You Will "Lose Your Freedom" Under Democrats' "Socialized Medicine"

[Stephanie]

Edwards is my first choice but he has really given them an opening. "Tucker" is on right now explaining that you will "lose your freedom" under the Democrats' "socialized medicine." All the pundits agree. Tucker explains that a 19-year-old doesn't even *need* insurance. That's right. And I guess that uninsured 25% of Americans don't either. Because, you know, they want to be free.

[Brigid]

1. Yeah, Americans are free, all right.

Free to go bankrupt the first time a catastrophic illness or accident strikes. Don't those clowns know that medical bills are the #1 cause of personal bankruptcy in this country? :banghead:

[Stargazer99]

132. They don't know because we are footing their medical care

via schedule A (tax) tax cuts, company provided health care (generous for the upper echelon)and government provided health insurance (check out the coverage for congress and up)via our tax money. No, they don't know and they don't want to know because then they'd be faced with reality.

[daninthemoon]

2. Why does that numbnuts still have a show? It isn't even on Faux.

[Stephanie]

3. Why is he still called Tucker?

What is he, five?

[tularetom]

15. Better watch out - he beat up a guy in a mens room

after the guy made a pass at him. He's a rugged guy ya know.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

21. Don't tell me it was Larry Craig.... alright tell me it was. n/t

[liberaldemocrat7]

71. Have we lost our freedom under socialized policing, firefighting, roads and national defense?

No.

We should make a long list of services and products that appear socialized while not losing our freedumb!!!

When health care costs much less, you gain freedumb!! you right wing nuts!!!

[bvar22]

106. The USA----A Socialist Nation?

You might have to reformat the following, but most (all) of the following are "Socialist" Programs...publicly funded programs providing communal services or protections. Many of these programs are in danger of being privatized.)


I like being reasonably sure that when I turn on my faucet, water comes out.

I like knowing that when I buy gas, I get a real gallon. (Bureau of Weights & Measures ?)

When I eat at a restaurant, I like being reasonably sure there isn't a rat turd in my soup. :( (Health Dept.)

I like being reasonably sure that my airliner won't crash into another. (FAA)

I like the knowledge that if my ship sinks, I can call someone to rescue me. (Coast Guard)

I like flipping my switch and a light coming on even when I'm in the woods. (Rural Electrification)

I like it that it doesn't flood every time it rains. (Corp of Engineers)
like commerce being able to use our rivers for transportation. (Corp of Engineers)

I like the pictures from Hubble. (NASA)

I like believing that when I take a pill for an illness, I'll probably be OK. (FDA)

I like knowing that if my girlfriend gets makeup in her eye, she probably won't go blind. (FDA)

I like knowing that even if my bank president runs off with the money, I'll probably still be able to get my savings. (FDIC)

I like knowing that if my neighbor starts dumping toxic waste in HIS yard, I can stop him.

I like knowing that if my house catches on fire, someone will come to put it out.

I like being able to call the Police if I need them.

I like knowing when hurricane or tornado is approaching. (Weather Bureau)

I like weekends off, overtime, vacation, and a 40hr work week. (Socialist Labor Unions)

I like it that McDonalds and Wal-Mart can't exploit children. (Child Labor Laws)

I like knowing that someone is watching out for epidemics. (Center for Disease Control)

I like knowing that Farmers (Large and Small) have access to information that lets them make good decisions concerning crops and land usage. (Bureau of Land Management & Farm Bureau?)
These are just a few.
There are many, many more socialist (gasp) programs that Americans (even Libertarians) take for granted EVERY FUCKING DAY!


(added by DUer “Iowa”)

--I like knowing that I can seek assistance if my employer creates a deadly work environment. (OSHA)

--I like knowing that my parents have a decent income and medical care in their old age. (Social Security) (Medicare)

--I like the fact that employers can't screen out otherwise qualified potential employees on the basis of disabilities. (Americans with Disabilities Act).

--I like it when people who are too disabled to support themselves aren't forced to be beggars. (SSI/SSDI)

--I like a country that does not tolerate discrimination on the basis of race, color, creed, or national origin. (Civil Rights Act)

--I like being able to afford to educate my kids. (Public Education) (Pell Grants)

--I like it when incompetent/impaired physicians are removed from practice. (state boards of examiners)

--I like the presumption of innocence when I am unjustly accused of a crime.

--I like to see snake-pit nursing homes fined and shut-down. (State Inspections & Appeals)

--I like it when a person injured on the job can get some financial help with retraining and job placement. (Vocational Rehabilitation)

The list is endless. Most of the people who work for the government are making our lives better - they are us. However, private sector corporations have perverted some (not all) government functions. What we need is not less government, but a strong government that is in the hands of the people and used to keep corporations in check. We need not only separation of church and state - we need separation of big business and state.

---I like the security of knowing that the bridges on our Interstate Highway System won't suddenly collapse. (DoT) (OOPS! :blush:)

---I like the comfort of knowing that the heavy trucks sharing our Highways & Interstates are regulated, licensed, and inspected! (DoT)(OOPS! :blush:)

[Stargazer99]

133. There is always a certain amount of Joe Six Pac that needs

Critical thinking skills. Only the well to do are trained in those assets because the less education you have the more easily "those that own the means of production" are able to manipulate the common man.

[Stephanie]

29. I have no doubt he would beat me up too.

If he could. But I would whup his ass.

[ProudDad]

52. The way I heard it that lousy little coward

had to go get a buddy to help him...

[sabbat hunter]

92. it is his given name n/t

[EST]

125. Tucker?

Isn't that the name of those little, moist, medicated thingies some hemorrhoid sufferers use to put out the fire?

[depakid]

16. His rich and connected daddy got him his jobs

Without him, Tucker would be lower management somewhere like Walmart, which suits his personality.

[Webster Green]

27. I absolutely will not watch that little dip-shit..

He's totally clueless. I can't imagine why he is on TeeVee.

[Cleita]

4. You know you don't have to use socialized medicine if you don't

want to. You can choose to pay per service and your doctor can choose to do his practice on a cash basis. But why do the rest of us, who want the security of access to health care regardless of our economic circumstances have to go without it just because thirty percent of the people don't want socialized medicine? What happened to majority rules? Yes, seventy percent of Americans want socialized medicine, so why should the 30% minority prevail?

[robinlynne]

11. Actually socialized medicine is the wrong term anyway. They use it to scare

republicans. It is single-payer health care. You still go to your own doctor of your choice. They are paid jsut as they are now. You just elimnate the huge profit machines which are standing in between us and health care.

[Stephanie]

23. Exactly.

"Socialized medicine" is a ridiculous term, designed to scare. We don't talk about "socialized" Medicare.

[NMMNG]

28. Nor do we talk about "socialized" police, fire fighting, public works, etc.

Yet we all seem to have it when it's needed.

[Cleita]

33. You're preaching to the choir here. :)n/t

[robinlynne]

45. But they have us using their terminology... socialized medicine will scare away

people who might love the concept if they knew what it meant.

[Cleita]

48. You are right and quite honestly I don't know why I used it because

I usually refer to it as single payer universal health care or Medicare for all.

[robinlynne]

49. you're right too. I'm having a bad day. sorry.

[Mind_your_head]

78. But a LOT of people don't understand what "single payer" insurance

means EITHER. For example, *I've* only come to understand it a few months ago.....and *I* have paid a LOT of attention for the last several 6+ YEARS.

'Single-payer' needs to be defined, repeated, and defined & repeated EVERY SINGLE TIME YOU SAY IT! THEN you will finally get the 'lunk-heads', like me, to understand it!

Peace,
M_Y_H

[Cleita]

79. Well the Physicians For a National Health Plan website

define it pretty well and offer a verion of how it could work if our pols do it right. http://www.pnhp.org

[Mind_your_head]

81. Thank you. I will take a good look at this & I hope it's 'sincere'

Patients & physicians are really (mostly) "all on the same team", rightly so!

Peace,
M_Y_H

[liberaldemocrat7]

75. I use the term socialized policing firefighting roads national defense

to throw it back in their faces so the term socialized appears nonthreatening when used with policing firefighting, roads that people do want and need.

[Nederland]

148. This is why

It's not that the 30% don't want socialized medicine, they don't want to pay for it. Little do they realise they are already paying for it.

