “insurance” is a joke. My wife’s teeth cost us $5,000 this year. We’re paying off these medical bills ourselves and I’m tired of doing it as I pay BCBS every month out of my pay check. I agree something needs to get done. I blame Democrats and Republicans, but especially Democrats for their liberal mind set of paying healthcare for EVERYONE, including illegal aliens. However, I truly believe that the answer is NOT Socialism/Communism. Tort reform and insurance reform is a better answer than Socialism. I don’t want to pay for someone’s poor health choices that require medical attention. I try to keep my health up with regular exercise and choosing not to smoke or drink excessively. I see many overweight people who practice no restraint on eating/drinking and then never visit a gym or walk for health. Why should I pay for their negligence? So, I don’t want to pay for “ALL”, just for my family and myself.

* Link
* Report this comment

Atlanta Native

August 28th, 2009
10:02 am

Dave – they were educated by babyboomers. That’s why. They have been indoctrinated since they were young to rely on government. I remember the amazing switch in what I was taught when my parents yanked my arrogant, in-trouble behind out of public high school and sent me to Catholic school. Suddenly things were my responsibility. I hated at the time, but I am so glad that they did it, or I may have ended up like my peers in public school, several of which I can see at local bars every day if I wish!

* Link
* Report this comment

Trey

August 28th, 2009
10:04 am

Les Miles, I can’t see anything good out of free health care, but we should have a majority vote as that is true democracy and then if the ones who want free health care win we can try their system for a while.

* Link
* Report this comment

The Lemmer

August 28th, 2009
10:05 am

Michael is correct. It’s troubling enough that I, along with other working people, financially support thousands of teenage baby factories. Why should we be forced to pay for their healthcare?

* Link
* Report this comment

Trey

August 28th, 2009
10:06 am

Exactly, public school is a complete failure, Atlanta Native.

* Link
* Report this comment

jconservative

August 28th, 2009
10:11 am

“And still there are those in Washington extolling the benefit of a government-controlled, single-payor heath care system . . . like they have in Canada.”

Bob, what do you think we have here? Annual report from the Director of CMS……..
“CMS is the largest purchaser of health care in the United States, serving about 92 million Medicare, Medicaid, and State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) beneficiaries. ”

Food for thought.

* Link
* Report this comment

booger

August 28th, 2009
10:13 am

Once again this debate is avoiding the central issue. WE CANNOT AFFORD THIS.

You’re right booger. Even middle class Americans can’t afford to foot the bill for an insurance policy that is is not part of an employer provided plan. W can’t afford the Iraq war or the war in Afghanistan either booger. So I guess we should just throw in the towel there huh booger?

Dr. R

August 28th, 2009
11:45 am

JSon, I would not resist an expansion of Medicaid that gets more indigent folks on insurance rolls. Their visits to ERs for minor ailments are one factor in driving up costs. Another is malpractice case awards, which the Democrats won’t take on because the lawyers oppose it. Anyway, I’m fine with a low-grade plan to help the actual poor. The problem is that Democrats want to keep expanding who qualifies as poor and rich, to the point that it will include us all. And as indicated, that’s something I oppose.

Let me also clarify something else for my more liberal friends here (and I do mean friends, not enemies; I don’t think that way): There is nothing selfish about independence. In fact, I believe it LESS selfish of me to look out for my own interests rather than tap into your hard-earned dollars for my needs. If my neighbor, friend or family member needs something, I’ll be the first one there to provide it. But having the government take our incomes to distribute to strangers does not qualify as charity. It is egalitarian social engineering and anathema to the very notion of liberty that this country was founded on.

Dave at 9:44, great summary. If we bought health insurance like we did other forms, and it was regulated as such, we’d have control of our health dollars. Locking us into employer-provided plans was the first step on the road we now follow.

