LETTER: Canada knows health care

Want an answer to the health care dilemma? Ask any Canadian -- they're only a few miles across the lake from Sandusky. If they get s
Sandusky Register Staff
May 13, 2010

 

Want an answer to the health care dilemma? Ask any Canadian -- they're only a few miles across the lake from Sandusky. If they get sick: they walk into a healthcare provider, they get treated, they walk out -- without a thought about money, because it's all free. For every single Canadian.

They don't worry about finding a plan with a level of coverage they can afford. Or losing their house to pay for one extended stay in the hospital. Or what they'll do for health care when they get older. They just get it.

Occasionally they wait for a complicated procedure, but they don't have an insurance company telling them that they'll have to die because treatment's too expensive. No worrying about insurance exchanges or public options -- it's all one big public option.

Before the hate mail from right wingnuts begins arriving at my house -- no, I'm not going up there to live if I don't like it down here, and no, Canada's isn't more expensive than the true cost of health care in the U.S. if you factor in everybody turned down by insurance, those who can't afford it, the high deductibles, out-of-network charges and procedures that aren't covered.

We need to fix it here, like they did in Canada, Europe and countries where corporations don't control their citizens' healthcare -- where people's number one worry isn't whether they'll go bankrupt if they get sick -- where they are happy to pay a few cents more for a candy bar if it keeps them from losing their house over medical bills.

Put Congress on the same health care as the rest of us and watch how fast they "socialize" health care. They could hitch a ride with the seniors who bus to Canada for prescriptions, if they want to see for themselves.

Gary Polvinale

Sandusky

Comments

Cross

The reason people in the US have so much higher survival rates for medical disasters is due to prompt, effective, expensive, and cutting edge medical care.

Yes, that care costs money and is not over subsidized. However, if you are trying to say the government would pay for more, with less red tape than an insurance company, then I have some swampland in Florida to sell you, also.

Duhast

OK, so if he wants a socialist system and you say it should move toward capitalism, please tell me what you think it is now. If it's not already a capitalist system, then what is it?

libertarian

jimbo wrote: "That is....... for the people that have, or can afford the high dollar coverage. Then..... there is the other 75% of the population......Have to admit.........a lot of the uninsured and under insured, go away every year, they make one last showing....... in the obituaries."

OK, I'll be less nebulous (even though I presented enough information to make that label superfluous).

Let's talk about obituaries then: According to a study published in the British medical journal, "The Lancet", the United States is at the top of the charts for cancer survival. For men, the survival rate (five year) is about 63% and for women, 66%. Countries with national (socialized) health care fare far worse. For Italy, the rate is 60% and for Spain it is 59% for men and 49% for women. Britain is even worse with a rate 45% for men and a 53% rate for women.

For heart disease, the pattern continues: 44% of Americans who could benefit from the use of statins use the drug. This number seems low until compared with countries with national health care: Germany, 26%; Britain, 23% and Italy, 17%.

That's a whole lot of obituaries.

duhast wrote: "BTW: Heard a press conference from Obama yesterday where he expressly said socialized medicine might work for Canada but is not practical and would not work for the US. So, there you have it."

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like duck-it's a duck. Socialism is the government ownership or control of the means of production of goods, services, wealth or property.
While this plan is not communist (government ownership), is certainly makes health care more fascist (government control-corporatist). Fascism (one of two types of socialism) is the government control of the means of production and distribution of goods, services, wealth and property (typical in cooperation with favored interests-cartels (AMA and ABA)and corporations). So, yes, this health care system is indeed socialist, though not quite as socialist as Canada's.

The only way preserve and improve the superior quality of our health care and bring down it's cost is to move away from the socialist aspects of our current system and adopt a capitalist system.

Duhast

You are right, she's not in Canada. She's in the US. So, why is she (and many others) allowed to be treated like this if we have such good standards?

brutus smith

Wanting to privatize SS was not trying to dismantle it?????????? Red is green, brown is blue, yellow is ..........

Cross

Duhast, first best wishes for your sister.

However, if your sister was in Canada, she probably wouldn't get any treatment at all.

So, is it better to be bankrupt and alive, or dead?

Anyways, a big part of what I posted was in regards to proper regulation and competition. The reason costs are so high is the industry does not allow one to choose, and it's limited by nefarious backroom deals made by corporations, and not individuals.

W did not try to dismantle SSN. He tried to overhaul it because it currently is a ponzi scheme that is unsustainable long term. Just like with Obama and health care reform, the opposition distored and used it for propaganda purposes to score political points.

IF the Dems lose the 2010 midterm, it won't be because of 20somethings with no health insurance. It'll be due to the AARP contingent who saw they might lose some of their benefits, and actually help out the next generation. Can't have that!

Duhast

The oncologist actually fought with the insurance company explaining that this was a needed drug and it worked. He also ended up fighting over her radiation treatment a few years back. The doctor ended up eating the cost because he said it was needed and that’s what they specialize in at that new cancer center. The insurance company said it was “experimental” and denied it.

I don’t have the perfect solution. But I do know that playing with peoples lives based on profit is simply wrong. Without consumer protection laws, we would have a system like China where they don’t care if lead goes into your children’s toys. I can’t understand why the insurance industry has been so poorly regulated. It has to be lobbyists.

BTW: Heard a press conference from Obama yesterday where he expressly said socialized medicine might work for Canada but is not practical and would not work for the US. So, there you have it. Do you think the crazies will quit saying he wasn’t socialized medicine? I doubt it.

6079 Smith W

@ duhast:

Best wishes for better health to your sister.

Assuming that govt. bureaucrats would approve your sister’s treatment over more than private ones is a fallacy. It ain’t necessarily so.

It’s my understanding that the percentage of denials for treatment under govt. programs like Medicare is greater than private insurance.

Economically, better service and benefits for less cost is impossible – BH Obama lies.

Libertarians – anarchists? Govt. is like poison, the less in one’s drinking water the better.

Better than one-size-fits-all Federalism don’t you think?

I’d like to see a lot more of the 10th Amendment enforced.