[Kutjara]

5. The American notion of "freedom" has been stretched into an absurdity.

It often seems to translate into "freedom to be walked on by vested interests and powerful lobbies." Whenever I hear someone talk about "freedom" in this country, I start looking for an ulterior motive. It doesn't usually take me long to find one.

[Donnachaidh]

8. the average idiot who falls for the *Lose my freedoms* meme

hasn't got a clue as to how they are being used against themselves.

So, rather than have health care for everyone, they'd rather choose to pay through the nose for *insurance* which will decide if they are sick enough to treat.

[robinlynne]

46. The day they voted out the use of fisa courts was the day I felt I had really lost

my freedom. Oh, and the supreme court ruling in 2000. That was a major loss of freedom. The rest is horseshit, pretty much. unless you're an Iraqi, or live in New Orleans.
(sarcasm thingie insert)
Damn, we better preserve this freedom we have going on here....

[Donnachaidh]

6. They must be digging up all the shit they used against Hillary's work

Are they going to drag up that bullshit PSA done by Reagan using the *dreaded commie looming* crap?

I wish MSNBC would yank that asshole Tucker off the air.

[robinlynne]

7. When I was 22, I was hit by a car and didn't have health insurance (had just lapsed for

the first time ever). 7 years of surgery and wheelchairs. It was really rough on my family. My mother once quit work for a year to take care of me.(She was a dean at a university) In my family health insurance is considered an absolute necessity at all times under any circumstance now.

[PDJane]

10. just going to point out

that most of those bankrupted by medical expenses HAVE INSURANCE!!!

[robinlynne]

12. yep, saw sicko.

[daninthemoon]

17. You're just not as tuff as ol tucker. Why, when he was 22, his brain

fell out. On the ground. He didn't whine and go to some namby pamby hospital. Just picked it up, brushed it off, and shoved that sucker back in. Real men don't need no stinking insurance.
Seriuosly, though, I'm sorry about your past pain, and thanks for your post.

[Stephanie]

24. Well Tucker needs to hear your story, because he believes young adults are invulnerable.

Bill Press tried to point out that even a perfectly healthy 19-year-old could be in an accident, but "Tucker" pooh-poohed it.

[Vinca]

9. It's not socialized medicine, it's a socialized payment system -

as opposed to the greedy, money grubbing, for profit, insurance companies. You can go to any doctor or hospital you want. Socialized medicine is the government pays the doctors a salary, owns the hospitals, etc., etc., etc. Tucker is such a stupid twit.

[Stephanie]

26. edited my post to add quote marks

to distinguish Tucker's language from reality

[Dulcinea]

102. Insurance companies are not in business to pay for your health care.

They're in business to MAKE MONEY. That's why we need a new system that cares for all Americans!

[depakid]

13. How college dropouts can keep their jobs in the media

and pontificate about things that they know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about is part and parcel to EVERYTHING that's gone wrong in America over the past 25 years.

If that idiot or others like him knew even the slightest thing about health care economics- they'd understand that it's PRECISELY the 19 year olds who need to be in the risk pool.

Between he and Scarborough, I think I'm going to program MSNBC off of the TV. I'll punch in the numbers when Olbermann is on.

[Fovea]

14. My statement of policy

From this day forward, anyone I hear use this meme in ernest, I will kick in the crotch so hard they clear the ground.

Thank you, that is all.

[redqueen]

18. What is WITH Edwards' plan?

Is it single-payer, even?

Why the mandatory visits?

UGH!

[Kutjara]

42. It's about responsibility.

If the government is going to take responsibility for spending taxpayers' money to provide universal healthcare, it should be the individual's responsibility to ensure they need as little of that healthcare as possible. This is particularly so given that many medical procedures and treatments are incredibly expensive. Since it's usually true that treating a disease early is easier and cheaper than treating it late (and typically produces a better outcome), there is a strong argument for compelling citizens to make regular visits to their doctors in order to monitor the citizen's state of health.

Of course, a free society shouldn't go so far as to ration healthcare based on the patient's lifestyle (as some other socialized-medicine countries are currently considering in the face of rapidly inflating costs), but regular doctor visits are a reasonable requirement if any proposed US system is to avoid the problems some other countries are experiencing.

We need to stop screaming so much about our "freedoms" and start thinking a bit more about our responsibilities.

[ProudDad]

53. If ya' really want to make a difference

put burger king, mcdonalds and taco bell OUT OF BUSINESS...

And put a decent market with decent food at decent prices in EVERY neighborhood.

Lots of poor folks ain't got no choice -- they eat crap or they don't get to eat...

[Kutjara]

59. Absolutely.

That's precisely why I don't like the idea of rationing healthcare based on lifestyle. Many people have little control over the food they eat, whether because of socioeconomic environment, disability, genetics or simple ignorance. Universal care needs to be truly universal. But a visit to the doctor once every year or two is a small price to pay for having the safety net of high-quality treatment when it's needed.

As for McD's, Taco Bell and the rest, I'd like to see them all shut down, but that's something that will only happen if people stop demanding their food. Another way might be to tax fast food operators in proportion to the damage they do, and prohibit them from passing the tax on to consumers. We'd see them serving tofu burgers and wheatgrass shakes within a month, and the tax revenues could be hypothecated to the health service. :)

[ProudDad]

64. Imagine a WPA type program

to put a decent market in every poor neighborhood with fresh organic produce and fruits brought in from local farms and orchards...

You know safeway, albertsons, vons and piggly wiggly (do they still exist?) won't do it...

[Kutjara]

65. That would be fantastic.

Making good food accessible and affordable would go a long way toward ending the tyranny of fast-food crap.

[PoiBoy]

19. Doesn't our military have a socialized medical system?

And isn't the VA a single payer system? ...or is the reverse true? ..I believe Thom Hartmann pointed this out, but I'm the victim of a senior moment right now and can't recall the specifics...

Legitimate question.. please help..!

Hartmann's point was that we already have these types of systems in place and operating in our country right now, and in spite of any problems they may have, they still operate better than our current HMO based system.

:hi:

[rodeodance]

22. and the elderly, and the disabled, and those on Medicaid.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

32. It's single payer

And that system almost cost us the life of our grandchild because Tricare wouldn't pick up the tap for a much needed ultrasound. Weeks later, we finally convinced our daughter and her husband to pay for an ultrasound. This is the kind of thing that many Americans are scared of. What happens when some get their wish and it's a crime to go outside the system and pay for something yourself?

[Stephanie]

35. Single-payer is not an HMO plan.

Canada has single-payer. Medicare is single-payer. I'm sure you've seen Sicko, right? He shows Canadian and French (and Cuban!) single-payer systems. Tricare is, I assume, and HMO. Single-payer would cut out the profit-motivated middlemen like them, who spend more money on denying care as on providing it. Okay, that's hyperbole - but they spend billions trying to figure out reasons to deny you care - that's their job.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

38. True.

Although I do think of Tri-care as a small, contained system, which is why I said it was single payer. Ålthough you can opt to pay more to go out of the system, if I understand correctly.

ETA - small compared to the whole country. :)

[KaptBunnyPants]

85. And all of those people who are sick now and have nowhere to go?

Just fuck them then? Thats what many Americans are LIVING through now, so you'll have to excuse me while I cry a river of tears for the loss our of precious freedom.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

93. Bull!

You can have both - a good healthcare system and freedom to go out of it, but too many people won't be satisfied until we all have the same health care, drive the same car, live in the same 800 square foot block apartment like the old Soviet Union. Sour grapes. Don't you realize this is NOT going to get votes. It's scary to vote democratic when you read some of the threads here. We're not all good marxists. Some of us are Americans who just want better lives for the poor and middle class while safeguarding freedoms for everyone.

[KaptBunnyPants]

105. Good Marxists?

I don't know a single person who wants the things you said, except for everyone having healthcare. I'm speaking from personal experience with my uninsurable wife who made the mistake of getting sick, and now we both face ruin. The solution is not through private companies who have a direct financial incentive to not provide healthcare. They are parasites. They don't provide healthcare at all, only administer it through the most backward and overly complicated system of rule mongering found on the planet, and the country suffers greatly as a result of it. If you think bandaid solutions are going to fix this, you are wrong.

Although, now that you mention it, an 800 square foot apartment would be a step up for me...