Les Miles

August 28th, 2009
11:50 am

Dr R what could someone elses child have done without a parent of your means? Died?

therese persaud

August 28th, 2009
11:56 am

LAURA you are absolutely correct. Iam afraid we will not convince these selfish ,ignorant Americans that socilized medicine helps the whole society, including selfish indivuduals . I have scores of relatives and friends in Canada and England who can get on with the business of productive lives because health neeeds ,REAL ONES, are being handled by a govt with a social conscience!!I am surprised that Barr, a lawyer of some repute , is so far off the mark!!

Chris Broe

August 28th, 2009
12:02 pm

Dont start a paragraph with a preposition, sir.

Since indeed.

And now it’s time for Odd Couples, that weekly bipartisan look at why we can’t have the America we want.

ODD COUPLES

The death of the left in Paris. The death of the Right in America.

The Death of Ted Kennedy, a car-driving, bombastic pro-bipartisan who reached across the aisle, like a man.

The Death of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, a car-bombing pro-Iranian who reached across Islam like an Imam.

The near-sightedness of Bob Barr. Wooten’s thousand-mile-stare. (what’s up with Wooten, anyway?)

More Odd Couples to come

bob

August 28th, 2009
12:06 pm

Les miles, SS is fine if you are 70, please do the math for someone now entering the work force and you can tell them to pay 12% into a ponzi scheme. What does Limbaugh have to do with Fannie or Freddie ? since you played the Rush card, I guess you think they worked well ? And do you agree that busing was a waste or do you think putting a kid on a bus for three ahours a days worked out well. Why can’t libs fix what is broken first. How about this Les, Lets pay girls to have babies and see how that works out.

Dr. R

August 28th, 2009
12:06 pm

Of course, the problem with a means tested plan to provide entitlements is that everyone will want in. While the tax burden will be lower on most of us, most will want to tap into a share of the goodies and not be satisfied to be able to save more on their own. Say we offer health, retirement other benefits to someone who makes $10,000 a year. Then the guy who makes $15K will want in. So we add him, and the guy making $20K says, “what about me?” So we up it again and the guy at $25K says, “where’s my share?” And on we go. Too many of us these days are willing to surrender our self-sufficient nature in return for being cared for. We’re not willing to turn off the TV, get off the sofa and go fend for ourselves as long as the state promises to do so for us, in exchange for votes. It’s a spiral that began with the New Deal and continues to this day. As long as a majority of Americans are willing to take from someone else’s pile to fill their own needs, we won’t be able to fend off this inevitable slide into ultimate dependencec.

Dr. R

August 28th, 2009
12:11 pm

Les, I’m not that well off. Anyone who goes to the ER will be treated, as it should be. We can’t turn away truly sick people. We just need to provide more and better options than the ER for those who do not face emergencies. In my case, I took on the responsibility of paying the bill and did not look around for another option. I’m not a rich man, but I have a job and a modest home and I do not need assistance from public sources. I think you’d have to agree that such a point of view is rare in this “what do I get?” society of self-indulgent babies.

Forgive my typos, by the way, I’m in too much of a hurry here.

bob

August 28th, 2009
12:14 pm

Les one more thing on SS. Look at your SS statement this year and you will see on the first page this Quote ” SS is a compact between generations. For decades, America has kept the promise of security for it’s workers and their families. Now, however, the Social Security system is facing serious financial problems, and action is needed soon to make sure the system will be sound when today’s younger workers are ready for retirement.
In 2017 we will begin paying more in benefits than we collect in taxes. Without changes, by 2041 the Social Security Trust Fund will be exhausted and there will be only about 78 cents for each dollar of schedualed benefits. We need to resolve these issues soon to make sure Social Security continues to provide a foundation of protection for future generations” Michael J Astrue, Commisioner. Is that the best you can do Les ?

Saul Good

August 28th, 2009
12:24 pm

Nice spin and BS. Many of those that received health care here (from your figure) and Canadians that were here on vacation or that own second homes here. The number of Americans who received health care in Canada last year was HIGHER! 1.5 MILLION AMERICANS RECEIVED HEALTH CARE IN CANADA IN 2008!!! So, it’s not even CLOSE Bob! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada

Not only that, we American purchased over ONE BILLION dollars in prescriptions “in person” in Canada in 2008 because they’re that much cheaper up there!

