• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

If America adopts Canada's health care system

Status
Not open for further replies.
Roy Harding said:
I've got a small growth on my arm (what used to be called a "wart" - and dismissed as insignificant).  It's benign - it don't mean nothin'.  I find that it upsets my personal equilibrium - why should YOU pay to remove it?  Perhaps there should be some way that I could have it removed at my OWN expense?

Unless there have been recent changes to most provincial health insurance schedules of benefits (fee guide), your "wart" (in most cases) would be removed at your expense.  (I am most familiar with Alberta Health fees - and OHIP years ago)

The simple explanation is, unless it is on the plantar or palmar surface (and interfering with gait or mechanical function) or on exposed surface of the face (causing gross disfiguration or interfering with airway, vision or mastication) removal is not an insured service.
(edited to add) There is another situation where "wart" removal would be an insured service - if it was on your pecker - also due to interference of function (but not "mastication") and potential for transmission to a partner.

c_canuk said:
The thing that worries me about a public only system, is the strain put on the system by people who go and use up the resources because it's "free" even though they really don't need to be there, reducing everyone else's access to the resources, I don't worry about not getting access to rare expensive treatments that are deemed to costly for the system as I'm not financially able to purchase them on my own anyway.

While there are certainly people who make a greater than average number of contacts with the health care system (including for "trivial" reasons), most of these (unnecessary*) contacts are confined to interaction with a primary care physician.  In my experience, the numbers are not significant enough that it would overwhelm the system or deprieve resources.  GPs generally function well as gatekeepers and though the amount spent on doctors' fees is quite significant, it is far from being the major item in total health care spending.

*There was even an ICD9 code (the diagnostic code used to identify the reason for the visit/billing) for persons seeking health services without any legitimate (or discernable) complaint.  Sometimes AHC would send these back as non-paid.

As an example of the difference in utilization between "public" and "private" funded health care system:

Consultation with doctors by country

Japan: 14.4 per person per year
United States: 8.9 per person per year
Belgium: 7.9 per person per year
France: 6.9 per person per year
Austria: 6.7 per person per year
Germany: 6.5 per person per year
Australia: 6.3 per person per year
Canada: 6.3 per person per year
Denmark: 6.1 per person per year
Italy: 6.1 per person per year
Netherlands: 5.9 per person per year
United Kingdom: 4.9 per person per year
New Zealand: 4.4 per person per year
Finland: 4.3 per person per year
Sweden: 2.8 per person per year
 
My favourite ridiculous argument (leveraging longstanding xenophobia and the "illegal alien" strawman) is that "Obamacare" means that good ol' honest hardworking American taxpayers would have to fund healthcare for the legions of illegal aliens in the USA.

They don't seem to realize that they already do.  Those people - and the uninsured - tend not to seek medical attention unless the situation is dire - and in most cases that means going to the emergency room where they cannot be refused treatment.  They get treated, get handed a bill they cannot pay, and then what?  Well, the hospital has to recover those costs somehow, so the price of everything goes up accordingly.  That's why tylenol pills cost a few bucks in a hospital.  That cost then is borne by all because those with insurance have their insurers paying this higher cost.

An American friend of mine who runs a small business had the premiums he pays to cover his employees soar by 24% last year. That's the sort of inflation involved in insurance costs now, and if it continues, he and many other employers will not be able to provide benefits anymore because of the cost. 

The other great boogieman for Americans is "socialism" - as in taking away my "right" to private insurance is socialist!"  First off, nothing in any proposal removes the ability of a person to choose to continue to have private insurance (though if a viable public option exists it will eventually force private insurance out of business, most likely).  Second of all, the entire concept of insurance is about socialization of risk!  That's why it exists in the first place and how it got started as a business.

Some anti-reform twit on a blog I follow said something to the effect of "why should I have to pay for your dermatologist appt like will happen with Obamacare".  I said, well, if you pay health insurance premiums and aren't being treated for anything, you are already paying for someone else's treatment, as someone else will pay for yours if you develop a catastrophic illness and your care is covered by your insurance.  It's like they just don't get the concept at all.
 