[midlife_mo_Jo]

108. Hmmmm...

Having been to Russia, I doubt it...unless you are living with three generations in an even smaller place, but I know that many people are hurting financially, so please don't think I'm making light of your situation.

Anyway, I've been lurking here for a long, long time, and there are definitely some people who do not believe it's fair for someone to be able to go outside the system. The "snooty" shouldn't be able to spend their money purchasing private healthcare if they can't. If that's not marxist, I don't know what is. That's not going to sell with a lot of people in this country.

I've had breast cancer. If my husband loses his job, I KNOW I've got a pre-existing condition and we are up a creek. You don't have to explain how someone could get in your position. I fear it myself.

Please know that you have my very best wishes. :)

[KaptBunnyPants]

110. Thank you.

And for the record I have no problem with people choosing to go outside a public health system if they can afford to. As long as the public health system is there for the rest of us, I'll be happy.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

113. And I will happily use it! nt

nt

[ProudDad]

122. DOG DAMN, You're frustrating....

Ok, here you go -- here's your certificate:

-------------------------------------

OFFISIUL PERMISION

Be it known that

midlife_mo_jo

has complete, absolute, unalterable, permanent permission to go outside of ANY Universal Health Care system that may or will be enacted/written into law/put in place anywhere in the United States of America

and spend his/her own money on additional health care above and beyond and next to and in addition to that available to all of society if she/he wishes to do so!!!!

Forever and in perpetuity....

Granted this 5th Day of September in the year of your lord 2007

By the power vested in us;

the Combined, Monolithic, Omnipresent, Omniscient, Omnipotent, Marxist/Leninist/Trotskyist/Stalinist/Sandersist/Chavista/Castroist
forces of the World, Ltd.

-------------------------------------

Print this out and bring it to your local NON-Universal Health Care Provider when and if the time has come when you will "need it"...

[Stephanie]

109. oh brother

Good Marxists? I see I misunderestimated you.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

111. No,

I think you misunderestimate some of the posters on this board. I've been lurking here for months, so I know the sentiments that are espoused by a few. Telling people they can't go outside the nationalized system will doom whatever chance we have of getting real, meaningful change.

[Stephanie]

115. Except that no one is telling you that.

Nobody is saying you can't go outside the system. Maybe you should read up on it. Maybe you should watch Sicko. And if you really want to have a dialogue, maybe you should leave out some of the absurd rhetoric.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

116. Leave out the absurd rhetoric?

Are we posting to the same site? "Absurd rhetoric" is standard here, and what makes the place so much fun. :)

And, yes, there are people who think you shouldn't be able to go outside the system. Why don't you take a poll and find out? I don't know how many people are here, but they are definitely out there.

Poll:

Under a single payer system, with everyone contributing to it, we should be free to contract for private healthcare.

Under a single payer system, with everyone contributing to it, Americans should not be free to contract for private healthcare.

I don't think I can do it. I'm new. :)

[Stephanie]

117. yes you are.

new.

absurd rhetoric = "We're not all good marxists."

No, I will not post a poll for you. Do it yourself when/if you're allowed.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

118. New.

Does that mean I have to wear a scarlet letter for an unspecified period of time? The democratic party is quite a large tent, you know, unlike our - cough cough - brethren in the other party.

[Stephanie]

121. I don't know.

Ask the administrators.

[ProudDad]

123. OK, here you go

I've posted your poll here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3498793

[EST]

36. Slightly OT--

He (Hartmann) covered that a little on his appearance on c-span, Friday.
I had never head him before and could not get in sync his first play. I tried him again and was blown away. Watched it the other two times they replayed him; it was worth every minute. He knows his shit and, if he says it, you can pretty much take it to the bank.
Honesty is priceless.

[ProudDad]

57. Try to stream Thom Hartmann's radio show

He's on at 9 to noon here in the west...

Find an Air America station and "listen now"...

He's got it together...

[robinlynne]

47. You are very right!

[ProudDad]

54. Answer down below

Summary:

U.S. Military = Socialized System

V.A. = Socialized System

Medicare, Medicaid, Federal workers, the Executive and U.S. Congresscritters = Single-Payer system

The rest of us - FUCKED IN THE ASS BY THE HEALTH INSURANCE MAFIA and Big Pharma....

[Lasher]

95. Yes, the VA is a single payer system

And it is actually socialized, in that the VA owns and operates its facilities, pays the salaries of doctors and other staff, etc. They will sometimes pay for treatment at non-VA hospitals but they don't like to do it. I have a friend who needed a pacemaker and they hauled him 350 miles away to a VA hospital that could handle the procedure, even though he was actually in a non-VA hospital at the time that was ready and able to do it.

The VA does require that you go in for a physical at least once a year.

[rodeodance]

20. yeah---not needed till an accident, cancer, etc etc

[EFerrari]

25. They're taking away my freedom to die of preventable disease?

That's it for me! :sarcasm:

[midlife_mo_Jo]

30. Why not "socialized medicine" and freedom?

The freedom that many of us don't want to lose is the ability
to go outside of the system and purchase our own  health
insurance/healthcare if we so choose.  Can we not be
progressive enough to provide universal care for all, while
preserving our freedom to purchase health care outside of any
universal system?    

This is what many folks objected to when Senator Clinton was
working on healthcare as first lady.  I know  - I was a
Republican back then.  :)

It's like being for Social Security.  I am a staunch supporter
of Social Security, but highly reject the notion that because
many people cannot afford to save additional funds, I
shouldn't be able to do so either.  (Of course, in this
economy, we'll see just what funds I actually have left by the
time we retire.  :(    My programmer husband is fifty.  Nuf
said on that topic... )     Anyway, I want the same options in
health care.  Good healthcare should be available to all, but
if you can afford to have something treated privately and
choose to do so, your rights to conduct that healthcare
arrangement aren't abridged by a universal/government
run/socialized/single payer system.  (Who knows what we will
actually get?)   

It is scary to think that the government could start denying
payment for treatment of some illnesses or diseases
(rationing) , and without a "perceived safety
valve," I think many people - even middle class people
who are really having to stretch their healthcare dollars -
will continue to be against universal care based on those
fears.   You need to appeal to those people to get this
program running!  We've wasted enough time already.

[Stephanie]

34. Welcome to DU!

Here is an informative thread about the Edwards plan:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1730928

Thanks for your first DU post!

[midlife_mo_Jo]

37. Thanks!

And I guess I won't be progressive enough, because I wouldn't mind if all Americans who chose to utilize "the system" (don't know what to call it yet! ) had to get checkups every couple of years.

I'm leaning towards Edwards. Although I would prefer a simple, single payer system (with the option to go out the system), I think his plan is much likely to get implemented. Incremental change is NOT a bad thing, in my opinion, if it gets voters on board!

[ProudDad]

58. HR676 - Universal Single Payer

has NO provision that would keep people from paying for "more insurance" if they wanted to.

It WOULD provide a very HIGH level of care for everyone else and lower costs for everyone.

You wouldn't need extra insurance but if you're among the snooty, "entitled classes" who want a doctor to drop everything every time they get a sniffle...and can pay for one who will you can do it.

Much of the upper class in Britain do that. They pay for their own doctors so they don't have to mingle with the unwashed in the National Health...

[midlife_mo_Jo]

60. :(

No, I'm not part of the "entitled classes." My generation is the first to go to college in my family.

I'm not convinced it would provide a very "high" level of care for everyone, but I am convinced that it will provide a very good level of care, and care for people who don't have any care.

You see, I'm not "progessive enough" to think that just because some people can't afford something, it should be against the law for others or EVIL for someone with a little more money to have access to something. My forebears worked their butts off for my generation to finally get where we are today. I"m for healthcare for everyone, and maximized choices for as many people who can choose otherwise if that's what they want.

That doesn't make me snooty - it just means I want to preserve as many choices as possible for my kids, while opening up other choices for those less fortunate. And besides, who's to say that my husband won't get laid off? We're not rich. We're vulnerable just like most Americans.

[ProudDad]

67. I don't think that you understand my argument

I am arguing FOR a very high class of care for EVERYONE -- paid for by a Single-Payer system that is contributed to by everyone according to their means. The broadest possible "risk pool" so that everyone gets a high standard of care.

I am NOT arguing for 2nd class Health Care for the public program and 1st Class Health Care for those with money...

I'm arguing for a system that is funded well enough to provide the same level of care that someone with "gold plated" insurance today has but for EVERYONE.

