Come on Shep, you know you're just shilling for the man. Join the resistance.

One of us. One of us. One of us.

It's funny that he mentions FedEx, because if UPS lobbyists, Teamsters, and the US government have their way, FedEx WON'T be able to compete.

http://ir.fedex.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=388559

One of us. One of us. One of us.

Yeah, Canada has waiting times and other issues, but, you know what? If I need to see my doctor because of some issue, I walk in to the office do what needs to be done, then walk out. I don't get a bill. I need an MRI? Yeah, I have to wait, but it doesn't cost me anything. Need an X-ray, blood tests, flu shot, hospital stay, my wife has a baby and gets a c-section, is in hospital for 3 or 4 days,.. yeah, we still don't have to pay a bill.

The system's not perfect (and needs work), but not having to fork over cash for every visit is pretty sweet and usually makes up for many of the short-comings.

>> ^schlub:
Yeah, Canada has waiting times and other issues, but, you know what? If I need to see my doctor because of some issue, I walk in to the office do what needs to be done, then walk out. I don't get a bill. I need an MRI? Yeah, I have to wait, but it doesn't cost me anything. Need an X-ray, blood tests, flu shot, hospital stay, my wife has a baby and gets a c-section, is in hospital for 3 or 4 days,.. yeah, we still don't have to pay a bill.
The system's not perfect (and needs work), but not having to fork over cash for every visit is pretty sweet and usually makes up for many of the short-comings.


Amen. It has it's problems but is way ahead of a pay-for system like that in the States.

I love how these Fox reports are often devoid of tangible facts. So a lady was told she is too heavy for a hip replacement? Doesn't surprise me. For all we know she is a 600 lb fatty and the real story is that she was told she needs to lose weight before such surgery is practical.

I wouldn't trade the system we have in Canada for what is had in the US. Not a chance.

MSNBC and Fox should trade Lou Dobbs for Shep Smith.

^ Lou Dobbs is on CNN (or is he on both?).

I'm glad Fox has Shep, and they should be rewarded for such (preferably with higher ratings on his segment). Fox just follows the ratings. If Glenn Beck gets viewers and advertisers then he stays... if he becomes unprofitable then he goes.

In my imaginary little world people would prefer actual investigations over one-sided attacks, but I know that isn't realistic. =\

>> ^Psychologic:
^ Lou Dobbs is on CNN (or is he on both?).
I'm glad Fox has Shep, and they should be rewarded for such (preferably with higher ratings on his segment). Fox just follows the ratings. If Glenn Beck gets viewers and advertisers then he stays... if he becomes unprofitable then he goes.
In my imaginary little world people would prefer actual investigations over one-sided attacks, but I know that isn't realistic. =\


Fox does NOT just follow ratings. Fox follows Murdoch's political views, and actively focuses only on the stories that promote those views. Not only do they present a biased selection of stories, they will distort and flat-out lie to support those views. They even go so far as to fire anyone who refuses to report those lies...and have a court decision saying that's legal (another piece of evidence that "legal" doesn't mean "right" or "ethical").

They are in no way a news organization...they're nothing more than a propaganda machine.

Question for Canadian sifters:
In Canada if you don't want to wait you can go to another area where there's a shorter waiting list correct (next town over or whatever)? The only reason to go to the US is if what you want is just a waste of money that won't do you any good no?

>> ^alizarin:
Question for Canadian sifters:
In Canada if you don't want to wait you can go to another area where there's a shorter waiting list correct (next town over or whatever)? The only reason to go to the US is if what you want is just a waste of money that won't do you any good no?


Dude probably wanted to get some shopping done after surgery. Everyone heads down to Buffalo for cheap clothes.

Well, it can be a bit convoluted but:

1). Yes, if the waiting list is too long, we can go to another hospital. My son needed his tonsils and adenoids removed and the wait list was a year (in Prince George). So we just called up a specialist in Kelowna, and boom he was in, within a week.

2). There are some private clinics that operate outside the government system and work on a pay per use system. The average person doesn't use them, but they are there for who can afford it.

3). At my last job, we had a special broker who handled all of our medical claims. If it meant that we could end up missing work and costing the company money, it was their job to expedite the paperwork and bump us to the front of the list. We got medical attention right away. Not everyone has this but in that case, it was to the benefit of my employer to bare the costs of this agency instead of paying sick pay for us to wait on a waiting list.