Roy Harding said:
I've got a small growth on my arm (what used to be called a "wart" - and dismissed as insignificant).  It's benign - it don't mean nothin'.  I find that it upsets my personal equilibrium - why should YOU pay to remove it?  Perhaps there should be some way that I could have it removed at my OWN expense?

there is - it's called go to the pharmacy, buy the stuff and put it on yourself. You can go cheap at under $10 but may take 2 weeks to complete or you can get the new one day treatment for around $25. see here: http://www.drscholls.ca/english/products/condition?d=Warts

or try this:  http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2002/10/15/duct_tape021015.html

back to your regular schedule.
 
I am a real fan of the conservative blog Flopping Aces. Linked below is a great discussion of the current healthcare debate. I wont paste it all as there are a number of charts. Best way to view the article is just to hit the link.

http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/08/08/obamas-health-care-czars-to-seize-congressional-power-key-to-achieving-a-single-taxpayer-system/#more-25953

SOLUTIONS

Since everyone whines those that criticize do not offer alternatives, I’m going to lay out some of the obvious reforms based on the aforementioned information.

First… do *not* pass any public option! Instead, serious attention to *actual* cost cutting reform should be done, and time to allow the free market to respond to those changes before anything further is done.

What we know is that the private insurance costs are driven up by overpaying to make up for Medicare underpayment. Thus making both medical facilites and treatment more cost effective and efficient should bring down the providers’ costs, and thereby the private insurers overpayment proportionally.

Considering some of the notable and obvious flaws above, these are certainly some of the first reforms on my list.

~~~
* First and foremost, ANY 65+ senior who can afford private care should be given the choice to *opt out* without penalizing her/his social security retirement payments. If 5-10% of seniors do this, the savings would be significantly higher than HR 3200, as presented, and felt immediately felt… all without government expense.

* Health insurance plans should be concentrated on catastrophic care. Purchasing plans just to cover the expensive emergencies should be the norm, and tax benefits should be used to encourage a medical savings account for the non-emergency doctor visits…. which are then paid out of pocket via that account.

* Groups of small businesses, or self-employed individuals should be able to form associations that allow them to tap into group plans for more affordable access.

* Tort reform is necessary to eliminate medical practices that include waste merely for litigation prevention.

* Additionally, regulations need to be streamlined for private care, eliminating bureaucratic red tape that drives us costs unncessarily and increases paperwork.

* A central database for health records may be useful in streamlining costs… but this one is a nerve racking undertaking for privacy issues. Under no circumstances should various government departments have direct and easy access to this information, as HR 3200 grants. This should be information that only your network of doctors should be able to access, with exceptions for ER care.

* Eliminate this middle man crap… from nanny HMO’s to the mandate to insert a primary care doctor before you can go anywhere. If you need and ear, nose and throat specialist, there should be no reason you have to first pay a visit to your primary care doctor… *unless* he is an ear, nose and throat specialist.

* Negotiating the best prices for supplies and drugs should be as normal as apple pie… just like it’s done in the real world. But not with government price fixing.

* Reign Congressional spending in by streamlining the administrative costs for Medicare, and all associated (and unreported) costs. They need to spend less on paper, and more on those providing the actual service.

~~~
If we start with the above first, we can see were we are after some of these revisions take effect… all revenue neutral to the taxpayer. But there is no need for this race to single payer system.
 
A link to a 4 page memo showing the playbook being used by "pro Obamacare" groups to frame the narrative:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2009/08/hcan-playbook-for-thwarting-town-hall-protesters

Note the protesters are to be protrayed as paid agents of lobbiests and insurance companies, while HCAN is to form walls around the members of congress to prevent voters from expressing concerns and also to bombard the MSM with the pro Obamacare message.

A very interesting look at the motives and tactics of the Progressives.
 
The right wing's playbooks have also been leaked and are insidious documents.  I'm on my iPhone right now and don't have the links handy but a few right wing turncoats have released those key documents.  Both sides are playing games.
 
tomahawk6 said:
For the Statists in Washington this debate isnt about healthcare,rather its a vehicle to control the lives of every American. No health care if you are too old or sick. No healthcare until you lose weight. Ultimately this is about control and if enacted it would be damn hard to reverse.

Indeed:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/07/AR2009080703043.html

CHARLES LANE, IN THE WASHINGTON POST: House Bill Oversteps on End-of-Life Issues.

I was not reassured to read in an Aug. 1 Post article that “Democratic strategists” are “hesitant to give extra attention to the issue by refuting the inaccuracies, but they worry that it will further agitate already-skeptical seniors.”

If Section 1233 is innocuous, why would “strategists” want to tip-toe around the subject? Perhaps because, at least as I read it, Section 1233 is not totally innocuous.

