Former Top Canadian Dr. Brian Day: Obamacare Will Bring Rationed Care & Skyrocketing

[DamnYankee]

LOLZ But in all seriousness, it would be nice not to see the comment "link please?" or "plagiarism" after people's posts...

...

When have I ever said "link please" after someone plagiarized?

 

[DamnYankee]

That's why this type of program is so insidious. Just like Social Security, once you get into it there's no way to stop it. It's analogous to a Ponzi scheme.

Not quite. People expect to receive something back from a Ponsi scheme. Just as they expect to receive Social Security. In other words, an investment.

....

Dude, read what you just posted, because you agree with me that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme.

 

[Damocles]

Apparently, 90% of the Canadian People are, in your mind, too ignorant to know how bad their system really is.
Changing an evolving program is the intelligent thing to do, not like the stupidity that has taken place in this country since it was discovered things here weren't the pie in the sky Harry and Louise wanted us to believe, as do the naysayers today.

Apparently the last three of the Presidents of their CMA agree with me.

And again, I find nothing wrong with helping people get coverage, I just see a problem (first in privacy issues) with the government being the provider. I do not trust the altruism of government. I don't see how anybody could after seeing how they have in the past and currently treat Native Americans for just one example.

 

[Cancel4]

Nobody is suggesting a Canadian-style system here.

I suspect you already know that and are cynically attempting to deceive people by sowing baseless fears.

At the press conference that concluded the recent North American summit, President Obama said "We've got to develop a uniquely American approach to this problem. The Canadian model won't work in the United States ".

He also said he expected opponents of health-care reform (like you) to continue to make misleading comparisons between the proposed legislation in Congress and Canada's system.

He was right, as usual.

I suspect that once we get into the fall, and people look at the actual legislation that's being proposed, that more sensible and reasoned arguments will emerge, and we're going to get this passed.

Despite your lies.

 

[belme1201]

Apparently the last three of the Presidents of their CMA agree with me.

And again, I find nothing wrong with helping people get coverage, I just see a problem (first in privacy issues) with the government being the provider. I do not trust the altruism of government. I don't see how anybody could after seeing how they have in the past and currently treat Native Americans for just one example.

I do not argue that they did not want to add a private component in the Canadian plan, it's apparent they feel it is necessary to enhance the overall plan they have now. It is also the type of plan being discussed here to a crescendo of less than honest tactics by the for-profit health industry and their lackies. What I am referring to also is the fact that they, unlike we in the US, are smart enough to recognize problems and deal with them as contrasted with the history of inaction for decades in the US, thus ignoring the needs of the people.
I repeat, the Canadian People, by an overwhelming majority, wouldn't trade the public plan they have NOW for the US healthcare system. There must be a reason. There also must be a reason Seniors don't want their public Medicare plan touched.
What privacy is it you worry about? Do you believe the insurance companies and hospitals don't share your credit and health issues among each other now? Read the fine print.
I don't trust in the altruism of government either, but, somehow, I also find little or no evidence of altruism in the corporate healthcare industry. I have no power whatsoever to remove a failed or dishonest corporate CEO, however, every 2 years in November I have an opportunity to fire failed politicians.

 

[Damocles]

Nobody is suggesting a Canadian-style system here.

I suspect you already know that and are cynically attempting to deceive people by sowing baseless fears.

At the press conference that concluded the recent North American summit, President Obama said "We've got to develop a uniquely American approach to this problem. The Canadian model won't work in the United States ".

He also said he expected opponents of health-care reform (like you) to continue to make misleading comparisons between the proposed legislation in Congress and Canada's system.

He was right, as usual.

I suspect that once we get into the fall, and people look at the actual legislation that's being proposed, that more sensible and reasoned arguments will emerge, and we're going to get this passed.

Despite your lies.

Disingenuous. First I never said they were, I said simply that a government option is a mistake, and even said why.

Second, (now I am saying they are) they are talking about exactly that, they speak about the steps they need to take and this is simply the first. We'd have to be mentally deficient to believe that they are not working towards their stated goal.

 

[Damocles]

I do not argue that they did not want to add a private component in the Canadian plan, it's apparent they feel it is necessary to enhance the overall plan they have now. It is also the type of plan being discussed here to a crescendo of less than honest tactics by the for-profit health industry and their lackies. What I am referring to also is the fact that they, unlike we in the US, are smart enough to recognize problems and deal with them as contrasted with the history of inaction for decades in the US, thus ignoring the needs of the people.
I repeat, the Canadian People, by an overwhelming majority, wouldn't trade the public plan they have NOW for the US healthcare system. There must be a reason. There also must be a reason Seniors don't want their public Medicare plan touched.
What privacy is it you worry about? Do you believe the insurance companies and hospitals don't share your credit and health issues among each other now? Read the fine print.
I don't trust in the altruism of government either, but, somehow, I also find little or no evidence of altruism in the corporate healthcare industry. I have no power whatsoever to remove a failed or dishonest corporate CEO, however, every 2 years in November I have an opportunity to fire failed politicians.

Again, by making it into a partisan hack bill rather than working to create something that actually first solves the actual problem of cost we are again spinning our wheels. If anything passes at all or doesn't pass this will be the central theme of the next election cycle.

Your side could have passed almost this same thing with Nixon but thought they could get something passed in the next cycle when they won, then did nothing. Now they are trying to force people to accept their plan and when people object and point out problems with the plan you consistently try to shut down their voice rather than listen and resolve the issues.