(Actually I'm arguing for a better system since Docs and Nurses wouldn't have health insurance corporation actuaries and gatekeepers breathing down their necks)

HR676 will supply that very high level of care.

The problem in this country is not FUNDING, there's already enough money pissed away on the health insurance mafia (huge salaries, legions of worthless gatekeepers whose job it is to DENY CARE, corporate jets) and big pharma (marketing, corporate jets, huge salaries) in this country to provide the BEST HEALTH CARE in the world to EVERYONE IN THE COUNTRY... Currently it's triaged to only those who can "afford to pay"...

In the new system, the only advantage that the rich could buy with their money would be more "customer service"; that is, like in Britain, an MD who would be act the subservient sycophant to their rich client during the process so they don't have to huddle with the masses down at the National Health. They would NOT be required, nor would anyone be required to pay extra for the highest quality "Health Care" for themselves and their families.


The only EVIL would be if the selfish elements in this society (and, Dog knows there are PLENTY of THEM -- tucker among them) make sure that the Universal Single-Payer system is deficient in some important ways that impact on the quality of care

This IS a definite danger we must be very vigilant against given the basic loyalty of most of the politicians to their corporate capitalist masters...

[midlife_mo_Jo]

68. The ability to opt out

is a provision that will protect against the government having too much power. You may be arguing for first class health care, but is that what we will actually get? And how long is it going to take to acquire that?

And if you don't think rationing is a possibility, then you aren't as jaded as I am. Work on a plan that will care for everyone, but leave the ability to exit the system as a safety valve!

People really are scared of a system where you can't go elsewhere. It was a huge problem with Senator Clinton's plan, and we'd be wise to remember that when loooking for votes!

[ProudDad]

82. I guess you trust corporations more than I do

I would rather the "government", that is, our representatives, who can be thrown out on their asses if we organize to do so (and they know it, and they know Health Care is a hot-button issue -- just ask them if they'd muck around with Medicare), I'd rather have them pass legislation so that "We the People" can finance our own health care as a civilized society rather than a bunch of rapacious "health insurance" corporations.

In case you don't know it, the only purpose of a corporation is to "increase shareholder equity". I don't trust an organization whose sole purpose is the skim money from my health care budget for corporate perks and to pay people to "cut costs" -- which in practice means block my access to Health Care in order to pump up their bottom line.

Check it out: http://www.thecorporation.com/index.cfm?page_id=312

"THE PATHOLOGY OF COMMERCE: CASE HISTORIES
To assess the "personality" of the corporate "person," a checklist is employed, using diagnostic criteria of the World Health Organization and the standard diagnostic tool of psychiatrists and psychologists. The operational principles of the corporation give it a highly anti-social "personality": it is self-interested, inherently amoral, callous and deceitful; it breaches social and legal standards to get its way; it does not suffer from guilt, yet it can mimic the human qualities of empathy, caring and altruism. Four case studies, drawn from a universe of corporate activity, clearly demonstrate harm to workers, human health, animals and the biosphere. Concluding this point-by-point analysis, a disturbing diagnosis is delivered: the institutional embodiment of laissez-faire capitalism fully meets the diagnostic criteria of a "psychopath."


DO YOU WANT A PSYCHOPATH determining what Health Care you can and can't get???? I don't!!!

I'd trust our government over any for-profit corporation...

-----------------------

"And if you don't think rationing is a possibility, then you aren't as jaded as I am. Work on a plan that will care for everyone, but leave the ability to exit the system as a safety valve!"

How many times must we say it. YOU CAN PAY EXTRA FOR ANYTHING YOU WANT!!!

BUT...like Social Security, Property and Income Taxes for your schools, fire and police, State Taxes for your roads -- you can't opt-out of SOCIETY... If SOCIETY decides that affordable, Universal Health Care is a social good and legislates everyone to participate, like those other "social goods", then you will participate.

You could always opt-out by leaving...of course if you go to a CIVILIZED country you'll encounter another Universal Single-Payer Health CARE System you'll have to join...

How are you paying for health insurance now? How good is it? Are you SURE it's as good as you think it is???

In case you haven't seen SiCKO yet, Health Care is ALREADY rationed. The BEST care is rationed to the very rich. The next tier to the merely affluent. The SHIT care (if any) is rationed for the rest of us...the 47 million of us who can't afford health insurance of any kind...

In addition, anyone with "health insurance" is NOT guaranteed very much in the way of "Health Care"...

-----------------------

Please go see SiCKO. You'll find out how egregious, anomalous, wasteful and inadaquate the USAmerican system of Health Care Rationing and commodification is. You'll also find out what real people in other countries actually think about their Universal Health Care Systems and how unafraid (and grateful) they are that they have them!!!

[midlife_mo_Jo]

97. Sigh

I don't trust the corporatists anymore than I trust the government. PERIOD.

I have breast cancer. I happen to know that my chances of dying are greater in Canada than here in the U.S. Yeah, even without nationalized care we have better survival rates. Why is that? Maybe because women in Canada have to wait for technology dependent, diagnostic procedures? Know where those women go when they don't want to wait months for a scan in Canada? HERE.

And health care will always be rationed. When the babyboomers start getting up there, healthcare costs are going to skyrocket for them. You think the taxpayers can afford to pay for their social security and expensive healthcare with no rationing whatsoever? We don't have unlimited money for all the latest and greatest technology. It's going to be rationed. However, we can still provide quality care for the woefully underserved, we can still provide quality care for the middle class without causing them to go bankrupt, and we can still retaining rights for all Americans to use their own money for that scan if it means a quicker diagnosis, for instance. You don't have to be "rich" for that, but you do need a savings account, and a willingness to access it. Is that SO WRONG?

One of my children lives in Canada, and my husband and I lived in England for a while, so I'm very familiar with the pros and cons of a national healthcare system.

And by the way, I happen to support capitalism - just not the unbridled capitalism where the whole darn country is going to be owned by ten major corporations. Life is NOT an either/or. There are plenty of shades of gray, you know.

[ProudDad]

120. PLEASE GET THE FACTS STRAIGHT

THIS IS NOT TRUE!!!!!

"I happen to know that my chances of dying are greater in Canada than here in the U.S"

HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS????

50 million plus people in this country have NO access to "technology dependent, diagnostic procedures". I guess you're not among us lucky 50 million and actually have "health insurance". Is that why you want to deny access to the rest of us?

All people in Canada have access to "technology dependent, diagnostic procedures".

All people HERE would have access to "technology dependent, diagnostic procedures" if HR676 were the law of the land.

------------

I'm perfectly aware of "shades of gray", you know...

Capitalism's main internal contradiction is that you will ALWAYS arrive at unbridled capitalism if you let the system follow it's normal tendencies...

"the whole darn country is going to be owned by ten major corporations" <-- sorry, too late. It's already pretty much happened...

[iverglas]

142. ah, the Adherents of the Repeated Meme

For any Dr. Who fans among us.


I happen to know that my chances of dying are greater in Canada than here in the U.S.

Yeah. Ya wanna know why?

http://www.thepeerreview.ca/view.php?aid=30

Renee Parsons has found that class and race play a major role in access to screening, prevention, and follow-up care, particularly in the US. As part of a larger project led by Dr. Kevin Gorey, who is looking at differences in cancer survival in US and Canadian contexts, Parsons synthesized approximately 70 American and Canadian studies of survival rates in the two countries.

What she discovered is that, while Canada is not immune to health care inequities, survival rates corresponds more closely to regional and community trends rather than individual financial standing. One recent study, for instance, suggested that Canada’s high immigrant population means language barriers prevent women from understanding and using cancer-screening options. Thus, Canadian communities with high immigrant populations should be targeted for special outreach programs. By contrast, In the United States, social stratification has a much a more detrimental effect on the accessibility of the prevention, screening and follow up services.

“... racial-group and class inequities that persist in America could be solved through social policies that guarantee equitable distribution of health care,” says Parsons. Despite concerns over Canada’s system — waiting lists, for example — Parsons notes that her study is part of a wide body of recent work that points to an underlying equity in Canadian health care. Her research strengthened her belief that “we as Canadians must do all that we can to ensure that our health care system continues to provide universally accessible health care.”

Hot damn, eh? Canada's HIGHER immigrant population is one reason we have LOWER survival rates, because immigrant status involves barriers to access to screening services.