Duhast

Cross, you can’t seem to differentiate between level of medical technology and access to it. Nobody is disputing our level of achievement, just affordable access to it. Canada has lost many doctors to us because our system PAYS them much better.

My sister is receiving the best chemo technology right now. It’s keeping he cancer in check. It’s $14,000 a dose and the insurance company said it wasn’t officially approved for her KIND of cancer, so they won’t pay for it. To date she’s had something like 30 treatments. Do the math…

Kimo

re:Cross wrote on Mar 8, 2010 1:49 PM:The problem we have right now is the AARP owns this country, and it's political suicide to tamper with any of their entitlements, be it fair or not. Not to mention the partisan nasty rhetoric prevents real, smart progress. This was the case with Social Security reform in the W years It's also the case with Obama and a lot of good things he's trying to get done.

More nebulous BS.

If W had his way he would have killed SS.

Kill SS, the people that live on the checks
don't die with the program.

They are still alive and need food and shelter
the next day.

What would you do with them?

Let them starve?
Send them to live with dumpster Don?

Be pretty crowded in that fish shanty.

Feed them feral cat stew?

If you want to solve a problem and create
another problem, it is not a solution.

Kimo

re:I could go on and on, but the fact is that the WHO report is biased nonsense that collectivist thugs use to downplay the superiority of the US health care system.

A nebulous comment bub.

Have to agree it's pretty damm good in the USA...........
That is....... for the people that have, or can afford the high dollar coverage.

Then..... there is the other 75% of the population......

The problem with you wingnuts, you feel if you ignore a problem, it does not exist.

Have to admit.........a lot of the uninsured and under insured, go away every year, they make one last showing....... in the obituaries.

libertarian

duhast wrote: "I’m not sure which rock some of you have been living under. But this nationalism over healthcare is absurd. We do not have the best healthcare in the world. The WHO has ranked the U.S. 37th back in 2000. I would say our technology is at the top, but affordability and access could be better"

The WHO report is biased against capitalism and penalizes the US for things unrelated to health care. For instance, the WHO report penalizes the US for not having a sufficiently "fair". In fact, much of the low ranking of the US health care system comes from our ranking 54th in the category of "fairness". Of course, according to the WHO report, the "unfairness" of the US health care system stems for the US not having a sufficiently "progressive" tax system, for not (guess what!!!) providing all citizens with health insurance not having enough social welfare programs, because patients pay too much out of pocket and (of all things) for adopting Health Savings Accounts. Basically, the WHO report ranks the US so low mostly because we aren't collectivist-socialist enough.

What the collectivist thugs here leave out is the same report rank the US number one in the world in responsiveness to patients' needs in choice of provider, dignity, autonomy, timely care and confidentiality. Which is more important to health care, these factors or a lack of a "progressive" tax system?

In addition the US easily has the highest survival rate for cancer, pneumonia, heart disease, AIDs and most other diseases, which is why those who can afford abandon socialist health care for marginally free market health care in the US. The Mayo clinic alone treats about 7200 foreign patients a year. For John Hopkins it is over 6000 while for the Cleveland Clinic, it is over 5000. One in three Canadian physicians sends a patient to the US for treatment each year.

I could go on and on, but the fact is that the WHO report is biased nonsense that collectivist thugs use to downplay the superiority of the US health care system.

Duhast

Cross,
Fostering more competition would require a health care exchange where people can pick the insurance they want. The Lending tree of insurance if you will. The problem with that is most people with insurance get it through their employer with little choice of provider. I am in that boat. If I were to look for other insurance, I’d get dinged with the pre-existing condition clauses. I’m in essence trapped in my current insurance system. Our libertarian friends below would find it a paradox to have more regulation and more competition.

So, I’m with you. Regulate it with consumer protection laws. If my cell provider gives me crap, I can switch companies. They don’t give me a “previous dialed phone numbers” exemption.

Cross

Everyone knows what 'should' be done, Brutus.

The problem is it won't, due to political expediency.

The system should be completely overhauled, better regulation should be put in place, more competition should be allowed, and affordable support should be mandated.

I'm not sure where the 'Auschwitz' comment comes from. What's likely to happen is America in 10 to 25 years will bankrupt itself from bloated policies that can't be changed due to special interest inertia.

The diminishing returns from the Ponzi scheme of Social Security, the added costs of Medicare and Medicaid, and the pressure from so much debt that keeps growing is like a juggernaut of destruction. It'd be nice if we put the brakes on it now, but you and I know it's not going to happen.

What's comical is the same nasty rhetoric is what's happening this time. Sadly, what goes around, comes around.

brutus smith

So cross, truth comes out. What should be done with the "boomers". Auschwitz maybe?????

Cross

If you think we have free market health care, you completely ignore the facts.

Also, the way they rank health care systems is absurd. There's a reason when most world leaders need something medical, they come here. Heck, go google the Canadian premier who came here just a month ago.

The problem is the system is insular, ripe with corruption, and in need of a complete overhaul. Insurance companies have a cabal. Government supported programs are rife with corruption, and cost overruns.

The problem we have right now is the AARP owns this country, and it's political suicide to tamper with any of their entitlements, be it fair or not. Not to mention the partisan nasty rhetoric prevents real, smart progress. This was the case with Social Security reform in the W years It's also the case with Obama and a lot of good things he's trying to get done.

I fear our future when the large amount of boomers retires and crushes our public entitlement programs.

Duhast

I’m not sure which rock some of you have been living under. But this nationalism over healthcare is absurd. We do not have the best healthcare in the world. The WHO has ranked the U.S. 37th back in 2000. I would say our technology is at the top, but affordability and access could be better.

For those of you claiming that a free market will take care of things are delusional. That’s what we have NOW! That’s what we’ve had for many years. Not working out so well for us, is it?

So, you have four options as I see it:
1. Let the health system go nuts and remove all laws governing them.
2. Implement socialized medicine or expand single payer Medicare.
3. Regulate the begeezes out of the industry so they treat consumers fairly. Like you do in other consumer industries.
4. Mix 2 and 3.

How do you pay for it? Raise taxes, reduce spending, or both. I’m for buying a few less bombs to pay for it.