4). Also, hospitals, generally, try to be fair, when I had my ACL replaced, the surgeon, himself expedited my surgery date, because I was in danger of re-injuring and causing more damage if I waited too long. The hospital emergency rooms that I know of are working on a two tear level to speed up wait times. (those that need a bed and those that don't. Also, within those groups, they work with a triage mentality where, those that can be patched up quickly, or the very serious will get attention first. The less people waiting the better.

I think a lot of people imagine us standing in hospital line-ups for months, dying out in the cold. That's just not true. Yes, there can be wait lists when the jobs out-man the doctors, but for the most part, if there were more doctors and more equipment, we wouldn't be waiting so long. In Quesnel, where I lived a year ago, the town started their own fundraiser and bought their own MRI Machine, because the government wasn't. Now they have one and the wait times went from traveling out of town to making the appt.


>> ^alizarin:
Question for Canadian sifters:
In Canada if you don't want to wait you can go to another area where there's a shorter waiting list correct (next town over or whatever)? The only reason to go to the US is if what you want is just a waste of money that won't do you any good no?

*politics

Adding video to channels (Politics) - requested by NetRunner.

This should go without saying, but a string of cherry picked personal anecdotes is meaningless in such debates. Advocates of the public option could just as easily pick out stories of people with private insurance in the US who were denied for coverage or made to wait too long, and repeat those stories endlessly (I'm sure some do). It doesn't get us anywhere, because we're not talking about a system that effects a handful of people, it effects millions, and it can only be accurately judged on that scale.

>> ^alizarin:
Question for Canadian sifters:
In Canada if you don't want to wait you can go to another area where there's a shorter waiting list correct (next town over or whatever)? The only reason to go to the US is if what you want is just a waste of money that won't do you any good no?


Yeah, most "waiting lists" are in larger metropolitan areas, or in the case of MRIs, the lack of skilled specialists as well as budget constraints. People who go down to the States for medical reasons are mostly wimps those having lower tolerances.

I don't get a bill... I don't have to pay...

Yes you do. It is called 'taxes' and you pay for medical care out of every paycheck whether you use any or not. The statement 'I don't have to pay' is specious because you are paying - constantly. And the money is not going to doctors, nurses, hospitals, medical research, or specialists. It is going to a government agency which loses an average of 38% (some say as high as 70%) to waste, inefficiency, and fraud.

Single payer is not 'better'. It is not 'cheaper'. It is not 'more fair'. It is simply DIFFERENT. There are strong arguments against it both economically and philosophically. Over 56% of the country doesn't want the public option. Over 86% of the country is satisfied with their medical care. There is no need to go to a different system. Small scale local, municipal, and state organizations can help the people who require assistance beyond their ability to pay. There is no need to swap to a massive government one-size system to account for only a small percentage of the needy.

>> ^entr0py:
This should go without saying, but a string of cherry picked personal anecdotes is meaningless in such debates. Advocates of the public option could just as easily pick out stories of people with private insurance in the US who were denied for coverage or made to wait too long, and repeat those stories endlessly (I'm sure some do). It doesn't get us anywhere, because we're not talking about a system that effects a handful of people, it effects millions, and it can only be accurately judged on that scale.


Which is more or less what Shep said when he questioned it's fairness, which is why it's great.

It's like he totally went around the perceived angle of that story to shed just a little bit of logic on it that Fox news is so sorely lacking.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Single payer is not 'better'. It is not 'cheaper'. It is not 'more fair'. It is simply DIFFERENT. There are strong arguments against it both economically and philosophically. Over 56% of the country doesn't want the public option. Over 86% of the country is satisfied with their medical care. There is no need to go to a different system. Small scale local, municipal, and state organizations can help the people who require assistance beyond their ability to pay. There is no need to swap to a massive government one-size system to account for only a small percentage of the needy.


I know I shouldn't continue to feed the troll, but...

As usual, you ignore the actual published numbers to spout your vague, unsubstantiated claims. The numbers clearly indicate that our current approach -is- distinctly worse, more expensive, and less fair. But you go ahead and keep pushing that insurance industry BS...I'm sure they'll take good care of you when you get something serious.

I've shared this story before, but for those just joining us, I walked into my local ER in southern Ontario a few months ago with abdominal pain. Although I wasn't in immediate life-threatening danger, I was in surgery later that same day. The cost to me for my 3-day hospital stay was $0, and the insurance through my work paid $400 for my semi-private hospital room (I chose semi-private because my insurance covered it). So while it's certainly very shitty that some people apparently have to wait for procedures, that wasn't my experience, and I live in a city where the average household income is below the national average.

But the US isn't even looking at a healthcare system.