Funny how you didn’t bring up the over million US citizens who got health care in Canada last year Bob!

ncgreybr

August 28th, 2009
12:32 pm

Dr R: “Their visits to ERs for minor ailments are one factor in driving up costs. Another is malpractice case awards, which the Democrats won’t take on because the lawyers oppose it.”

Why didn’t malpractice insurance premiums go dowdn in Texas after tort reform was enacted?

ER visits no solution

August 28th, 2009
12:42 pm

Several posts mention if people need to see a doctor and don’t have insurance, then they can go to the local ER and can’t be turned away. Guess you could try that. IF the hospitals near you still have ER’s. Any one else noticed how many hospitals have shut down the ERs in the past few years?

To Michael who said “Don’t drink, don’t smoke, and don’t get in fights. That’s about all the health insurance you need.” I didn’t drink, didn’t smoke, certainly didn’t get into fights, exercised regularly, followed a very healthy diet, stayed on the low end of normal weight for my height. Felt great and looked like the picture of health. Age 50, diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. I hope your luck holds up. I’m assuming you are human being so you might want to get insurance coverage and keep it if you can.

BPJ

August 28th, 2009
12:42 pm

My vote for least informed post so far goes to “Californication”, who tells us that members of Congress would never submit to the “public option” and would never agree to “socialized medicine” for themselves. Was that supposed to be a joke? Members of Congress do have government provided health care. Those Republicans in Congress who rhapsodize about private insurance don’t like to talk about where they get their healthcare.

Dr. R

August 28th, 2009
12:46 pm

ncgreybr, I don’t have an answer for you on Texas. It may be that something else there kept premiums high, or that insurance companies weren’t willing to pass on the savings. I don’t want to speculate because I don’t know, but you bring up a valid point. Even as one who leans conservative (libertarian, actually), I would be willing to concede that, in many ways, Texas is pretty screwed up.

It’s a fact that malpractice insurance is astronomical, which drives up health costs. It also leads doctors to order unncessary tests and procedures in order to cover their behinds in case of a lawsuit. I like Charles Krauthammer’s idea to create a medical advisory panel of real doctors to oversee malpractice cases and make more informed judgments on whether there is true malfeasance. If a doctor screws up and someone suffers, they should be rewarded. But most juries don’t have the medical knowledge to make that call wisely and are easily influenced by skilled lawyers. How much savings we’d see from this is anyone’s guess, but I think it’s a good step to take.

JSon

August 28th, 2009
12:47 pm

I just don’t understnad why we can’t have a choice. After years of dealing with the insurance companies I would LOVE to try dealing with the govt. instead. I have always had employer plans, and it’s gotten so bad that I will avoid going to a doctor until I’m desperate. I know that almost everytime I go, I will have to spend months on the phone trying to get my bill straight after they overcharge me or delay reimbursement. And I love how I’ve been told several times that they never received my paperwork even though I have had proof each time that it was sent. They will do anything they can to try to put off or deny payment. And the whole concept of people besides my docotr making a profit off my sickness just does not not sit well at all with me.
And for the record I have two close friends in Europe who are very happy with their healthcare when they compare it to ours.

Dunwoody Mike

August 28th, 2009
12:52 pm

Conservatism is a disease – there are several that have posted this morning on this blog that have a terminal case of it. Tis sad, but we need to rid the world of conservatism – anyone that is a conservative is a loser anyway and won’t be missed. We should ship all the conservatives in the world to the South Pole. Man, that would be just terrific if we could make that happen.
Check 8:40 AM for the context of this.

Dr. R

August 28th, 2009
12:55 pm

JSon, I equate it to a similar experience: The other day, I had to wait in line at the post office because there were two of 10 counters open. The line moved slowly and the counter tenders seemed inattentive and uninterested. When I’ve given up in the past and gone instead to FedEx or UPS, I get treated like a valued customer. That is the difference. When the profit motive is gone, so is the motive for public service. There is no financial benefit to firing poor workers, since they aren’t driving off business, so on they work. In fact, if we reformed the insurance industry to create MORE competition, not less, by making private policies more affordable and available, I think the service will improve for us all. The employee-sponsored plan that locks us in (somewhat, though we have some choice) may just be a preview of what we would get when Uncle Sam is providing that service. But that’s just my take. I have to head to work now, folks, so carry on. Good discussion and a blessed day to all.