Duhast

6079 Smith W wrote on Mar 8, 2010 11:39 AM:
The purveyors of socialism feed on people’s emotionalism and their base sense of envy and avarice.

Winston, Ever watch Fox news?? Talk about playing on people’s emotions. Anyway, that’s quite an unsupported broad generalization there. I could say the purveyors of libertarianism are all government hating anarchists. Would I be correct?

brutus smith

So surgery after 7 months versus no surgery at all for 46 million here, hmmmmm. Yeah that sounds good to me Winston. Aren't you missing the Rush Limbaugh program????

kURT

Still love America.
Yet we have have bad stats compared to other countries. Highest amount of people in prison compared to other developed countries. Poor quality food commerically compared to European communities.
Now healthcare.
America needs better.

6079 Smith W

BobWilliams wrote on Mar 7, 2010 10:05 PM:

‘I'm a trained history teacher…’

Does that mean an M.A. or a Ph.D?

Essentially, the difference between socialism and capitalism is who controls the means of production.

In our mixed economy, the state is increasingly controlling consumption (distribution) and leaving production somewhat in private hands.

However, through regulation, the U.S. is becoming a society that is fast culminating into fascism or corporatism.

In a true socialist economy, the state controls both consumption and production.

In “Socialism,” Mises rationally demonstrates that as an economic philosophy, socialism is fallacious and untenable.

The purveyors of socialism feed on people’s emotionalism and their base sense of envy and avarice.

Even in a true socialist society, some prosper more than others. Equality of consumption (distribution of resources) is impossible.

6079 Smith W

Back to topic:

While on the road recently, I happened onto a Canadian couple outside the hotel.

Neither of them had anything positive to say about Canadian health care and they were even less favorable about the U.K. brand.

The woman, who had emigrated from the UK, said that she was diagnosed with a hole in her retina in May and wasn't operated on until December.

She also said that if a person smoked, was overweight by 20 lbs. and had heart disease they could forget about any surgery.

The U.S. may have the worst health care system in the world, until it’s compared to everything else.

Remember:

Universal health care (Obamacare is it’s b*stard stepchild) will be just like going to an emergency where they perform triage.

Just because you show up, doesn’t automatically mean that you’ll be seen in short order.

libertarian

BobWilliams wrote: "To libertarian: Perhaps because I'm a trained history teacher, I don't see the benefit in deriding people who fail to grasp what I am saying. Teachers learn that people have different learning styles, different levels of development, and varying I.Q.s . So when students don't comprehend the lesson, we teachers tend to criticize our lesson delivery."

In most circumstances, I would agree with you completely. But when a person advocates violating one's natural rights and continually misrepresents facts and the clear principles of those who oppose them, they deserve and will get a good shaming and moral and intellectual pounding.

If you notice from my posts, I treat those who are simply misinformed and attempting to learn completely differently than those who willing flaunt the truth.

BobWilliams

To libertarian:

Perhaps because I'm a trained history teacher, I don't see the benefit in deriding people who fail to grasp what I am saying. Teachers learn that people have different learning styles, different levels of development, and varying I.Q.s . So when students don't comprehend the lesson, we teachers tend to criticize our lesson delivery.

Or as Napolean Camel once put it - "there's three ways to skin a cat, you just have to figure out the other two ways". :-)

BobWilliams

Oh, the confusion in economic language! Dr. Skip Oliver, "jimbo", and "pntbutterandjelly" are speaking a different language when conversing with "libertarian" (it's worse than overhearing a conversation between a Yank and a Brit). They're all talking about the same thing but know it because, although they use the same words, those words carry different and opposite meanings for those receiving them.

The problem goes back to Karl Marx's times living in London, England during the late 1800's. England at that time was ruled by a wealthy elite through a parliament in which only 3% of that country's population were eligble to vote; the other 97% could not vote and didn't get the vote until two years after African-Americans were given their right to vote in America. England's 3% practiced a form of corporatism called 'mercantilism', which is a type of socialism - only its propagators did not call it that; they called it 'capitalism' instead. They wanted to use Adam Smith's definition of 'capitalism' as camouflage to hide their despotic actions from plain view. This is a game that is still being played today by corporatists trying to justify their anti-free enterprise behavior by falsly claiming it is capitalism.

If we understand that capitalism is free enterprise; and that anything else - whether it is corporatism, socialism or fascism, is someone else taking control of what is yours, then it is plain to see that capitalism, properly understood, is freedom.

So few people today know what was originally meant by the word 'capitalism', and like Karl Marx, accept that it is what corporatists and fascists do because they say what they do is 'capitalism', which it is not. This is the definition of capitalism that Dr. Oliver understands when he hears the term 'capitalism'; he hears 'coporatism', 'economic fascism', 'socialism for the rich'.

Capitalism, properly understood, is simpy freedom - it is self-ownership and self-government; excersing your right to decide what is best for you while at the same time respecting the right of others to do the same.

When everyone is free to produce and trade to his or her individual liking, then no one can become a monopolist. Monopoly can only be had by the interventionist hand of government. Otherwise, others are free to copy and do exactly as I am doing.

England was not free during Karl Marx's time, and America's freedom is also dwindling as corporatists gain power with the backing of the state that creates their "artificial persons", giving corporations our rights under the Bill of Rights rather than holding their human owners responsible for their actions in the market place.

I recommend a reading of Paul H. Weaver's "The Suicidal Corporation" who relates his personal enlightenment on the confusion in economic language. In the end he realized that free marketeers and critics from the "left" had been criticizing the same thing, but didn't know it because they were talking past one another.

Kimo

Charge for health care by the pound.

More pounds = more problems = more dollars

Free market capitalism at its best, skinny
wingnuts would support this.........