Kinda the opposite of just about everything you've had to say on these matters, hm?

But maybe there's something in there to explain why YOU might have a better chance of survival in the US than in Canada (if that be the case, which I reserve judgment on). It could be because YOU are not in a socioeconomic stratum where your chance of survival in the US is actually LOWER than in Canada.

I have had absolutely no luck finding breast cancer mortality studies that are less than 10 years old. Given that the studies to then showed rising survival rates in Canada, attributed to expanding screening programs, I would not want to rely on figures that old to portray the present situation in Canada. Here are a couple of things, though.

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/cdic-mcc/18-3/f_e.html

11. An international comparison of cancer survival: Toronto, Ontario, and Detroit, Michigan, metropolitan areas

Kevin M Gorey, Eric J Holowaty, Gordon Fehringer, Ethan Laukkanen, Agnes Moskowitz, David J Webster, Nancy L Richter
Am J Public Health 1997;87(7):1156-63

Objectives.
This study examined whether socioeconomic status has a differential effect on the survival of adults diagnosed with cancer in Canada and the United States.

Methods.
The Ontario Cancer Registry and the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program provided a total of 58,202 and 76,055 population-based primary malignant cancer cases for Toronto, Ontario, and Detroit, Mich, respectively. Socioeconomic data for each person's residence at time of diagnosis were taken from population censuses.

Results.
In the US cohort, there was a significant association between socioeconomic status and survival for 12 of the 15 most common cancer sites; in the Canadian cohort, there was no such association for 12 of the 15 sites. Among residents of low-income areas, persons in Toronto experienced a survival advantage for 13 of 15 cancer sites at 1- and 5-year follow-up. No such between-country differentials were observed in the middle- or high-income groups.

Conclusions.
The consistent pattern of a survival advantage in Canada observed across various cancer sites and follow-up periods suggests that Canada's more equitable access to preventive and therapeutic health care services is responsible for the difference.


12. Survival rates for four forms of cancer in the United States and Ontario

Donald M Keller, Eric A Peterson, George Silberman
Am J Public Health 1997;87(7):1164-7

Objectives.
In this study, cancer survival rates for patients diagnosed in Ontario and selected areas within the United States were compared.

Methods.
Relative survival rates were computed for patients aged 15 through 84 years diagnosed with any of four forms of cancer (breast, colon, lung, and Hodgkin's disease). The cohorts represented those diagnosed over the years 1978 through 1986 in the Canadian province of Ontario and in nine regions covered by the US National Cancer Institute's Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results program. Patients were followed through the end of 1990.

Results.
The cumulative relative survival rates were similar for American and Canadian patients. The largest difference was observed for breast cancer, where patients in the United States enjoyed a survival advantage throughout the follow-up period.

Conclusions.
Patients in the United States and Ontario with the diseases studied, except for breast cancer, experience very similar survival. The greater use of mammographic screening in the United States could account for that country's higher breast cancer survival rate by promoting earlier and therefore more efficacious treatment, by introducing bias, or by a combination of both treatment and bias factors.

Now. YOU are the one repeatedly asserting that your chances of survival are better in the US than in Canada. (I presume you are referring to the possibility of a recurrence and whether it would be detected, and not to the relative efficacy of treatment in the two places.)

Do YOU have something to substantiate YOUR assertion? I'm getting tired of doing your work for you.

[iverglas]

143. here ya go

Peruse this one, and let us know what your findings are about breast cancer survival rates in Canada and the U.S., and the determinants thereof.

http://www.openmedicine.ca/article/view/8/1

Open Medicine, Vol 1, No 1 (2007)
Home > Vol 1, No 1 (2007) > Guyatt
Research
A systematic review of studies comparing health outcomes in Canada and the United States


typo fixed

[2rth2pwr]

90. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need

I understand.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

94. You do?

Then you understand that I am not a marxist, communist or whatever.

What is wrong with living in a compassionate FREE society where the poor and middle class are taken care of, where you don't have to go bankrupt to get medical care, and where you also have freedom to opt out of the system or purchase more?

If "the system" will only pay for a semi-private room, but I want a private room and can afford the privacy, am I'm supposed to feel guilty about that because - FINALLY - after several generations of hardwork in my family - I can do so? Can't you be pleased that we will have quality care for all, and that people will be free to use their own money to access "more" if they so choose?

Is that a selfish, greedy choice that I'm supposed to feel guilty about or is that my personal value judgment on where I should spend my - albeit - upper middle class, but still limited income?

[dugggy]

135. You make excellent points in your posts and glad you are here..

Just one friendly piece of advice...never get into an
argument with Proud_Dad. He wants every single thing
under government control. It is a waste of time making
logical and rational and realistic points with him.

I read all of your posts on this thread and I am 100%
in concert with your thinking.

[iverglas]

137. I'm not quite sure how you could ... or why you would ... say this

never get into an argument with Proud_Dad. He wants every single thing under government control.

Is this what we call "hyperbole" in the rhetoric business? You know: saying something that isn't actually true, for dramatic effect and all that.

What ProudDad wants under "government control" (doesn't that sound just so much more horrible than what it actually is: "public control"??) is health insurance. Was there something else he's been calling for putting under government control that I've missed? Toilet paper softness, maybe? Diet pop flavours available to the consumer? Any of the myriad and many things that are so essential to life, and that freedom means never having fewer than 50 choices of?

What exactly is it that you imagine you would not have access to if health insurance were under "government control" that you do have access to now? There's gotta be something ...

[midlife_mo_Jo]

103. Answered wrong post

Sorry about that! :)

[Catchawave]

31. You "don't have to choose" the government plan.

Why aren't *ucker and *ox mentioning that?

[ProudDad]

61. Actually the Universal Single-Payer

system will be so much better and cheaper than the for-profit health insurance mafia can possibly supply (the MARKET DOES NOT always "work") that few would be stupid enough to "opt-out"...

It will be "UNIVERSAL", like Social Security -- you get it by virtue of being a member of the human society bounded by the borders of the U.S. of A. Don't have to "opt-in" or "out"...

Everyone will contribute to the system in accordance to their means...

[midlife_mo_Jo]

100. "human society"

And how much is our universal system going to cost if you only have to be a member of the "human society" to access it?

When we have more immigrants pooring over the borders to accesss this healthcare as a member of the "human society," how much is this going to cost? How much rationing will take place to cover everyone? These are questions that must be answered in order to get more people on board.

I want universal healthcare. I also want to know how we're going to pay for it.

Let's talk about France. What would France's system look like if they had millions of immigrants pouring into their country?

Let's talk about Canada. Canada maintains it's healthcare by denying entry to immigrants who would be a drain on their system. Well, two minimum wage workers bringing in their three kids and elderly grandparents are going to cost way more than they put into the system. Multipy that by a few million. How are we going to handle this?

We need answers to very hard questions in order for more Americans to get on board. I want universal healthcare. I don't want to see my kids go bankrupt because they can't afford care. In this country, we are one pink slip away from health coverage. :( :( :( :( At the same time, I want to know how we are going to pay for social security for an aging population and healthcare for an aging and expanding immigrant population.

[divineorder]

112. First of all, people even at minimum wage pay taxes

Income taxes, social security taxes, whatever. Also, with a national health care plan, America could negotiate terms with Mexico and other nations for reciprocity of care. We could ask countries that as a part of foreign aid deals that they pay up for those here illegally. Right now, with so many insurance companies, there is no one to negotiate deals like this. The children don't stay kids forever either: they grow up and hold jobs like their parents at least some of the time.

Money for National Health Security: first of all, the cost will go down. Right now, people pay far more in insurance premiums than they do even in taxes sometimes. We would eliminate those, raise Medicare taxes slightly, and most people would come out far better than before. Secondly, as care moves from ERs to family practice, some Emergency Rooms could concievably cut down on staff as only the people with real emergencies would be going to them.

There are more we can do once the insurance companies are out. Nurse-practitioners who are paid to visit patients and administer care in their homes, saving beds in long-care facilities. Roving clinics for screening and on the spot care. School clinics. Cheaper and simpler care.
Doctors who come back into the system because they are retired and can now work part-time.