Ry

August 28th, 2009
1:09 pm

Json – Private insurers could not compete with a government plan for two reasons: 1. Because the government has unlimited tax payer dollars to use. Not because the government could do a better job. They just print more money 2. Because the government would ration care and provide less quality care

JSon

August 28th, 2009
1:09 pm

With my experience with the insurance companies, I would LOVE to deal with the post office mentality. It would be a refreshing change that something would actually get handled.

Atlanta Native

August 28th, 2009
1:12 pm

Trey @ 9:58 am.

Read my comment again. It’s called sarcasm. I was making fun of the way liberals have acted to anyone who opposes their plan and has the audacity to speak up.

ncgreybr

August 28th, 2009
1:18 pm

The head of United Healthcare (or something like that name) made 750 MILLION dollars over the last 10 years. Three forths of a BILLION dollars. What makes him worth 3/4 of a billion dollars? What does he do that a CEO making one million dollars a year does not do? If I had United Healthcare, how much could I have saved on my premiums if he had not been there?
I figure he makes about $10,000 every time he goes to the bathroom.

Reform Will Happen

August 28th, 2009
1:23 pm

Want to see a primary care Dr. in the US? Pick up a phone and call one and he’ll have to go through months of Kabuki dance just to get paid by the insurance companies Bob Barr is lobbying here and possibly for money to protect.

The Availability of Affordable Healthcare

One-fourth of American respondents are either “very” or “somewhat” satisfied with “the availability of affordable healthcare in the nation,” (6% very satisfied and 19% somewhat satisfied). This level of satisfaction is significantly lower than in Canada, where 57% are satisfied with the availability of affordable healthcare, including 16% who are very satisfied. Roughly 4 in 10 Britons are satisfied (43%), but only 7% say they are very satisfied (similar to the percentage very satisfied in the United States).

Looking at the other side of the coin, 44% of Americans are very dissatisfied with the availability of affordable healthcare, and nearly three-fourths (72%) are either somewhat or very dissatisfied. The 44% in the United States who are very dissatisfied with healthcare availability is significantly higher than corresponding figures in either Canada (17%) or Great Britain (25%).

JSon

August 28th, 2009
1:26 pm

Ry@1:09: I don’t believe in that rhetoric. After all, we have public and private schools and the govt. hasn’t pritned more money so they could do a much better job and run the private schools out of business. And we have the post office vs.UPS, Fed Ex and the govt. hasn’t run UPS out of business. Those are just Republican fear-mongering talking points.

dw

August 28th, 2009
1:27 pm

To Gandhi,

The point is “maybe something other than the healthcare legislation currently proposed, should be looked at or modified or discussed”.
Also let’s assume the 46 million number is actual and legal residents, then 254 million are insured. That is about 85%. Now, I’m not saying that we should turn our backs on the 15% that don’t. But just changing how the premiums are paid and who (insurance company or gov’t bureaucrat) decides who gets what is not really that much of a real change. I think I would rather rely on a random insurance worker, than a gov’t bureaucrat that may or may not like my politics and make decisions based on that. I’ve found that ultra cons and ultra libs aren’t fair and openminded as advertised. Maybe toning down the crazy profits and salaries of bigshots of the health insurance industry is a better idea. Also I know that some states (Georgia included) surcharge a percentage already, to pay for non-insured folks. Also it is my understanding that medical facilities can NOT turn away emergency care regardless of persons ability to pay. So the “uninsured” do have access to healthcare already in a form.

jconservative

August 28th, 2009
1:28 pm

Les Miles – your link follows the quote.