Might make those "three towelers" lose
some pounds............

pntbutterandjelly

Chapter 2 of "An American "do do" list"

Federally fund campaigns for governors, congressmen and the president. Eliminate all other forms of funding.

pntbutterandjelly

Chapter 2 of "An American "do do" list"

Immediately began an all out effort to utilise our natural gas and "green energy"technology.

pntbutterandjelly

15,000,000 Americans on unemployment
10,000,000 Americans working two jobs or working grossly un-paid jobs.
25,000,000 total affecting 62,000,000 Americans or 1/3 of our total population
26% of mortages upside-down/under water

Is there a problem????

pntbutterandjelly

Sounds to me like there may be a "small" problem afoot.

pntbutterandjelly

Apathy, scourn, disdain, anger and distrust are rampant.

pntbutterandjelly

Voter turnout at 20% of those possible.

pntbutterandjelly

Third party candidates are shut out of elections.

pntbutterandjelly

Non-biparsian Supreme Court rules it's "okay" for corporate America to give campaign funds.

pntbutterandjelly

$710,000,000,000 for an illegal war.
$700,000,000,000 annual defense fun(d)

pntbutterandjelly

Whirpool receives $19,000,000 and thenpuls 1,100 jobs out of Indian and sends the work to Mexico.

pntbutterandjelly

"What is right will seem wrong and what is wrong will seem right.

pntbutterandjelly

Caveat money
Caveat banking
Caveat elections
Caveat investments
Caveat system
Caveat people

pntbutterandjelly

An American "do do" list;

(a) break up and heavily regulate the international and national banker cartel.
(b) Set term limits for anyone elected (none are to exceed 8 years).
(c) Eliminate all lobbyits and any form of lobbying.
(d) Extradite all illegal aliens and land mine the southern border.
(e) Reduce Chinese imports by 50%.
(f) Establish strong regulations on the health care industry.

? Will all this ever be done? Answer; no
? Will any of this ever be done? Answer; no
? Why? Answer; Greed
? By whom? Read, "An American "to do" list."

This is the short answer to our massive problems.

goofus

The only thing Canada is good for is cuban cigars, hockey, and Beer.

brutus smith

Your kind gave us the Patriot Act too. What's patriotic about it??????

brutus smith

The teabaggers call themselves patriots too Jon, does that make it so???

libertarian

BSing leftwingnut collectivist thugs just proved his ignorance again. Mussolini and his National Fascist Party as well as Hitler and his Nazis considered themselves socialist. In addition, their philosophy complies with the definition of socialism. And are you going to tell me that people who call themselves NATIONAL SOCIALISTS (Nazis) aren't socialist and don't consider themselves socialist? Absurd.

Like I wrote, you'll misrepresent what I write, misrepresent my philosophy, make baseless claims that I'm not using facts, mislabel me or engage in some other form of deception to avoid addressing the facts I present.

Show me one post when I advocated anything resembling corporatism.

It really doesn't matter if you consider yourself a socialist or one of it's two forms, fascist or communist. Either way you are a leftwingnut collectivist thug. All violate natural rights and are immoral, as are you are a advocate of them.

Shame on you. All moral people should shame and ostracize collectivist thugs.

brutus smith

Jon Moron, err "Libertarian" as you call yourself now, Fascism in it's original meaning was Corporatism. I am against the Corporate state the neo Cons gave us the past 30 years. Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, is a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology.[1][2][3][4] Fascists seek to organize a nation on corporatist perspectives; values; and systems such as the political system and the economy. Over the years it has been diluted to mean socialism. They are the exact opposite. You advocate the Corporate form of Fascism.

6079 Smith W

libertarian wrote on Mar 5, 2010 11:23 PM:

‘Are (they) really so ignorant?’

Yes they are.

Marxism has many derivations. Socialists in one country will argue vehemently that their wrongheaded brand of political and economic slavery is superior to that found in another country.

It’s not unlike Baptists who will assert that they are more in touch with the Word of God than Catholics. They are both classified as Christians, but they view themselves as different in their interpretation and will sometimes injure each other in an attempt to prove their point.

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

RE: Soc. Security & Medicare

Due to the rise in chronic unemployment, seniors are increasingly applying for benefits because it is seen as their only source of income.

In 2010, for the first time in it's history, the net outflows from the so-called Social Security Trust Fund will exceed the inflows.

Technically, Soc. Security IS broke.

Read more:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/was...

libertarian

The BS leftwingnut collectivist thug wrote: "Yes P&J, the same type people who were in pre-WWll Germany (Nazi's) are the same type of people here."

Are you really so ignorant? German Nazis were just one faction of fascism and there been many others. For example, Spain (under Franco) and Italy (under Mussolini) both had fascist governments and the word "fascism" originated in Italy to describe Mussolini's party. To say that fascism equals Nazism (which means National Socialism) is no different than saying that you're a Nazi because you're a socailist (though at this point, I wouldn't be suprised). Besides, in an earlier post on a different artical, you agreed with me that we have a fascist economic system.

Of course, you'll misrepresent what I write, misrepresent my philosophy, make baseless claims that I'm not using facts, mislabel me or engage in some other form of deception to avoid addressing the facts I present. But you're really not fooling anyone.

libertarian

aj oliver wrote: "A number of the responders seems to have trouble with facts, and instead fall back on tired ideological cliches.", like, "the FACT is that the capitalist sector has had every opportunity to build a workable health care system, and has failed miserably to do so."

Haven't had a capitalist health care system here for 100 years. Aside from a few rare exceptions, when were fire departments ever private? Most fire departments were voluntary and many still are.

AJ Oliver

Excellent letter from Gary. The man does have a way with words.

A number of the responders seems to have trouble with facts, and instead fall back on tired ideological cliches. Facts: Social Security is healthy - it even ran a surplus last year. Canada is more ethnically diverse than the US. Canadians live longer than us gringos, and their medical outcomes are better than ours. They pay MUCH less than we do for health care.

Market solutions are often the preferred way to provide us with the things we need, but the FACT is that the capitalist sector has had every opportunity to build a workable health care system, and has failed miserably to do so. So just as we long ago did with private fire departments, it's time to look at alternatives other than the "free" market.

If the email responders to the Register stories put their names on their posts, I'll wager that they would do a better job of fact-checking. One can only hope!!

brutus smith

Yes P&J, the same type people who were in pre-WWll Germany (Nazi's) are the same type of people here. They just go by a different name ("free" market Capitalists). They tell you how much better it is if we funnel all the wealth to the top. And the Corporate Media is their mouthpiece.