Until now, federal law has encouraged end-of-life planning — gently. In 1990, Congress required health-care institutions (not individual doctors) to give new patients written notice of their rights to make living wills, advance directives and the like — but also required them to treat patients regardless of whether they have such documents. . . . Section 1233, however, addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones. Supporters protest that they’re just trying to facilitate choice — even if patients opt for expensive life-prolonging care. I think they protest too much: If it’s all about obviating suffering, emotional or physical, what’s it doing in a measure to “bend the curve” on health-care costs?

Read the whole thing.
 
Redeye said:
The right wing's playbooks have also been leaked and are insidious documents.  I'm on my iPhone right now and don't have the links handy but a few right wing turncoats have released those key documents.  Both sides are playing games.

And the MSM is playing right out of the progressive playbook (although after ABC's Obamacare fiasco, I doubt anyone with even a half open mind would disagree)

http://www.aim.org/on-target-blog/the-media-take-aim-at-the-mob/

The Media Take Aim At ‘The Mob’

BY K. DANIEL GLOVER  |  AUGUST 7, 2009

Subtlety is the most destructive weapon of biased journalists. It is the intellectual equivalent of a shot to the casual reader's head from a sniper's gun hundreds of yards away. The unsuspecting victim never knows what hit him.

The sniper's ammunition comes in many calibers -- selective reporting, misleading headlines, loaded adjectives and deceptive cutlines. Some kill instantly; others leave their targets in a permanently vegetative state. But the end result is always the same: liberal indoctrination.

Journalists are beginning to deploy subtlety as a weapon in their coverage of the protests over health care reform. They have learned that a tank barreling down the middle of the street, like the one CNN's Susan Roesgen drove during the Chicago Tea Party in April, is too obvious to work, so they have assumed high and hidden perches instead.

The latest sniper attack occurred last night in Tampa. As has happened across the country the past few weeks, opponents of President Obama's pro-government health care policies rallied at a town hall of their congresswoman, Democratic Rep. Kathy Castor.

The constituents at events like Castor's are the same ones who organized anti-spending and anti-tax tea parties in the spring. The mainstream media at first ignored those grassroots displays of taxpayer outrage and turned to ridicule when the pesky protesters refused to be ignored.

Both weapons exploded in their faces, so the St. Petersburg Times embraced the sniper rifle of subtlety in its coverage of Castor's town hall.

Jon Henke of The Next Right heard the first shot -- the newspaper changed its story, literally -- and exposed the sniper. The Times (whose parent company once employed me at Congressional Quarterly) initially, and correctly, thought it fair to note that the Service Employees International Union organized a counter protest at Castor's event.

The paper also included this explosive quote from an SEIU official hinting at plans to instigate trouble at the event: "We're prepared [for disruption]. We have strategies to deal with it if it should come up."

That language provided important context about a group whose leader once described his thug-like organizing philosophy like this: "[W]e prefer to use the power of persuasion, but if that doesn't work we use the persuasion of power."

The rewrite of the story a short time later dropped the quote and changed the tone of the story to what Henke rightly called "something far more SEIU/Democrat friendly." The second version downplayed SEIU's role even though it was billed as an organizer, and it spun the story from the critical perspective of pro-Obama protesters.

Ironically, the only photographic evidence of a physical encounter that the paper published showed a woman, later identified by Henke as local Democratic operative Karen Miracle, shoving an Obama critic in the face.

That brings us to the second sniper shot fired by the Times: its cutlines for the story. The 17-photo slideshow for the event cast opponents of government-run health care as a rowdy mob but mostly reserved judgment about the other side.

The second photo is a classic case of subtle bias. It reads, "Castor supporters cheer while opponents scowl." The paper also described Miracle and her husband, also a player in local Democratic politics, merely as people "attending to learn more about the health care reform."

When Miracle pushed the man's face, the Times excused the offense with this sympathetic cutline: "According to Karen Miracle, she was defending her husband, who has a heart condition." How dare that evil conservative argue with a man who has a heart condition!

Not all of the local coverage of the ongoing town-hall confrontations is as biased as what the Times published. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch actually included in its report the account of a conservative who was attacked while distributing signs that said "Don't tread on me," one of the slogans of the tea party movement.