“I am pleased to present the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) Annual Performance Report for fiscal year (FY) 2008. CMS is the largest purchaser of health care in the United States, serving about 92 million Medicare, Medicaid, and State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) beneficiaries. We take this role very seriously, as our oversight responsibility impacts millions of lives and has grown dramatically over the last few years.”

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/PerformanceBudget/Downloads/cmsannualperformancereportfy2008.pdf

Reform Will Happen

August 28th, 2009
1:28 pm

New poll shows Canadians overwhelmingly support public health care

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/august/new_poll_shows_canad.php

A new poll conducted by the Toronto-based Nanos Research points to overwhelming support — 86.2 percent — for strengthening public health care rather than expanding for-profit services.

“With more than 8 in 10 Canadians supporting public solutions to make public health care stronger, there is compelling evidence that Canadians across all demographics would prefer a public over a for-profit health care system,” said Nik Nanos, president of Nanos Research.

Nanos Research was commissioned by the Canadian Health Coalition (CHC), a nonpartisan group that supports Canada’s public health system, to conduct a random telephone survey of 1,001 Canadians between April 25 and May 3. The margin of accuracy for a sample of 1,001 is ±3.1 percentage points.

Meanwhile, Canada’s government just released a report titled “Healthy Canadians — A Federal Report on Comparable Health Indicators 2008.” Its findings almost identically mirror the CHC polling results. In that report, a leading indicator points to the fact that “Most Canadians (85.2 percent) aged 15 years and older reported being ‘very satisfied’ or ‘somewhat satisfied’ with the way overall health care services were provided, unchanged from 2005.”

Chris Broe

August 28th, 2009
1:39 pm

Healthcare is as good as the doctor. Most doctors are incompetent. America, heal thyself. (doctors B good sailors, though).

Reform Will Happen

August 28th, 2009
1:40 pm

Oh look Bob Barr. See Dick and Jane Run. Stop parroting Faux, Levine, Hannity and Rush the drug addict. Start reading the way a lawyer and former US Attorney Should.

The First Circuit upheld a $102 million judgement against Bob Barr’s former employer DOJ for the malicious prosecution by DOJ and the Boston FBI because the FBI had and witheld evidence that proved the defendants weren’t responsible for the killing of Teddie Deegan.

In a “lack the backbone” opinion the First Circuit panel in weasel fashion upheld the award for emotional distress, but refused to conclude “malicious prosecution.” If witholding evidence, prosecuting and putting individuals in jail for the rest of their lives for three decades doesn’t constitute malicious prosecution, I don’t know what is.

http://www.fresnobee.com/641/story/1618065.html

Chris Broe

August 28th, 2009
1:47 pm

Fed Ex mgt is incompetent. America, mail thyself. (They be good grillers, though).

Chris Broe

August 28th, 2009
1:51 pm

A great discussion. I was standing in line at the post office and zzzzz.

Honestly.

We need a public Option

August 28th, 2009
1:52 pm

Yurtle_the_turtle,

Will you use Medicare or will you move to China because you hate the Governmnet option?

bob

August 28th, 2009
1:54 pm

BPJ, the congress’ healthcare plan is run by a Private health care company.

Chris Broe

August 28th, 2009
1:54 pm

Most prostitutes are incompetent. America blank thyself. (they’re great conversationalists, though)

JSon

August 28th, 2009
2:10 pm

Usually when the govt. competes side by side with private enterprise, the govt. services are cheaper but the private companies services offer better quality. And that’s how it should be. You have to pay more for quality. That’s why I’d rather wait in line at the post office. ‘Cause I’m willing to make the tradeoff to pay less. Let those who have more money pay for better service if they want it. But at least have a minimum level of care to take care of our poor and less fortunate.