Kimo

Social Security is on life support.
Medicare is on life support.

Social Security is allowed to go bust.
Medicare is allowed to go bust.

Millions of people without income.
Millions of people without health insurance.

Millions of "broke" people refuse to disappear.

Bob Evans loses 75% of it's business and is
forced to close, (more jobs lost).

Toyota and Kia lose 50& of their sales.
(more jobs lost).
Japan no longer loans USA money.

Hospitals and nursing homes go bust.
(more jobs lost).

Wal-Mart loses 50% of it's business,
and millions of chinese lose their jobs.

China no longer loans USA money.

USA teams up with Greece in bankruptcy court.........

Damm hungry, homeless people still will not
evaporate. What part of "Free market capitalism
don't they understand?

libertarian

pntbutterandjelly wrote: "ps. Excuse my typos."

No problem. Lord know I make enough typos myself.

pntbutterandjelly wrote: "libertarian; the cost you say are coming down, and they are, is because those items are being made by slave labor in Mexico and China."

If this were true, it would also apply to medical technology.

pntbutterandjelly also wrote: "I am a centrist not a scocialist nor a free-trader. I know there must be some degree of balance."

By definition, you are a socialist and a collectivist. Socialism is the government ownership OR control of the means of production or distribution of wealth, property, goods and services, whereas capitalism is the private ownership and control of the same. Socialism is the economic implementation of collectivism. Political economist generally classify socialism into two broad categories; communism-where the government owns the above, and fascism-where the government controls the above but allows the appearance of ownership.

pntbutterandjelly also wrote: "There isn't anything wrong with making a profit, it IS a matter of how much you made, how you made it and what will you do with the excesses. Profits by making and then breaking the rules is NOT free enterprise"

I agree with this statement completely. It's called fascism, which is also know as mixed economy or corporatism.

pntbutterandjelly also wrote: "The unregulated banking and health insurance industries"

The banking and health insurance industries are heavily regulated. Regulations are used by both the banking and health insurance industries to increase the cost of entry into a field, limiting competition.

pntbutterandjelly also wrote: "I will agree with you libertarian that to get in the mud and fight with the hogs is something akin to self-deprivation but do you have a better suggestion as how to fight for what your fair share might be?"

Why not get out of the mud and fight for the following principles: All human relationships are exchanges of values, both material and spiritual. There are two fundamental types of value exchanges, consensual or coercive. A consensual exchange of values consist of each person exchanging value for value at terms that both are willing to accept according to their own best judgment. A coercive exchange consist of one person using fraud, force or extortion to obtain a value from another person without their consent and against their judgment.

Obviously, a consensual exchange of values is moral and a coercive exchange is immoral. In addition, consensual exchanges are fundamental to creating on optimal society because to coerce a person's choices is to remove their ability to judge, evaluate and act-which destroys their ability and incentive to create values (Which is why collectivist fails).

This the moral foundation of the concept of rights. Rights are the natural application of morality to social relationships. This is why I call them natural rights (also known as individual rights, because they are based on the fact that only individuals are moral agents/actors) because they are base on the nature of human beings and the objective requirements of human survival.

Every person has the natural right to choose, act on and create the values that they believe will be optimal for their well being. Every person has the natural right to consensually exchange their values with others.

What are the limits of a persons natural rights? If a person uses fraud or coercion, force or violence (or the threat of any of these) to stop a person from acting according to their own judgment and choice, to force a person to act against their own judgment or choice or to physically take, use or harm the property of another person, they have violated the other person's natural right and the other person has the natural right to defend their natural right from the violator and to ask other to aid them in the same.

A concise statement of these principles is that every person has the natural right to do anything they want with their body, mind, wealth and property so long as they do not violate natural right of another person to do the same.

pntbutterandjelly

ps. Excuse my typos.

pntbutterandjelly

Re; Who among the economic stratifications we all reside in are being hurt the most at this time? The unregulated banking and health insurance industries (say nothing of Corporate America as a whole) and their lobbyists, the cadre of high-paid stooges who defend them in court when payola doesn't suffice, 6-figure pharmetutical salesmen with iq's less than 100, doctors who's hypocratic oath has become an oath to be hypocrites and the entire top 3%er's whose only bent on life is more money and more power are lapping at your heels and you don't even see the light. I feel there are many of you who don't realise (nor possibly care) who was and what did Prescott Bush do during WW@ to say nothing of the master of deciet; alis Carl Roves' grandfather was also doing during WW2 to generate massive amounts of wealth. Can you even suggest what Carl Roves last full and realname was? Can anyone here tell me, with a straight face, that the general populace of America isnot upset and angry because of the tyranical methods emplyoed by these same Third Reichter's bent or that that corporate America is getting the short-handed deal. Whcih is the truth? Who really is getting the role shaft-to-la? You really need to read, understand and accept the fact that elitsits, the real power-mongers are who is creating all the chaos. Mr. Joe Average sits ans struggles to find a way merely to survive from day to day. We Americans relish in the smug misconception we are the "hot stuff" on the world scene when, in actuality, we are merely teenagers in comparison to all other democracies. Therefore we have much to learn and should learn by example from our democratic predecessors. The German populous was hood-winked (ie. lied to) by their goverment (read industrialists) about the "need" to invade, concur and eliminate those around them all in the the attempt to create unregulated, unsupervised wealth. (That kinda sounds similar to the War in Iraq which had it's grounds for war created by Carl Rove!) (If you can follow this extrapilation through then you will see the thread connecting "Carl the Creator" with grandpa Roverhner. (That is NOT a mispelling.) The simple quetion I repeat is, "Who's lunch is getting eaten here? The "industrialists" or the commoner?" THAT answer is sinfully easy. I rest my case.
Re. libertarian; the cost you say are coming down, and they are, is because those items are being made by slave labor in Mexico and China. Whta's kinda difficult to understand (although not really) is why does the Ford Fusion STILL cost so much when it's being built by cheap Mexican labor. Hmm...it MUST be getting eaten up by the Mexican Union Cartel. They rascals! My point is, "The more they take, the more they want for the so-called "profit margin". There isn't anything wrong with making a profit, it IS a matter of how much you made, how you made it and what will you do with the excesses. Profits by making and then breaking the rules is NOT free enterprise.It's called economic rape. It will lead you, me, your sons and daughters down the slippery slope of Economic Euthinasia. It's difficult to legislate morality but it is imperative to at least try. I am a centrist not a scocialist nor a free-trader. I know there must be some degree of balance. We are WAY out of balance and the clock is ticking. That is self-evident based upon the talk in the streets, the news, the protests of California students, etc. etc. What is not evident is how the the money changers arfe playing thier hand behind our backs. Slowly, ever so slowly, more and more Americans are waking up and seeing the truth for the fisrt time. For some it is a rude revalation because it may have struck against their former personal belief sets and attitudes.
I will agree with you libertarian that to get in the mud and fight with the hogs is something akin to self-deprivation but do you have a better suggestion as how to fight for what your fair share might be? The far left and the far right leave little wiggle room AND the professional rhetoric creaters do their bloody best to make it as confusing and demeaning as posssible to divide the masses therby shunting the balme to the "other side" and thusly GET THEIR WAY.
Remember... I AM a centrist and therefore will come under fire from both sides of the political spectrum (for which I am ready, thank you!). But....being in the center keeps me....balanced. (smile)