As for choice, people will always have the choice to opt out. Some religions don't believe in modern medicine or certain procedures: I doubt that these people will be forced to use the system except in great emergencies. Some will want champagne breakfasts, widescreen tvs, and other extras. Those won't be covered either, and people could buy some supplemental policy or pay into an account and get those.

And who is to say that care would be mediocre? Many doctors would gladly trade insurance hassles for more time with patients, steady income, and some self-respect.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

114. You do realize

that one of the reasons countries like Canada can afford their healthcare is because they strictly enforce who can come into their country? You can't bring in hordes of relatives that will be a net drain on the economy. You can't get in - period - if you have many illnesses. (More so than here, from what I understand. Heck, you can't even adopt a child from overseas with certain issues because that would be a drain on their network. Those progressive minded Canadians are also quite practically minded. :) Actually, look into just who could emigrate from Hong Kong. They had to have MONEY. Canadians protect their precious health care and social resources. Other countries also have strict emigration policies for the same reasons.


We will have an aging population straining Social Security.

An aging population straining healthcare and long-term care facilities.

An immigrant population that does not pay it's weight in social services. Yes, they are an asset to our country in many ways, but in this particular issue, the facts are that two immigrants making minimum wage with three kids (legal or illegal, I don't care) are taking way more resources than they are putting in.

And we have aging infrastructures.

And a stupid war. sigh

How are we going to pay for all of this? We have to do something, but we also need answers to some hard questions.

[iverglas]

139. more of it just keeps getting dredged up

Thank goodness you haven't been posting long ... I'd hate to have to follow the trail of misrepresentations back much farther than this.

You do realize that one of the reasons countries like Canada can afford their healthcare is because they strictly enforce who can come into their country? You can't bring in hordes of relatives that will be a net drain on the economy.

Have you ever considered actually investigating what you're talking about before you go yammering in public about it?

Nearly twice as high a proportion of the Canadian population was born outside the country (18.4% in 2001 and rising) as in the US. Just for starters. You can let the implications of that sink in for a moment. Nearly 1 out of 5 Canadian residents was born outside Canada. Not a lot of people outside Canada would have guessed that, I'm pretty sure.

Canadian residents may sponsor members of the family class -- their spouse (defined very broadly, to include partners in any established couple relationship, whether same-sex or opposite-sex), dependent children, parents and dependent children of the parents. They may assist - give extra points to - other family members, like adult siblings and their dependent children.

Of course there are health-related limitations.

38. (1) A foreign national is inadmissible on health grounds if their health condition

(a) is likely to be a danger to public health;
(b) is likely to be a danger to public safety; or
(c) might reasonably be expected to cause excessive demand on health or social services.

People with medical conditions that make them likely to put the public at risk are excluded. TB is the big one here; and after treatment and the requisite negative tests, people who have had TB are no longer ineligible.

You're inadvertently speaking to a former immigration and refugee lawyer here, btw. So I'll tell you about a client that immigration was trying to exclude on medical grounds - it was a complicated case, not the run of the mill sort of thing, but the upshot was that a senior official from the public health plan testified that the surgery he needed for post-polio scoliosis could be obtained in about two months from the date of scheduling, and that providing him with the surgery wasn't going to affect services to other patients in any way, and the health plan didn't give a damn about the cost.

I was called one day to set up a radio interview on short notice about policy on admitting individuals who were HIV positive -- the station had learned that policy was to admit them. It was a new one on me -- so I telephoned the head of the immigration unit at Health Canada, a senior bureaucrat/physician I'd never had occasion to deal with personally but about whom I'd heard all sorts of awful things. She came on the phone and told me in a tone of exasperation that we had HIV in Canada already so how could admitting someone with HIV be a problem from the public-danger point of view? From the excessive demand point of view, everybody, whether born here or admitted as an immigrant, is going to get sick, and die of something, was the way she looked at it.

Do you imagine that the US actually allows people to sponsor, what, their second cousins three times removed? Who are quadriplegic and have active TB, maybe?

Here's what the US government has to say on the matter:

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=0775667706f7d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCRD&vgnextchannel=4f719c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD

The relatives which may be sponsored as an immigrant vary depending on whether the sponsor is a U.S. Citizen or a lawful permanent resident.

* If the sponsor is a U.S. Citizen, they may petition for the following foreign national relatives to immigrate to the U.S:
o Husband or wife
o Unmarried child under 21 years of age
o Unmarried son or daughter over 21
o Married son or daughter of any age
o Brother or sister, if the sponsor is at least 21 years old, or
o Parent, if the sponsor is at least 21 years old.

* If the sponsor is a lawful permanent resident, they may petition for the following foreign national relatives to immigrate to the U.S.:
o Husband or wife, or
o Unmarried son or daughter of any age.

... The immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, which includes parents, spouses and unmarried children under the age of 21, do not have to wait for an immigrant visa number to become available once the visa petition filed for them is approved by USCIS. An immigrant visa number will become immediately available. The relatives in the remaining categories must wait for an immigrant visa number to become available according to the following preferences:
* First preference: Unmarried, adult sons and daughters of U.S. citizens. Adult means 21 years of age or older.
* Second Preference: Spouses of lawful permanent residents, their unmarried children (under twenty-one), and the unmarried sons and daughters of lawful permanent residents.
* Third Preference: Married sons and daughters of U.S. Citizens.
* Fourth Preference: Brothers and sisters of adult U.S. Citizens.

If you're fourth preference, you're going to be waiting a while. Medical examinations are required, I assume for some purpose.

Kinda averages out, I guess. We don't discriminate between citizens and permanent residents, so we allow more people to sponsor aging parents, for example; we do have more stringent rules for non-dependent children and siblings. Not a really great big difference. Particularly considering that, as a proportion of population, Canada takes in many more immigrants per year than the US -- apparently about 1,000,000 for the US, 254,000 for Canada in 2005-2006 -- 1/9 the population, 1/4 the immigrants. (Yes, I know that doesn't account for informal immigration to the US; double the formal count, for extra good measure, and you still have 1/9 the population, 1/8 the immigrants. Of course, we have some undocumented immigrants too.)


So we have another of those cases where it takes 1,000 words to demonstrate the complete falsity of 10. A dozen false words ... a moment on the lips, immortality in the minds of the gullible, I suppose some would hope.


The fact that so much of your "case" against universal single public payer health insurance in the US seems to be based on nonsense like this -- stuff that you pull from dog knows where, in particular about Canada, and spew out into the discussion without the least attempt to back it up, when you plainly couldn't back it up if you tried -- and that you pretty much refuse to address any of the rebuttals offered ... well, it's just kinda curious.


(edited to clarify a sentence)

[ProudDad]

119. One last time then someone else can take over...

"I want universal healthcare. I also want to know how we're going to pay for it."

Use the over $7000 per year per person being spent on health insurance and health care now and eliminate the for-profit leeches. Probably cost less after removing the leeches from the equation.

"Let's talk about France. What would France's system look like if they had millions of immigrants pouring into their country?"

In proportional terms, they already have millions of immigrants 'pouring into their country'. They've just made the decision as a society to be a "WE" society and help each other rather than a "ME" society.

Why are you spouting nativist, right-wing talking points? Those "HORDES" of "immigrants" they want to scare you constitute about 3% of the population of the country...

But I thought we were talking about health care. :shrug:

"I want universal healthcare. I don't want to see my kids go bankrupt because they can't afford care"

If we leave the for-profit health insurance mafia and big pharma to call the shots, they won't have to worry about it -- they probably wouldn't be able to afford care anyway. If we could pass HR676 and it is signed into law contributions into the system would be progressive.

NO ONE WOULD BE BANKRUPTED by health care as so many ARE NOW!

"I want to know how we are going to pay for social security for an aging population" <-- SIMPLE, raise the cap...

------------------

None of these are technical or financial problems. None are impossible to solve if society makes the decision to help each other out instead of continuing to support the robber baron capitalist system that's in control now.

We have to decide if we want to become a "WE" society instead of the "I've got mine, Jack so screw you!" "ME" society we have...

==================

Do a search of DU on health care and read up. We've answered all of your questions before.


You're buying into the fear mongering that the right-wing and corporate forces what you to buy into. You don't have to do that... :)

[iverglas]

140. you really do need to learn a bunch of stuff, don't you?

You want to know this, you want to know that ... when what you already "know" is such utter bumph.

Canada maintains it's healthcare by denying entry to immigrants who would be a drain on their system.