Chris Broe

August 28th, 2009
2:12 pm

Most writers are incompetent. America hack thyself. (they make great coffee, though)

Hannibal Lechter

August 28th, 2009
2:16 pm

Yeah, but get seriously sick or injured in the U.S., even with insurance, and it might better fiscal sense for your family to let it take you.

steve

August 28th, 2009
2:19 pm

ryanv-
Single payer is the most cost effective solution and the reason it isn’t on the table is because of the insurance lobby. It has nothing to do with with healthcare delivery. I repeat, it has nothing to do with healthcare delivery. That is an outright lie. Single payer just eliminates having 300 different codes for the same procedure.
Al I want is healthcare for me that isn’t tied to my employer, that belongs to me. That I choose. That cannot be cancelled because I change jobs or get sick.
Please read Matt Taibbi’s article in Rolling Stone. Both sides have sold us out. We are being sold out by the whole lot of them.

steve

August 28th, 2009
2:21 pm

Please read the following Wiki entry in regards to G8 spending on healthcare. We are getting whacked, plus we get bathwater while we pay for champagne.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada

Barry

August 28th, 2009
2:23 pm

Most of you that are arguing with the Obama worshiping Dimocrats might as well be talking to a rock! I have a 3 month old puppy that is more intelligent than these Obama Kool-Aid drinking morons. Obama could herd all of them together and drive them off a cliff at any time and they would just praise him, Pelosi and Reid. When you think of it…how would any sane intelligent person ever vote for Pelosi, Reid or Obama! Obama don’t have a clue about anything except he’s determined to destroy the America we grew up in and love by turning it into a Socialist ran Government controlled country! This man is a lier and he is fast electing his radical friends to control you and your freedom!

Barry

August 28th, 2009
2:36 pm

Senate Bill Would Give President Emergency Control of Internet
Details of a revamped version of the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 show the Senate bill could give the president a “kill switch” on the Internet and allow him to shut out private networks from online access. Sounds like Hugo Chavez has given Obama more advice!!!!!

GeographyLady

August 28th, 2009
2:36 pm

Thanks to those who pointed out that 5% of the Canadian population is 1.7 million, not 17 million. Can we trust Barr’s other statistics?

clyde

August 28th, 2009
2:36 pm

Just talked to a Canadian friend today.She had an EKG on August 10th.An appointment with a specialist today.The specialist came to her area so people won’t have to drive to the city.A diagnosis and treatment was announced today.Total out of pocket cost to my friend?Nothing.Two prescriptions were issued and filled.Total cost to my friend,$10 per.Insurance will pay for the rest.She gets the insurance from her employer.Sound familiar?Follow up appointments were made for November.Those will be in her area.No charge.Pretty poor health care?Not on your life.

Yankee

August 28th, 2009
2:40 pm

Come on Bob, fess up. How much do you spend for your subsidized health care?

Mark

August 28th, 2009
2:50 pm

Even if there was a PERFECT plan out there for health care, our nation simply CANNOT AFFORD IT!!! The white house and congressional budget office officials predicted that the deficit for 2009 would be 1.6 trillion dollars. Fiscal years 2009-2019 the two differ slightly. The white house says the cumulative deficit will be 9.1 trillion and the CBO says it will be 7.1 trillion (Aug 26, 2009 Associated Press report).

Forget about the details of the plan. We can’t afford the plan itself. Our country is going broke. We have to stop the spending!!

bob

August 28th, 2009
2:53 pm

Clyde, do you really think it’s free ?

Sherl

August 28th, 2009
3:14 pm

Canada’s population is 33,212,696 so 17,500 equals less than one tenth of one percent of their population. I would say that means a lot of people must be very satisfied with their system. If they were really unhappy you would see a much higher number coming to the US for health care.

Curt

August 28th, 2009
3:17 pm

I suppose I could pretend to be an e-mailing Canadian doctor or citizen also, and my lies would be just as believable as those presented above. Anyone who believes much of what is presented in these forums is crazy.

clyde

August 28th, 2009
3:18 pm

Bob,
No,Bob,it isn’t free. It costs money,just like it does here.Taxes pay for it.But,Bob,It’s available to everyone,rich or poor.Whether you can pay or not.Also,Bob,there are no surprises.People on the mend or with terminal illnesses are not financially ruined.There are no huge medical bills for survivors to cope with.It’s just simpy a better system,Bob,for those involved.