I will ask you again. What do you think a Bush Admin would do if abortion became illegal and they needed to find people who were breaking that law? Would they ignore a database full of women who might be pregnant now but never seem to have children? What do you think an administration that fully understands that the government is working on bankrupting itself would do? Do you think that rationing would be far?

Putting this on the solid faith that the government will be forever altruistic is IMO just retarded. Ask Japanese Americans, ask Native Americans today, ask German Americans who suffered during the war. These people are alive and know that altruism is not what you should have faith that the government will produce.

 

[Cancel4]

Disingenuous. First I never said they were, I said simply that a government option is a mistake, and even said why.

Second, (now I am saying they are) they are talking about exactly that, they speak about the steps they need to take and this is simply the first. We'd have to be mentally deficient to believe that they are not working towards their stated goal.

You were for saying you said it before you were against it?

Please, post the evidence (if you have any) that "they are talking about exactly that, they speak about the steps they need to take and this is simply the first".

 

[belme1201]

O'Reilly already had him on his show and it was very cordial.

Interesting, do they have a website where I can view it? His name is Ouelette?, I believe.

 

[Cancel5]

Dude, read what you just posted, because you agree with me that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme.

Does that mean the stock market is also a Ponzi scheme, why am I having deja vu?

 

[DamnYankee]

Does that mean the stock market is also a Ponzi scheme, why am I having deja vu?

Not generally. A Ponzi scheme is where you get folks entering the scheme after you to pay you, their incentive being folks yet to enter paying them. It's like Social Security except voluntary. *shrug*

 

[Cancel5]

Not generally. A Ponzi scheme is where you get folks entering the scheme after you to pay you, their incentive being folks yet to enter paying them. It's like Social Security except voluntary. *shrug*

Okay, it is more like the slot machines, put your money in, hope you win!

 

[DamnYankee]

Okay, it is more like the slot machines, put your money in, hope you win!

Most lose, and I'm not a gambler. But with Social Security, the government forces me to gamble. Is that freedom? *shrug*

 

[Cancel5]

Most lose, and I'm not a gambler. But with Social Security, the government forces me to gamble. Is that freedom? *shrug*

No, I have always believed that people should be allowed to opt out like the State and federal employees of Alaska are allowed to do!

Those who don't save and invest should stay in SS.

 

[Cancel5]

No, I have always believed that people should be allowed to opt out like the State and federal employees of Alaska are allowed to do!

Those who don't save and invest should stay in SS.

Bud and I would love to take out money and invest it ourselves, but it will also be nice to have that little amount coming in, in case we make some bad mistakes investing! he he

 

[DamnYankee]

No, I have always believed that people should be allowed to opt out like the State and federal employees of Alaska are allowed to do!

Those who don't save and invest should stay in SS.

So why force me to pay the government for health care? Don't give me the BS that it is an option, because Obama and his advisers have stated all along that they desire a single payer system, and the House bill is clearly designed to eventually force private insurance from the market.

 

[Cancel5]

So why force me to pay the government for health care? Don't give me the BS that it is an option, because Obama and his advisers have stated all along that they desire a single payer system, and the House bill is clearly designed to eventually force private insurance from the market.

It is one of the provisions that I do not agree with, if you don't want health insurance, then you should have the option to opt out. If you believe that private insurance is a better way to go, then that option should be available to you.

I am of the beliefs that if you do not have insurance, you should be able to get it through a program that is affordable. If that means the government working with private industry, then that is the way it should be handled. If private industry won't cooperate, then we need the government to go it alone in any means that will get health care for the poor and elderly!

I am not a Democrat, I am not sure what I am. I just believe that there is a way for all of us to work together to be humanitarians!

I am a pie eyed optimist, even at this old decrepit age!

 

[DamnYankee]

It is one of the provisions that I do not agree with, if you don't want health insurance, then you should have the option to opt out. If you believe that private insurance is a better way to go, then that option should be available to you.

I am of the beliefs that if you do not have insurance, you should be able to get it through a program that is affordable. If that means the government working with private industry, then that is the way it should be handled. If private industry won't cooperate, then we need the government to go it alone in any means that will get health care for the poor and elderly!

I am not a Democrat, I am not sure what I am. I just believe that there is a way for all of us to work together to be humanitarians!

I am a pie eyed optimist, even at this old decrepit age!

Under the present system someone too poor to buy health insurance is covered under Medicaid. If someone has the money but is to cheap to buy insurance, in other words he's a gambler, then he pays out-of-pocket until he's poor enough to qualify for Medicaid.

I don't see why you'd consider that, to use a variation of your word, "inhuman".

Why not just control costs through tort reform and practice standards, both legitimate Constitutional responsibilities of the Federal government?

 

[Cancel5]

Under the present system someone too poor to buy health insurance is covered under Medicaid. If someone has the money but is to cheap to buy insurance, in other words he's a gambler, then he pays out-of-pocket until he's poor enough to qualify for Medicaid.

I don't see why you'd consider that, to use a variation of your word, "inhuman".

Why not just control costs through tort reform and practice standards, both legitimate Constitutional responsibilities of the Federal government?

Tort reform and practice standards are too biggies that is true, and they do need to be controlled.

Medicaid is better than nothing, but needs to be retooled, also.

To qualify for Medicaid you have to get rid of all your assets, or have limited assets, correct? or have I been misinformed? I don't see anything human about making someone poorer than they already are.

 

[Cancel4]

The status quo is unsustainable. President Obama has a bold vision for change.