libertarian

pntbutterandjelly wrote: "With the rise of medical tecnology, there is no way everybody can get all the care that is currently available or will be available in the future"

Have you ever considered the question of why, in every field except medicine, technology is becoming cheaper, better and available to more people and is bringing down costs?

pntbutterandjelly wrote: "We do NOT live in a democracy. We DO live in a socialist system (if you pay taxes and have no direct say in who or how those monies are spent...it is socilism), (agreed?). Therefore it becomes a matter of who gets the most bang for their buck.

What you offer is a false alternative. A fight over extorted loot of a socialist system is not an optimal or moral way for people to deal with one another. And, since medical cost have sky rocketed since we adopted a socialist system, the real alternative is capitalsim.

A hint to the answer to my question: There is one area of medicine field that is relatively free market and technology has been continuely bringing down the cost of this proceedure as well as it's effectivenes-this proceedure is lazsic surgery.

Hmm

pbj - you do make valid points. However, the "correct" answers are a matter of opinion. Most of us agree that our health care is superior for those who can afford it, as compared to all other countries. The reasearch and development that takes place here (driven by profits) aids other countries as well. For those here who can't affort it (and there are plenty), it stinks. What good are advanced medication and treatments to those who can't afford them? You must acknowledge that if we fundamentally change our health care system to be less profit driven, over time advances in medicine will slow down. Why are so many wonderful medications developed by US companies? Because they make big bucks. What happens if we regulate and medicine becomes less profitable? I don't know what the answer is. But I do know that the answer is not as obvious as all the bloggers think it is.

pntbutterandjelly

re. brutus smith; "Thank you".

I think I may have struck a cord for those who are against civilty and morality in their most altruistic form. If everyone would only take a few THOUGHTFUL moments, step back from all the rhetoric of politics (them vs. us) and look at the various issues in their most simplistic content....the correct answers are readily found. "That" though may be the easiest part of the equation because the sum answers are still going to be in the hands of corporate America (unless..."we" do something about it).

brutus smith

Once again you are right on P&J.

The General

Moderators have removed this comment because it contained profanity or obscene remarks. href=http://www.sanduskyregister.com/legal/discussion_gu
idelines/>Discussion Guidelines

pntbutterandjelly

Where to begin. "That" is the question.
Shall we begin with "the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth?" Okay. Let's begin....

#1 With the rise of medical tecnology, there is no way everybody can get all the care that is currently available or will be available in the future. Period. That means, unfortunatley we will all die one day. That leads to #2.
#2 We would all like to live longer and more healthily, ie. "feel better". That leads to #3.
#3 How do we find a common denominator to bridge #1 against #2?
My opinion goes along these lines (pay attention).
"We do NOT live in a democracy. We DO live in a socialist system (if you pay taxes and have no direct say in who or how those monies are spent...it is socilism), (agreed?). Therefore it becomes a matter of who gets the most bang for their buck. Now, the unregulated health insurance system, pharmetcutical companies, lobbyists and a whole range of "others" are feeding greedily off the trough of the system. We, the little folk, are paying for it. We are paying for it in many ways beyond monetary. So....the real question becomes,"Are we to be held hostage BY the insurance cartle FOR the insurance cartel OR....regulate the 7ell out of them, eliminate ALL lobbyists, find other graft, waste and greed (and prosecute with force) and THEN impliment some form of standardised care for everyone?" Hypothetical question..."If your neighbors house was being broken into....would you call the cops? If your house was being broken into...would you want me to call the cops?" My point with those hypothetical questions are two fold. (a) being.."Nobody cries out until the shoes pinch their feet VS. the "Not in my backyard syndrom". (b) is the the robbers here ARE the insurance cartels. THAT is an obvious fact. So, in conclusion...I hope you have enpough $$$ for the forseeable future to pay for your insurance or out-of-pocket premiums and deductibles becquse at the exponetial rate insurance premiums are rising and coverages are decling... (I think you see my point.)
It IS true that we all can't live forever but can't we at least live with some dignity and help from the "neighbor" I mentioned above? (remember, he too is paying taxes right now for YOUR benefit) Oh, but wait....I'm pretty sure that anyone who still thinks we should allow TOTAL, unrequetted insurance "free enterprise" to rein would NEVER ask for a hand when, not if, they get into trouble and need a helping hand. Oh no. Not them. They have their short-term, ill-advised "principles" to help get through the night. Good luck with those "principles". My principles tell me that when there is a thief out there causing chaos and havoc...you put him out of his misery. Kinda like we should do with all predatory people. (Heck, I'd be all for public execution staged on tv. Think what a popular show THAT would be!)
Look....you can't play any kind of game without rules. So....why should the health insurance game be any different? (Try passing strict regulations on the banking industry! HA!!) The problem is "they" make the rules as they pay our representatives to pass the rules who then get jobs of other high-paying positions with other "firms". It's one MASSIVE revolving door. It's truly out of control.