Literally the most Obama-scam is looking at doing is to put in a large health INSURANCE company that is govt run and pools large amounts of people in it, ie. for those self-employed or lower income that can't afford to get private health INSURANCE on their own.

It is the biggest scam ever run on this country. The fact that the GOP won't pass this is insane, but I'm glad for it, because eventually people will start to wonder...

WHY DOES THE US HAVE THE HIGHEST PER GDP MEDICAL EXPENSES
WHY IS THE US THE ONLY MODERN COUNTRY WITHOUT ANY SOCIALIZED MEDICINE (I guess except Medicare)

Many Americans head to Thailand for affordable medical treatment... Just thought I'd through out a random but true fact.

My position is that a socialized system is not desirable in any scenario. This is a philosophical stance, which I feel is supported both by specific issue by issue evidence, as well as over-arching historical trend analysis. I'm an advocate of small government, low taxes, personal freedom, and limited federal powers.

To cede power and wealth to government is a horrible mistake that inevitably results in long term damage that far outweighs any temporary short-term benefits. Socialized systems always result in greater amounts of misery, unhappiness, poverty, and even death. Government cannot be trusted, and the less they power to control, the better off the people remain. That's what makes the Bill of Rights so fantastic.

The benefits of a social medical system are debatable (at best). Specifically, the plans under discussion have been proven to be of no economic benefit by the CBO. From a philosophical perspective they give WAY too much power & money to government - with far too few limits & controls. Why go this route when we know prima facie that it is a horrible idea? Just because a bunch of leftist theorycrafters SAY it'll work? Not buying it.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Specifically, the plans under discussion have been proven to be of no economic benefit by the CBO.


The CBO has not now, nor ever, "proven" anything, except that they consistently overestimate costs and underestimate savings when it comes to Medicare changes over the last 30 years. Given their atrocious record, -I- wouldn't care to use them as evidence...although I think it pretty safe to say it's likely that costs will be far, far less than they claim.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/26/opinion/26gabel.html?_r=3&pagewanted
=1

No mention of the thousands upon thousands (millions?) of americans who go without health care because they can't afford a private plan, or those people who do have a insurance but aren't covered for their treatment for whatever reason the insurance companies decide. Look far enough and y ou'll find lots of problems on both sides of the border. I for one and thankful that I don't have to deal with the american system. The bill for my wife's delivery at the hospital came to 350$ for three nights in a private room (see you get to pay extra for some services). Best of both worlds.

I think it pretty safe to say it's likely that costs will be far, far less than they claim.

Name ongoing federal government social program created in the past fifty years that cost LESS than originally projected. I counter by saying, the only thing we know for a fact is that the medical program will cost far MORE than originally projected. Medicare - overbudget. Medicaid - overbudget. SCHIP - overbudget. WIC - overbudget. Every government run medical program goes over budget, loses money, and costs far more than estimated. Your claim social medicine would cost 'far far less than they claim' is based on no evidence. My claim that it will go OVER budget is supported by the CBO, the bill itself, and ALL historical precedent of government involvement in medical care.

No mention of the thousands upon thousands (millions?) of americans who go without health care because they can't afford a private plan.

The U.S. 'uninsured' is as low as 11 million people if you exclude illegals, people between jobs, and people who qualify for medicare/medicaid. If you include EVERYONE who for any reason does not currently hold a head-to-toe umbrella policy then the number is 46 million (about 12%).

The liberal left likes to say 12% of our population is staggering around, desperate for medical care, unable to get treatment, and dying in the streets while rich insurance policy holders ride by in imosines laughing at them. The reality is nothing like what the neolib left is selling. By law, all persons must receive medical treatment whether they can pay or not. The implication that "X" uninsured translates into "X" untreated, uncovered, dying schlubs is bunk.

To use your parleyance, thousands (millions?) of the uninsured are perfectly healthy individuals who can easily afford private major-medical insurance plans. The vast bulk of the remainder are people that qualify for government assisted medical care that ALREADY EXISTS. The remaining uninsured can easily be accomodated by private assistance at the local, city, or state level. There is no need for a national system.

FYI The Canadian government(Federal) doesn't run our health care system. The federal government simply mandated that all citizens are required to have it, then left it to the provinces(aka s on how to best get it to the citizens. Since they're in BC(aka the odd land of Canada), more so than Ontario. You should be asking "what's wrong with BC's healthcare system, and what are the other critical care cases that had to be in front of them?

To break it down it goes like this:
Federal Government - Mandate by law all Canadians must have to provinces
All provinces & territories required by law to provide health care

Level of health care must be equal and equitable across the country as mandated by the oversight of the federal government(there is someone who checks to make sure that things aren't out of whack).