But odds are good that sniper attacks like the ones from the Times will become more commonplace as the healthcare debate intensifies in lawmakers' districts this month. The national media in particular are not likely to report on the events objectively when they so desperately want Obama's agenda to be enacted.

So let this be a warning to foes of socialized medicine. Be on the lookout for media snipers. They will amplify every minor mistake you make and downplay the major sins of Obama supporters. Don't give them any ammunition, and do expose them when they take aim at "the mob."

K. Daniel Glover is a project manager for Accuracy In Media. He has worked as an editor, writer and new media specialist in the Washington area since 1991, spending most of that time at National Journal and Congressional Quarterly.
 
And here's the scoop Right Wing's playbook.

http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/141833/right-wing_turncoat_gives_the_inside_scoop_on_why_conservatives_are_rampaging_town_halls/?page=entire

 
Obamacare is certainly facing an uphill battle. I suspect that despite pressure from the administration and dishonest reporting from the MSM most members of the Congress will read the direction the wind is blowing and eventually vote in the most cosmetic of changes.

http://www.newsherald.com/articles/obama-76464-henry-focus.html

RON HART: Obama discovers that health reform is a hard sell
2009-08-07 17:59:24
ATLANTA

After scraping those Henry Louis Gates comments off his shoe, Obama can now focus on rushing his dream of socialized medicine through Congress. “Don’t worry your pretty little head over it,” he said last week, “We have to do this NOW!”

“Now” refers to the footrace he is having with his own dwindling popularity. It seems the American people are not as “stupid” as liberals like Bill Maher say we are.

If Obama has his way, his health care plan will be funded by his Treasury chief who did not pay his taxes, overseen by his Surgeon General who is obese, signed by a president who smokes and financed by a country that is just about broke. What possibly could go wrong?

But wait! Might it be that the country has just said “Whoooooa there, Big Fellow!”? Might we demand that our politicians actually read a bill before they vote on it? Might they actually be forced to understand what they are attempting? Am I crazy, or might the American people actually have been heard by those buffoons in Washington?

Having had his hard sell on health care rebuffed, Obama plunked down $28,000 to take his wife on a vacation to Martha’s Vineyard. He rented a Mississippi timber baron’s house that was previously leased to Bill and Hillary Clinton. It seems the pine baron has a posting on Craigslist that says, “Elegant Martha’s Vineyard house for rent; only liberals who fail miserably at reforming health care need apply.”

After promising that health care reform would get done, Nancy Pelosi acted disappointed when it stalled. Her “disappointment” had to be articulated by her publicists, because it is hard to discern any facial expression except surprise if you look at Pelosi’s Botoxed face. She is taxing Botox to finance this legislation because she is upset that it has made her face look like a Picasso painting.

The final brake on this freight train named “unbridled ambition” was Obama’s inability to explain it coherently in his weekly prime-time press conference. Understanding the vagaries of this medical monstrosity is harder than interpreting Sen. Larry Craig’s (Perv-Idaho) foot-tapping code in congressional bathroom stalls. Few get it, and you do not want to be around the ones who do.

The real health care cost savings (which Obama is trying to avoid by having no tort limitations in his bill) are the $100 billion a year we spend because doctors have to practice defensive medicine. These are the costs of unnecessary tests they put us through so they will be less likely to be sued. Lawsuits cost us all money. There is an inverse relationship between the intelligence of a town and the number of dubious lawyers on its billboards trolling for malpractice-injury lawsuits.

Lastly, this bill will fail because now these hapless congressmen have to go home and explain to their angry constituents why they backed legislation that will ration health care to older Americans while providing free coverage for illegal aliens. They also will have to come up with a better response than their usual deer-in-the-headlights stare when asked if Congress will join the same health care insurance plan they are forcing on the rest of us.

The same government that structures the “Cash for Clunkers” program (a complicated political cash giveaway program requiring used car dealers to fill out forms — where’s the problem in that setup?) had to be cut back because it is running out of money. Just imagine what government will do when it controls your health care.

I love this country, and I hate to see it going in this direction. But I feel that in the past week or so the American people have finally said they have had enough.

When this thing veers off course, I predict that Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama will call a joint press conference to blame George Bush, the Cambridge Police Department or Israel for their failure.

Ron Hart is a Southern libertarian columnist who can be reached at RevRon10@aol.com.
 
Thucydides said:
.... dishonest reporting from the MSM ....