"Bumph" would be too polite for this. I've just addressed it completely in another post (139), but let's just point out that while Canada has health-related exclusions in the immigration system (as does the US), this is not how we maintain our healthcare. We maintain our healthcare system by funding it, and managing it efficiently.

EVERYBODY in any society is going to get sick, is going to have accidents, is going to require end of life care. It really doesn't matter that they're native-born and never learned a word of another language in their life; they're going to get sick, have accidents and die. What would make an immigrant resident any different from a native-born resident in this respect, I don't know.

When we have more immigrants pooring over the borders to accesss this healthcare as a member of the "human society," how much is this going to cost?

If they're working and paying taxes, why do you ask? If they're not, the answer is simple: the plan is available for legal residents only. That's how we do it. Mostly. If you show up in an ER in Toronto with a broken bone and no insurance, you're not going to get evicted.

I do know how you feel, though. I was good buddies with a consular official at the Canadian office that serves Florida some years back. People in Florida know about Canadian healthcare, because they see signs at hospitals about it, directed at Canadian tourists. Who showed up weekly in my pal's office, looking to immigrate to Canada? Seniors who had exhausted that lifetime medicare thing (I don't understand the detailed workings of it), and wanted to come to Canada where they could get medical care. Refugees from the United States. My friend had to explain to them that the reason why they wanted to retire to Canada was precisely the reason why they would not be able to. Perhaps you consider that unreasonable.


Let's talk about France. What would France's system look like if they had millions of immigrants pouring into their country?

Lordy. Do you ever read a newspaper? About 8% of France's population is foreign-born at present. Not as high as Canada (pushing 20%) or the US (about 12%, I believe), but not exactly a pure laine population, as we say in Quebec; not all French from France.


At the same time, I want to know how we are going to pay for social security for an aging population and healthcare for an aging and expanding immigrant population.

The thing is, hon, an expanding immigrant population is actually the only way you are going to pay for it. Quelle idée, eh?

[zulchzulu]

39. Well, it's true that 19-year-olds never have sports injuries or car accidents

19-year-olds never have ANY problems. None.

:rofl:

F*cker Carlson is an asshat in the highest order.

[zulchzulu]

40. You Will "Lose Your Freedom" Under Democrats' "Socialized Education"

Paul Krugman had an excellent spin on these twerps when he referred to public school education as "Socialized Education" and dared any Repugoink to say that we don't need free education for kids either.

We need to bring that up whenever "Socialized Medicine" is the "argument".

[Skittles]

41. 19 year olds never get in car accidents, do they?

gawd Tucker is such an ASS

[Colobo]

43. Edwards gave the right a talking point by talking about mandatory check-ups. Obama was right on this

don't force universal health care on those who don't want it. Hannity was pounding Edwards for this today.

[Stephanie]

44. Edwards stepped right in it.

I really like Edwards but he blew this one. He has given the pugs a baseball bat to pound him with.

[ProudDad]

62. That WAS a very stupid thing for Edwards to appear to advocate (n/t)

[AX10]

74. This is just one more brick that Edwards has given the right wing...

to throw at him. His house and his SUV as well as his investments in the Fortress Hedge Fund weren't enough, now this.

Edwards is drifting aimlessly!

[cobalt1999]

98. I don't know about drifting aimlessly

However, at best he has been extremely careless with his choice of words, and at worst, he is coming across as very Draconian.

Strange, because up to 10 days ago, I thought he was doing well for having limited funds. Now, he's turning into talk show fodder.

[kineneb]

50. yeah, and lose the "freedom" to go broke from a chronic illness in the family

damned asshats... sorry, must now breathe deeply and be mindful that even asshats have feelings(?)... ah, better now.

Lose what freedom? We had to go through Chapter 7 bankruptcy because Hubby has kidney failure. I recently commented to Mom- "I wonder how our life would be different if we lived in a European country that has national health insurance. We would not have had to go broke for Hubby to get care." It made her stop and think.

[ProudDad]

51. Yeah, 19 year olds

NEVER get hit by a bus or run their cars into a tree or break a leg...

Yeah, right... :sarcasm:

I don't know what 'pundits' you were listening to but they're full of SHIT!!!

Edwards is NOT even advocating Universal Health Care, let alone "socialized medicine"...

Kucinich IS advocating Single-Payer Universal Health Care NOT "socialized medicine"...

We already HAVE socialized medicine in the U.S. -- the Military and the VA practice "socialized medicine". I guess those fucking pundits HATE the military since they hate the military system of Health Care...

We already HAVE Single-Payer Health Insurance -- it's called Medicare, it works pretty damn well and everyone would have the choice to join and put it on a better fiscal footing if HR676 passed and was signed into law.

[CTyankee]

96. My 20 year old neice WAS hit by a bus, but in Austria when she was on a Fullbright.

She spent weeks in an Austrian hospital, receiving excellent socialized medicine care. I gave her stepfather, my arch Republican brother in law, such a hard time about that! He just slunk off and never would discuss it further...

[skater314159]

141. Yeh, I messed up my arm...

... really bad skateboarding near Neuschwanstein in Germany.

I got excellent healthcare, and whilst I was crying, "Oh no! I haven't any money, I'm a student!" they laughed and told me I was taken care of. It was great.

I think it's a shame my Grandparents and other relatives came over here to avoid the Nazis and other Fascists... and now we've got Fascists running America. Seems like it might be time for me to Emigrate!


:hippie:

[surfermaw]

55. Tucker is a right wing republican, what do you think he is going to say

Republicans have always been the reason we don't have health care when 38 industrialized countries have health care, we have almost 50 million americans without health care and many of them children and young adults out of high school and college, looking for jobs...Does that sound like America, yes with republicans in control, If you want health care and a job ,you had better vote republican, This bull has been going on now for almost a week to try to tear John Edwards down, you aren't going to get it done, I am more suspicious of some republican keeping on of our candi dated in the run with plenty money.. no proof, just a thought.

[surfermaw]

56. You had better not vote republican

Was the words that I meant to say.

[ProudDad]

84. Never have, probably never will (n/t)

[ProudDad]

63. Surprise, surprise

We knew that set of right-wing talking points were coming.

Hell, I've even had some folks on DU argue with me using that tired old meme...

I LOVE the come-back about "Socialized education"...

Of course, some of the most libertarian of those idiots would be against any system of "Socialized Education", "Socialized Libraries" and, of course, "Socialized Health Care"...

Like that dweeb tucker, they are firmly in the "ME" society not the "WE" society...

[baldguy]

66. Why are paleocons who bemoan the loss of their freedom

so happy when it's turned over to multinational corporations?

[CTLawGuy]

69. my "freedom"

to pay too much for health care, (if I'm lucky to be eligible)
to only be able to see a doctor "in their network",
to fight with the insurance company in court when they refuse to pay,
to lose my health insurance when I lose my job,
to pay unnecessary deductibles and copays,
to not have physicals covered, so I don't bother to see if anything is wrong,
to foot the bill when poor people with no insurance let problems fester to catastrophic levels,
to have the economy held back when people take less than economically optimal jobs for the insurance,
to lose efficiency due to sickness that could have been prevented?

To quote Cream: "I----i feel freeeeeeeee!!!"

[Canuckistanian]

70. Funny how they don't trust "the gubmint" for their health care

Because it's a huge bureaucracy, wastes too much money, is run by lazy civil servants, etc, etc.

And yet, they trust that same "gubmint" to defend and protect them from all enemies, foreign and domestic, enforce the laws and keep the gays from marrying.

So, what is government to them?

[WCGreen]

72. Yea the freedom to get sick and die because you don't have any

health coverage...

[CaliforniaPeggy]

73. K&R nt

[RufusTFirefly]

76. I have Canadian relatives. They all walk around in heavy leg irons

... singing the Volga Boat song.

Yes, this here socialized medicine is even worse than the socialized highways we drive on or the socialized schools that we send our kids to. And you can look that up in your socialized library.

[autorank]

77. Freedom from health coverage. .. Tucker and the fools need to see "Sicko"

and do some reading.

There should be a way to prosecute press people who deliberately lie in a way that leads to illness and death. That's the case here.

I've noticed Tucker get a little churlish lately, as he puts back on the pounds.

Maybe he's about to be outed as a paid flack. Who would have thought?