That means. The level of healthcare in BC is not the same as in Alberta, or Saskatchewan, or Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Newfoundland, or PEI. However, they are all close to the same levels mandated by law, but everyone has it. It also means that in some provinces some drugs are not covered, while in other provinces others are. However, if you live in Ontario and go to BC and need medical help. You're covered. OHIP(Ontario Medicare), will cover the treatment. The only places where the federal government is required to deal with health care are in places where such as back-ass-nowhere(territories, and reserves, or settlements in the middle of nowhere). Even then there are equalization, the province/territory covers part.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Your claim social medicine would cost 'far far less than they claim' is based on no evidence.

You didn't even bother to read the link, did you? Or did you just decide to ignore it completely and use the "big lie" approach? You know, keep repeating the same bald-faced lie long enough that the gullible start to believe it? That does appear to be one of the three main strategies of the Republican party, after all, along with fear and smear.

My claim, as you call it, is that the cost will be substantially less than the CBO estimates it. That is supported by their record over the last 30 years for EVERY estimate of the costs/savings of Medicare reforms. Three major reforms have occurred, and three times, they've been systemically over-conservative (read that as "wrong") and hugely overestimated the costs and underestimated the savings involved.

That does it...I'm through feeding the troll now. If I want this experience in the future, I've got lots of brick walls I can talk to for the same effect.

My turn to feed the troll. WP you are absolutely on the money when you point out that, yes, we do pay medical bills through our taxes which I believe are higher than yours. What we should be comparing is out of pocket cost for health care as a percentage of after tax income. Here in BC a single self-employed person who earns $50,000 per year pays out of pocket medical premiums of 1.73% of his/her after tax income. And before you compare that to the same hypothetical person in the US remember that you have to compare a health insurance plan that has no caps, no limits, no exclusion of pre-existing conditions.

On a note regarding anecdotal stories, when our PM was in DC a couple of weeks ago our news media were talking to Americans about their health care. They talked to a woman who thought she had an excellent plan. That is until she was diagnosed with severe rheumatoid arthritis. So severe that she required multiple joint replacements and had one of her legs partially amputated. She is now in a position where the key factor in determining her future medical treatments is financial and she is deep in debt and facing bankruptcy. If that's having good health care I'll pass.

Winstonfield lives in a world where if everyone owns a gun, everyone is safer.

Federal...provincial

I expect the opposition would be a lot less strident to Obamacare if there was specific language in any of hte bills that created a system of state programs with only loose federal oversight. Problem is, the bills in Congress aren't talking about that. People like me have a hard time believing the feds are just going to step back. All current bills point to the creation of a large federal system where money is sent to Washtington and then doled out from there ala Medicare & Medicaid.

CBO estimates

I only brought up the CBO as an example to show that even Obama's own agency does not expect this plan to 'save' money. You're using it like a Jungian archetype. "If the CBO says it will cost 2 trillion, that means it'll only cost 1.4 trillion." Uh - sure - that's how it all works... :eyeroll:

Use whatever 'estimate' you like. Use some estimate that says Obamacare will magically produce free money on trees and the whole ball of wax will only cost $6.50 and a pack of Mentos. The specific estimate in question you prefer is utterly irrelevant. The point is that any federal program created to manage health care will end up costing WAY more than estimated and will manifest as a massive money pit that sucks in billions and spits out below-average results ala Medicare/aid.

What we should be comparing is out of pocket cost for health care as a percentage of after tax income

No - I'd say we should be looking at total out of pocket costs including taxes. That means we don't just look at how much I'm spending on private care, but we also look at how much we have to pay for the whole deal. Every bill in congress to date is not projected to cost individual taxpayers 'less' when all costs are tallied. There will be taxes, monthly payments to a 'plan', office visit fees, co-pays, prescription drug costs, 'for service' fees for any 'non approved' treatments. And on and on and on.

People talking as if Obamacare will just be "Yay - I can go anywhere and get treated for anything and it's all FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!" Uh - no - that's total bullcrap. You have only to look at Medicare and Medicaid today to see the future of Obamacare. Substandard coverage, high costs, and big fat government involvement in what you can & can't have. The writing is right there on the wall. It's as plain as a Bulgarian pin-up. How anyone can delude themselves into thinking Obamacare will be the FIRST program in government history to buck the trend is beyond me.

Winstonfield lives in a world where if everyone owns a gun, everyone is safer.

Typical neolib issue avoidance. I live in a world where common sense & reality must be dealt with. Obamacare ignores both.

*dead and rats.

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by bareboards2.