Or, in some cases, mathematically challenged....
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200907270052
 
Some people are uncomfortable wit this -
Sec. 1442 of H.R. 3200 (commencing at page 622) that by passage would amend the Social Security Act, Part E, Title XI, by creating and contracting with "consensus-based entities" with which the Secretary would consult to "assess outcomes and functional status of patients (including) continuity and coordination of care transitions for patients across providers and healthcare settings, including end-of-life care." These consensus-based entities would assess "efficiency and resource use in the provision of care."
 
And note her point on diffusion of responsibility via rules.

UPDATE: Also, the market doesn’t deny you a hip replacement or a pacemaker because someone in government thinks your political views are “un-American.” Given the cronyism and thuggery we’ve seen with the bailouts, etc., I’m not confident this would hold true under a government health program. And I’m absolutely certain there would be a special track for insiders and favorites.

http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/08/rationing_by_any_other_name.php

Rationing By Any Other Name

10 Aug 2009 05:42 pm
Robert Wright notes that "we already ration health care; we just let the market do the rationing."  This is a true point made by the proponents of health care reform.  But I'm not sure why it's supposed to be so interesting.  You could make this statement about any good:

"We already ration food; we just let the market do the rationing."
"We already ration gasoline; we just let the market do the rationing."
"We already ration cigarettes; we just let the market do the rationing."

And indeed, this was an argument that was made in favor of socialism.  (No, okay, I'm not calling you socialists!)  And yet, most of us realize that there are huge differences between price rationing and government rationing, and that the latter is usually much worse for everyone.  This is one of the things that most puzzles me about the health care debate:  statements that would strike almost anyone as stupid in the context of any other good suddenly become dazzling insights when they're applied to hip replacements and otitis media.

The rationing is, first of all, simply worse on a practical level:  goods rationed by fiat rather than price have a tendency to disappear, decline in quality, etc.  Government tends to prefer queues to prices.  This makes most people worse off, since their time is worth much more than the price they would pay for the good.  Providers of fiat-rationed goods have little incentive to innovate, or even produce adequate supplies.  If other sectors are not controlled, the highest quality providers have a tendency to exit.  If other sectors are controlled, well, you're a socialist, and I just agreed not to call you a socialist, because you're not a socialist.

But there is also a real difference between having something rationed by a process and having it rationed by a person.  That is, in fact, why progressives are so fond of rules.  They don't want to tell grandma to take morphine instead of getting a pacemaker.  It's much nicer if you create a mathematical formula that makes some doctor tell grandma to take morphine instead of getting a pacemaker.  Then the doctor can disclaim responsibility too, because after all, no one really has any agency here--we're all just in the grips of an impersonal force.

But this won't do.  If you design a formula to deny granny a pacemaker, knowing that this is the intent of the formula, then you've killed granny just as surely as if you'd ordered the doctor to do it directly. That's the intuition behind the conservative resistance to switching from price rationing to fiat rationing.  Using the government's coercive power to decide the price of something, or who ought to get it, is qualitatively different from the same outcome arising out of voluntary actions in the marketplace.  Even if you don't share the value judgement, it's not irrational, except in the sense that all human decisions have an element of intuition and emotion baked into them.
 
Redeye said:
There is nothing to suggest there is so much as an iota of truth to that statement.  It is not borne out anywhere.

Except by the President's own words:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/kausfiles/archive/2009/08/11/a-debate-we-didn-t-have-to-have.aspx

MICKEY KAUS:

If, as Harold Pollack argues, “rationing of life-saving or life-extending care” would not really be a priority for the “effectiveness” panels–such as the Obama-endorsed IMAC–then it was all the more stupid to bring the topic up, no? Here’s the first graf from a Bloomberg account of an early Obama health care foray back in April:

April 29 (Bloomberg) — President Barack Obama said his grandmother’s hip-replacement surgery during the final weeks of her life made him wonder whether expensive procedures for the terminally ill reflect a “sustainable model” for health care.


Gee, where could the misinformed town hall crazies have gotten the idea that Obama was thinking about saving money by denying expensive procedures toward the end of life?

Oops.
 
Here are some ideas which would work in Canada as well, vastly improving health care and saving billions of tax dollars:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html

The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare
Eight things we can do to improve health care without adding to the deficit.
Article

By JOHN MACKEY

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out
of other people's money."