Thank you.

Judy Kayden

Gary, My Daughter-In-Law is from England and my brother is now a Canadian citizen. My Daughter-In-Law had cancer and I can tell you that the wait for cat scans etc. is too long. Plus the Doctors are given an allowance for medicine. If they exceed their allowance, it's taken from their pay. Does that tell you something?

I don't know what the answer is at this point. The Libertarians want less government intervention and more competition among health care providers.

AnAmerican

" This is what I find ironic. All you 60's hippies that hated the government are now proposing government run healthcare. What do you know that we don't? "

How would you propose we pay for things if not with money? With good intentions?

There is no such thing as free healthcare. Someone has to pay for it. After all, who's going to pay the union dues for all the new public employees in the system? "

" WHAT IS WRONG WITH PROFIT!?!?!?!?!?!

My GOD what has this country come to that people are chastised for making money? Without profit, there is no motive for innovation. "

Well said friend! Exactly what I was thinking but unable to find the words...thank you :)

Richard Bebb

B.S. =

Thank you for proving my point, you have NO answer for the failed government programs of the past, and have NO legitimate argument as to why government run health care would be any different.

Glad to see that you are embracing conservative principals finally.

brutus smith

Richard, I've been paying taxes longer than you've been alive.

Richard Bebb

B.S.

Ill lay it out for you again - why should we allow the government to take over our health care when the laundry list of failed government programs grows daily... ie .. usps, medicare, medicaid, social security. Its not a tax dollar issue, its common sense. Unless you dont have a problem with your tax dollars (which you dont pay) going towards failed programs and subsides for those who have no desire to better themselves.

Now that is a very direct question, can you answer it ??????????????????????

friend

brutus,

I tried to ship a package from Ohio to Seattle. The Post Office wanted $40 and couldn't guarantee when it would be delivered and offered no tracking. UPS shipped it for $28, guaranteed the delivery date, and I could track it.

Even with all the protections given our Postal Service, they couldn't beat the private company.

brutus smith

Bichard Rebb, how is it changing the subject when I say where I would rather see my tax dollars go to???? And you might get away with your bullying tactics at home but not here, so keep it civil. And friend, people long before you and I thought it better for the public to handle our mail delivery than a private company.

friend

WHAT IS WRONG WITH PROFIT!?!?!?!?!?!

My GOD what has this country come to that people are chastised for making money? Without profit, there is no motive for innovation.

stormy

I've spent a lot of time in Canada. Yes, their single payor system works for them, to a degree.

But no, it ain't free. It's paid for with very high taxes. Those who enjoy perfect health, who virtually never go to a doctor, get hosed into paying for everyone else.

Also, it ain't perfect. There IS rationing, and there ARE long waits, especially for expensive or highly specialized procedures. And that's in a country with one-tenth of our population. Transplant that system into a nation of 300 million people, with a government that raises inefficiency to an art form, and it would be a disaster.

Sorry Gary; it wouldn't work here.

Richard Bebb

B.S. aka Copy and Paste -

A. You don't pay taxes, because you don't have a job

B. I find it laughable that you cant address FACTS ie.. the failed usps and other government programs, so you change the subject with inane lib talking points

C. I await your next talking point or your next post of someone else's thoughts

brutus smith

Bichard Rebb, I'd rather see my tax dollars go for public service than Corporate welfare.

Richard Bebb

Copy and Paste Smith -

" They are not out to make a profit. They are providing a service at a reasonable rate. Would you rather pay $5.00 to mail a bill or letter?"

No kidding, the problem is they are posting almost 4 billion a year in losses.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/US...

That was the point of friend's comment, the usps is another example of a failed government program. Are these the people you want in control of your health care ???

That was a rhetorical question not directed at you Copy and Paste, we all know you want more handouts for nothing. Get a job.

brutus smith

They are not out to make a profit. They are providing a service at a reasonable rate. Would you rather pay $5.00 to mail a bill or letter? Would you rather have 20% interest rates for home loans???

friend

Another government agency is now making cutbacks. The USPS has been recomended to cut back delivery to 5 days a week AND raise stamp prices.

Can't wait to have these people in charge of health care.

USPS, Amtrak, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac. All TREMENDOUS successes on the part of the Federal Government.

Factitious

I my infrequent travels to Canada, I've made it a point, whenever the opportunity arises, to ask people what they think of their health care. I've NEVER heard a complaint; it's always one of two answers, to the effect of: "I don't think about it much; if I get sick, I get what I need," or "DON'T EVEN THINK about taking away our health care, it great!"

As far a I can tell, Canadian who com to the US for care are subjects of "triage," i.e., in Canada the 23-year-old crash victim gets the liver transplant before 82-year-old obese alcoholic.

Factitious

I am acquainted with a US citizen who was horribly injured in a accident in Canada, who expresses amazement at the quality of care received there, and who never got a bill.

libertarian

Like I said before: You don't even have to move to Canada to have your health care system. Just start a health care cooperative here based on the health care bill you promote and invite others who feel the same to join the cooperative with you. That way you can have your health care system without violating mr natural rights or the natural rights your fellow citizens and neighbors. Then if your system is good and succeeds, it will grow and prosper and everyone will join it. What are you afraid of-that nobody would voluntarly join your system after they saw how it worked?

I the meantime, don't be a collectivist thug and let the rest of us make our own decisions.

observer

I've known about Mr. Polvinale for awhile now, and he makes Obama look like a conservative. Definitely a weird guy.

friend

You could get a job and get insurance Brutus. You could get a job and get insurance Brutus. Need I go on????

ottonut44

Gary, you must be under 15 years old to display such naivety. Ever live in Canada, probably not. I have lived there and been subjected to their "free" healthcare system. Just remember, you get what you pay for. If you are having a major procedure you wait in line and wait in line and wait in line and sometimes you die before you get treated.