[Prophet 451]

80. Huh? How?

I'm a Brit, we have socialised medicine here and have had since before I was born. While we have some big problems, we're still relatively "free". Seriously, he might as well have said "unAmerican", it would make about as much sense and American pundits tend to use the words "freedom", "American" and "Christian" interchangeably anyway.

[KaptBunnyPants]

83. Yeah, my twenty-something wife didn't need insurance.

And now she has severe arthritis. Fucking tool, I hope no dumb kid takes his advice. You're only healthy till you're not.

[dugggy]

86. Where will the funds come from ? To pay for the 45 Million

currently not covered by health insurance.
Will there be enough savings in the single
payer system to pay the bills of 45 million
additional people? I am not so sure.

Look at medicare. It is a single payer system
already. And the costs are escalating faster
than estimated. It is on course to run out of
funds.

Just asking a question!

[Solon]

87. There are many ways to contain costs in Medicare...

The First way is to get rid of those "Medicare approved providers" who are private middlemen who have a bad habit of defrauding the Medicare System. Medicare can deal with doctors themselves, in addition to this, Medicare, being a SINGLE payer, will be the ONLY payer of all necessary medical care in the country. This gives it enormous power over costs, more so than it does now. Right now, Medicare has to pay WHATEVER is on the bill, it could be 1 grand for an overnight stay in a hospital, or 500 bucks for a prescription, PER PILL. Under a single payer system, Medicare would have the power to negotiate for FAIR prices, and, in some cases, regulate those prices themselves. The United States is stupid, we pay the MOST for Medical Care, and yet don't have access to it.

I know people hate to talk about price controls, but, for a necessary service in a community, I say its needed. Its not like, right now, Pharmaceutical companies are in financial trouble, neither are most Private Health Care providers. If they have to tighten the belt a little bit so that 45 million uninsured, and and 200 million underinsured Americans can get top quality care, well, that's a sacrifice they should have no choice in making.

[dugggy]

88. Obviously you are not on medicare!

I am on medicare!! Medicare pays only the "APPROVED" medicare
amount, NOT what the doctor or hospital charges. And I see
what the charges are and what medicare pays. It is a small
fraction!

No wonder doctors are refusing to take on new medicare
patients. Luckily my doctor won't or can't drop me as a patient,
because if he did, I would have to travel 20+ miles to find
a doctor.

[divineorder]

89. But in a single-payer system

The Doctors won't be able to game the system. All doctors would be covered for everyone in their practice, so they can't refuse patients who are elderly for younger insurance patients where the insurance company may pay a bit more. In addition, they won't be allowed to discriminate-that would be a fundamental requirement of a national system.

[dugggy]

126. Forcing doctors like that could force lot of good doctors out of the profession

as has happened in GB. Smart people will go in another
line of business where they can earn more. We will be
stuck with 3rd world educated doctors.

[KaptBunnyPants]

127. Bullshit. What's forcing Doctors out of business is insurance companies

who only pay Doctors a fraction of the bill even when they can't find an excuse not to pay at all. This is not good for Doctors, and few general practice Doctors are graduating as a result. You have a very strange attachment to a broken healthcare system, and I can only assume you have either work for an insurance company or you have no idea what you are talking about.

[dugggy]

128. Here are my ACTUAL MEDICARE PAYMENTS, see for yourself

Here is a concrete example of my last 3 bills for
doctor's office visits.

Date of Service: 05/18/2007
Office Visit Amount: $149.00
Medicare Approved: $75.68
Medicare Paid: $0.00
You may be billed: $75.68

Date of Service: 06/11/2007
Office visit Amount: $93.00
Medicare Approved: $49.93
Medicare Paid: $35.63
You may be billed: $14.30

Date of Service: 06/18/2007
Office visit Amount: $93.00
Medicare Approved: $58.74
Medicare paid: $46.99
You may be billed: $11.75

To summerize, the total doctors bill was 149+93+93=$335
Medicare (single payer) paid 35.63+46.99= $82.62

I had to pay the difference! Even after the annual medicare
deductible is satisfied, medicare barely pays 60% of what the
doctor gets from privately insured patients. Medicare limits
the doctor what he can charge. So, me as a patient has to pay
the doctor less than if I was covered by private insurance.

No wonder few doctors are accepting new medicare patients!

[Lasher]

99. Single payer universal health care would have a net cost of zero.

We would save enough, primarily by eliminating the insurance company middlemen, to pay for inclusion of the currently uninsured.

Take a look at this comparison of what the US and Canada spend, and what we get for it:



The potential administrative savings of $286 billion annually under national health insurance could:

Offset the cost of covering the uninsured (estimated at $80 billion)

Cover all out-of-pocket prescription drugs costs for seniors as well as those under 65 (estimated at $53 billion in 2003)

Fund retraining and job placement programs for insurance workers and others who would lose their jobs under NHI (estimated at $20 billion)

Make substantial improvements in coverage and quality of care for U.S. consumers who already have insurance

http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=1623

Edit: I don't know why I can't get my graphic to come up. Here is a link to where it can be viewed:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=222x10618

[dugggy]

130. Then why Medicare (a single payer system) going broke?

[Lasher]

131. These are relative costs

Single payer universal health care would cost no more than what we are collectively paying now. And so the net cost of the switch would be zero, or even less.

Medicare Part A is facing a shortfall around 2018, primarily due to increasing hospital costs.

[Stargazer99]

134. Because your government is "borrowing" from it

[Joanne98]

91. You will lose your life under Republicans "Capitalist Medicine"

[Zorro]

101. It's time to change the language

"Socialized medicine" is too pejorative.

Call it "medical security" instead.

Imagine the positive impression using that term could have.

Then deny any claims that "medical security" is the same as "socialized medicine"; that will confound its critics.

[bamacrat]

104. Free? Free? I have never felt truely free in this country.

We have more laws about what you can put in your own body than we do most other things. We pride ourselves on the idea of freedom, the quest for it, and our want for the rest of the world to have it. But, before we can give it to the world we must first have it ourselves.

[LanternWaste]

107. I lost my freedoms when the Nanny State mandated...

I lost my freedoms when the Nanny State mandated I *had* to stop my car at every red light.
:sarcasm: for the challenged...

I always ask my few remaining FReeper friends and family members-- "Do you know the critical and relevant differences between Socialized Healthcare and Single Payer Healthcare? No? The shut up, educate yourself, and then get back to me-- I'm not wasting my time talking to someone who'd rather listen to propaganda than research the material for themselves..."

It's harsh, I admit. But I'm really beginning to lose my patience with these guys...

[xxqqqzme]

124. That's very strange - I have 'socialized' medicare and

have had since shortly after I was disabled. I have the freedom to choose my doctors - nothing has changed except the directory I use to find the names of the doctors.

[defendandprotect]

129. Repugs provide the "freedom" to be homeless, sick, impoverished and poorly educated --- !!!!

Yeah -- Edwards -- !!!!

Extend Medicare to everyone --

We don't need a new system ---

[dugggy]

136. I AM on Medicare and want to opt out after actual experience

with Medicare for 2 years. But I can't! Sigh!!

If the gov't will pay me back all the medicare taxes
I have paid and stop taking medicare deductions out
of my social security check, I would opt out in a
New York minute.

[calimary]

138. Oh yes indeed. Like we're SO free under republi-CON thumbs.

:eyes:

[Kelly Rupert]

144. America, where both the rich and the poor

have the freedom to go uninsured.

[iverglas]

145. got some things here still need addressing

Wouldn't want the people who need to be addressing them to think they've gone away.

[Imagevision]

146. Freedom is turning out to be what you get when you visit a 7-11 or Blockbuster...

[Cameron27]

147. Great thread Stephanie,

I'm sorry I missed it and can't recommend.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

149. Newsflash: We have ALREADY lost our freedom

Anybody with any kind of experience with HMOs, etc. should already be well aware of all of the CORPORATE restrictions inherent in the system in terms of which doctors, specialists, etc. that you can visit, where you can go for medical treatment, etc. There really is no such thing as "freedom" when it comes to health care (for those of us lucky enough to have insurance). In Massachusetts, under the law pushed by Mitt Romney, you don't even have the "freedom" to choose or not choose to have health insurance whether or not you can reasonably afford it and whether or not it's even worth anything. Is this what Republicans/conservatives are championing as being a better alternative?