—Margaret Thatcher

With a projected $1.8 trillion deficit for 2009, several trillions more in deficits projected over the next decade, and with both Medicare and Social Security entitlement spending about to ratchet up several notches over the next 15 years as Baby Boomers become eligible for both, we are rapidly running out of other people's money. These deficits are simply not sustainable. They are either going to result in unprecedented new taxes and inflation, or they will bankrupt us.

While we clearly need health-care reform, the last thing our country needs is a massive new health-care entitlement that will create hundreds of billions of dollars of new unfunded deficits and move us much closer to a government takeover of our health-care system. Instead, we should be trying to achieve reforms by moving in the opposite direction—toward less government control and more individual empowerment. Here are eight reforms that would greatly lower the cost of health care for everyone:

• Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs). The combination of high-deductible health insurance and HSAs is one solution that could solve many of our health-care problems. For example, Whole Foods Market pays 100% of the premiums for all our team members who work 30 hours or more per week (about 89% of all team members) for our high-deductible health-insurance plan. We also provide up to $1,800 per year in additional health-care dollars through deposits into employees' Personal Wellness Accounts to spend as they choose on their own health and wellness.

Money not spent in one year rolls over to the next and grows over time. Our team members therefore spend their own health-care dollars until the annual deductible is covered (about $2,500) and the insurance plan kicks in. This creates incentives to spend the first $2,500 more carefully. Our plan's costs are much lower than typical health insurance, while providing a very high degree of worker satisfaction.

• Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits. Now employer health insurance benefits are fully tax deductible, but individual health insurance is not. This is unfair.

• Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. We should all have the legal right to purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state and we should be able use that insurance wherever we live. Health insurance should be portable.

• Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. These mandates have increased the cost of health insurance by billions of dollars. What is insured and what is not insured should be determined by individual customer preferences and not through special-interest lobbying.

• Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. These costs are passed back to us through much higher prices for health care.

• Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost. How many people know the total cost of their last doctor's visit and how that total breaks down? What other goods or services do we buy without knowing how much they will cost us?

• Enact Medicare reform. We need to face up to the actuarial fact that Medicare is heading towards bankruptcy and enact reforms that create greater patient empowerment, choice and responsibility.

• Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren't covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

Many promoters of health-care reform believe that people have an intrinsic ethical right to health care—to equal access to doctors, medicines and hospitals. While all of us empathize with those who are sick, how can we say that all people have more of an intrinsic right to health care than they have to food or shelter?

Health care is a service that we all need, but just like food and shelter it is best provided through voluntary and mutually beneficial market exchanges. A careful reading of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter. That's because there isn't any. This "right" has never existed in America

Even in countries like Canada and the U.K., there is no intrinsic right to health care. Rather, citizens in these countries are told by government bureaucrats what health-care treatments they are eligible to receive and when they can receive them. All countries with socialized medicine ration health care by forcing their citizens to wait in lines to receive scarce treatments.

Although Canada has a population smaller than California, 830,000 Canadians are currently waiting to be admitted to a hospital or to get treatment, according to a report last month in Investor's Business Daily. In England, the waiting list is 1.8 million.

At Whole Foods we allow our team members to vote on what benefits they most want the company to fund. Our Canadian and British employees express their benefit preferences very clearly—they want supplemental health-care dollars that they can control and spend themselves without permission from their governments. Why would they want such additional health-care benefit dollars if they already have an "intrinsic right to health care"? The answer is clear—no such right truly exists in either Canada or the U.K.—or in any other country.

Rather than increase government spending and control, we need to address the root causes of poor health. This begins with the realization that every American adult is responsible for his or her own health.

Unfortunately many of our health-care problems are self-inflicted: two-thirds of Americans are now overweight and one-third are obese. Most of the diseases that kill us and account for about 70% of all health-care spending—heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes and obesity—are mostly preventable through proper diet, exercise, not smoking, minimal alcohol consumption and other healthy lifestyle choices.

Recent scientific and medical evidence shows that a diet consisting of foods that are plant-based, nutrient dense and low-fat will help prevent and often reverse most degenerative diseases that kill us and are expensive to treat. We should be able to live largely disease-free lives until we are well into our 90s and even past 100 years of age.

Health-care reform is very important. Whatever reforms are enacted it is essential that they be financially responsible, and that we have the freedom to choose doctors and the health-care services that best suit our own unique set of lifestyle choices. We are all responsible for our own lives and our own health. We should take that responsibility very seriously and use our freedom to make wise lifestyle choices that will protect our health. Doing so will enrich our lives and will help create a vibrant and sustainable American society.