Let's talk about your definition of "free." You really are a putz. Now, if you are unemployed and not paying any taxes, it's free!!! But compare the tax rate of Canada to the United States....it's twice as high. But again, if you are a welfare slug, you are paid for by all the people that work, aft least for a year...then you are on your own.

Been there, done that, and I wouldn't trade our system for theirs for all the tea in China, and if you had an relevant knowledge or experience, you wouldn't either. If you don't like our system, the Pelee Islander can take you over there for your medical needs.

brutus smith

You cannot be diagnosed for cancer in the ER Richard. You can't get cancer treatments in the ER Richard. You want me to go on?????

Richard Bebb

If you dont have a problem with the canadian model of inferior care and rationing then that is on you. If you believe that our government should take over 1/6 of our economy then that is on you. This is nothing more than a attempted power grab by the left to ensure a voting bloc at the expense of our personal liberties.

Its a silly argument to say that a person cannot get care in this country. Anyone can walk into an emergency room or call an ambulance and you will not be denied. The programs that we currently use in this country ie.. medicare and medicaid are running unsustainable debt. Do any of you really truly believe that we would be able to add 30 million more to these programs that are already going broke. There is better ways to insure those who are uninsured that dont include a government takeover.

Duhast

Why don't you guys do some research before we go back and forth on canned taling points.
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/i...

friend

How would you propose we pay for things if not with money? With good intentions?

There is no such thing as free healthcare. Someone has to pay for it. After all, who's going to pay the union dues for all the new public employees in the system?

brutus smith

Richard, nobody said we didn't have the best Healthcare money can buy. If you have MONEY!!!!

Duhast

My wife has a family member that went to England to get a medical procedure done. That MUST mean that the UK health system is better, right? These anecdotal arguments are getting old. Canada = Universal coverage with option of buying private insurance. US = fend for yourself and if you can’t afford it, too bad.

Chung Lee

Chung Lee meant to say 1 in 5 and not 1 in 4 so 20% is correct number.

Chung Lee

Chung Lee must say that once again Winston is acting like he know what he talking about. Chung Lee would think Winston would check the facts before he tells us his "facts". It appear that facts are an acronym (Fails Again Changing Truth Significantly) Winston said:

"Apples and oranges Mr. Polvinale; for a couple of things, Canada has a small and mostly homogeneous population.

On the other hand, the U.S. has a large and highly diversified population."

Well the fact indicate otherwise. First of all Quebec has two official languages (French and English). Hardly a sing of being homogeneous. Secondly,1 in 4 are foreign born. So 20% of the population was born outside the country but they are just like the rest of the Canadian population? Lastly, two of the largest cities in Canada have minority populations of 51% and 47%. Chung Lee pretty sure that Winston sounds like he is a "homo genius".

Hey Richard so you want to talk about rationing? What you have to say about our system that denies care if no money. 45,000 people died last year in the US because they couldn't afford to get well.

Richard Bebb

Yeah, yeah, yeah the Canadian socialist health care is the best in the world blah blah. If that were so why did a Canadian premier come to the United States for health care ????????

http://biggovernment.com/publius...

Maybe he didnt feel like being put on a waiting list for months when he could come to America and have the procedure done before lunch.

But no if America adopted the Canadian model it wouldnt lead to the rationing of care.......
" Like other nations experiencing limitless demand, and ageing population and the costly advance of medical technology, Canada has faced pressure to control health expenditure. It has done so through explicit rationing."

http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/Ca...

duhast -
Medicare is broke, how do you propose fixing and expanding it by 30 million people, its a pipe dream my friend.

friend

This is what I find ironic. All you 60's hippies that hated the government are now proposing government run healthcare. What do you know that we don't?

Duhast

We have a single payer Canadian system. It’s called Medicare. Fix it and expand it.

Friend,
I have also spoken to Canadians about their health system. Most were very happy with it and couldn’t imagine not having it. See, we can all find anecdotes to support our side. From personal experience, the one Canadian I know that doesn’t like it has lived here for over 20 years. Ironically, his parents won’t visit because they are afraid of something happening to them while they are here and without insurance. While you can find Canadians that do not like their system, it’s become a matter of national pride and they make fun of us for not having it.

libertarian

The collectivist thugs are at it again, using government thugs to violate my natural rights and coerce me to comply with their values and pay for it to boot. Shame on you all. All moral people should shame and ostracize collectivist and government thugs.

And Gary, you don't even have to move to Canada to have your health care system. Just start a health care cooperative here based on the health care bill you promote and invite others who feel the same to join the cooperative with you. That way you can have your health care system without violating mr natural rights or the natural rights your fellow citizens and neighbors. Then if your system is good and succeeds, it will grow and prosper and everyone will join it.

You see, I uphold and defend your natural right to do this even though you want to violate my natural rights and impose your values and choices on me. Same goes for my collectivist friend brutus.

friend

Gary, have you spoken to any Canadians? I have spoken to more than a few, and they do not like their system. For the freeloaders, it's great. However, for the majority of Canadians who work for a living, the cost is great. Their taxes are astronomical. Not just on their income, but the "sin taxes" on beer, cigarettes, and cigars are ridiculous. I was up there last year, and a 12 pack of beer (Molson) was over $20.

Canadians aren't told by the insurance companies their too sick to die, they are just ignored by their gov't and left to die.

brutus smith

Well put Gary. Where there is money involved there will be fraud, waste and abuse. Should we lock up all the Drs. and healthcare CEOs who know about this fraud, waste and abuse in their offices and companies??? I'm all for it Winston, how about you?

6079 Smith W

@ Mr. Polvinale:

Apples and oranges Mr. Polvinale; for a couple of things, Canada has a small and mostly homogeneous population.

On the other hand, the U.S. has a large and highly diversified population.

The program is not easily transferable.

Tell your fellows to eliminate the billions of dollars worth of fraud, waste and abuse in the current Medicare and Medicaid programs.

A pyramid scheme can only survive as long as an increasing number of suckers are brought into it. It contains the seeds of its own eventual destruction.

Universal health insurance as designed by American socialists is actuarially unsound as well as a sucker’s bet that will financially help to bankrupt the U.S.