Mr. Mackey is co-founder and CEO of Whole Foods Market Inc.
 
It seems that it is not only (some?) Canadians that resent being used as the negative example in the US health care debate.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090814/ap_on_re_eu/eu_britain_us_health_care
Britons defend their health care from US criticism
By MEERA SELVA, Associated Press Writer Meera Selva, Associated Press Writer Fri Aug 14, 8:02 am ET

LONDON – Britons reacted with outrage Friday at American criticism of the country's health care system and defended their cradle-to-grave medical coverage on Twitter, television and in the tabloids.

Right-wing attacks on President Barack Obama's health reform plans have struck a nerve in Britain, where residents broadly take for granted their universal coverage under the state-funded National Health Service — and look askance at the millions of Americans without insurance.

"Land of the Fee," declared the Daily Mirror in reference to the United States' high-charging health model. The London newspaper called the "lies and distortions" being circulated in the United States about the National Health Service "truly sickening."

"Jaw droppingly untruthful," said the British Medical Association's chairman, Hamish Meldrum.

"NHS often makes the difference between pain and comfort, despair and hope, life and death," Prime Minister Gordon Brown tweeted. "Thanks for always being there."

Even British health campaigner Kate Spall — who criticizes NHS failings in U.S. television ads produced by Conservatives for Patients' Rights, a lobby group that opposes Obama's plans — declared that the group had misled her and was distorting her true views. Spall's mother died of kidney cancer while waiting for treatment.

"There are failings in the system but I'm not anti-NHS at all," Spall told the British Broadcasting Corp.

"I help the vulnerable patients in our country that come to me for help, those that have been denied treatment," she said. "So the irony is, the people that are falling through the net in the U.S. are patients that I would support anyway."

Britain's opposition Conservative Party is distancing itself from its maverick member of European Parliament, Daniel Hannan, who has criticized the NHS on U.S. news programs.

Conservative leader David Cameron dismissed Hannan as having "eccentric views."

In an e-mail to Conservative Party workers published on his blog, Cameron said millions, including his own family, were grateful for NHS-provided care.

"Just look at all the support which the NHS has received on Twitter over the last couple of days," he wrote. "It is a reminder — if one were needed — of how proud we in Britain are of the NHS."

The NHS, founded in 1948, is the cornerstone of the United Kingdom's welfare state.

About 12 percent of the UK's 61 million residents have private insurance, but the vast majority rely on state-funded emergency care, surgery and access to family doctors. Even those who complain about the system say they want it improved, not dismantled.

British officials acknowledge that their system has been struggling to cope and faces a 15 billion pound ($24 billion) deficit. Hospitals are often overcrowded, dirty and understaffed, which means some patients do not get the care they are promised.
 
Really?  Really really?  You actually believe that to be even a remote possibility?!

I can only shake my head, that has to be certifiably the most ridiculous thing I've read in a long while.

Thucydides said:
And note her point on diffusion of responsibility via rules.

UPDATE: Also, the market doesn’t deny you a hip replacement or a pacemaker because someone in government thinks your political views are “un-American.” Given the cronyism and thuggery we’ve seen with the bailouts, etc., I’m not confident this would hold true under a government health program. And I’m absolutely certain there would be a special track for insiders and favorites.
 
Trying to have a rational conversation with Republicans who are busy bashing Obama's attempts to bring Health Care to even the poorest Americans.
:brickwall:

A country that by any international standard of health care is inferior to most of the western world.  ::)
 
That's the biggest problem - there is no rational debate to be seen in the United States because those opposing the current proposals seem to have very little in the way of rational thought to discuss, instead they spout the talking points that the very powerful, very threatened insurance lobby is feeding them.  And people like Sarah Palin making comments about "death panels" is just making it worse.

The closest thing to a death panel I've heard of was Cigna (a major health insurance provider) refusing to cover a liver transplant for Nataline Sarkisyan, a 17 year old stricken with leukemia.  Cigna refused the treatment, and only relented after massive lobbying against them publicly.  Problem is that within hours of their relenting, Nataline died.

Baden  Guy said:
Trying to have a rational conversation with Republicans who are busy bashing Obama's attempts to bring Health Care to even the poorest Americans.
:brickwall:

A country that by any international standard of health care is inferior to most of the western world.  ::)
 
The Obama plan wont insure every american millions will be left out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top