Chickens coming home to roost

[Guest American Woman]

I'd say you're country's over-the-top adoration for capitalism accounts for that.

Am I to understand you're somehow proud of you're greater per-capita cost? Where's the 'reasoning' behind that coming from?

If you honestly couldn't understand what I was actually saying, forget it. Sometimes it's just not worth getting into .... so keep thinking it's "fear of communism" that prevents us from having a universal health care system....

[Sir Bandelot]

omg. That is so not true. Even I know that. What a delusion, if you really believe that.

It is true, for the leftism part. Even the word "socialism" was demonized, now known as the "s" word. I think that's what eyeball was alluding to, with the communism remarks. That absurd form of paranoia is clearly part of the right wing agenda, and successful, whatever that means.

[Pliny]

So true. The "far left" in the US and the "far right" in Canada pretty much occupy the same space.

I laughed at that one! I think I may have said something similar myself.

[Pliny]

The "far left" in the US and the "far right" in Canada pretty much occupy the same space.

omg. That is so not true. Even I know that. What a delusion' date=' if you really believe that.

[/quote']

I think he is being satirical about there being no leftists in the US. He is slighting those who think Canada has a right wing.

[eyeball]

If you honestly couldn't understand what I was actually saying, forget it. Sometimes it's just not worth getting into .... so keep thinking it's "fear of communism" that prevents us from having a universal health care system....

Just what the hell were you saying then? If it's not communism perhaps it's the death panels?

It is often difficult to understand what you mean and I don't think that's entirely my fault. You're right, this probably isn't worth getting into.

[eyeball]

It is true, for the leftism part. Even the word "socialism" was demonized, now known as the "s" word. I think that's what eyeball was alluding to, with the communism remarks. That absurd form of paranoia is clearly part of the right wing agenda, and successful, whatever that means.

Bingo.

[Oleg Bach]

This job accelerates the gray in all of them....Reagan fought back with Grecian Formula....and emerged as a hero.

From the world stage to sitting in diapers. Any person that takes on a job to appease evil and good at the same time is going to grow grey on the head and be grey within their moral judgement.

[Guest American Woman]

It is true, for the leftism part.

No, it's not true. We have our left, just as surely as you do, and you have your right. And your right is just as far right as any far right American.

Even the word "socialism" was demonized, now known as the "s" word. I think that's what eyeball was alluding to, with the communism remarks. That absurd form of paranoia is clearly part of the right wing agenda, and successful, whatever that means.

Demonized by who? And I have to ask, what does 'successful' mean, since you made the observation?

As for what eyeball was alluding to, it's difficult to know sometimes since the U.S. is criticized for everything we do differently, it seems.

So when I read "fear of communism" and "costly fear," I figured we were being criticized for spending so much on our military, out of "fear," that there's nothing left for health care, as I've heard that many a time -- thus my comment.

But the powerful insurance industry is a big reason we don't have universal health care, not "fear of communism." There's also a fear of inferior care by those who have good health plans through their employer, and a lot more people have health coverage than don't, so it's difficult for some to give up what they have for something less; and that's a legitimate fear. They don't want to give up their choices, either, which is the case in Canada. Again, a legitimate concern.

Edited January 5, 2010 by American Woman

[Sir Bandelot]

What matters more, doing what is best for the people (because its the peoples money, not the governments) or dogmatically adhering to some ideology, just because?

Demonized by who? And I have to ask, what does 'successful' mean, since you made the observation?

Demonized, by the US media I think. For a while during the start of all this medical insurance hullabaloo I kept hearing it ("the 's' word") on tv and reading about it in US news.

Success, in the view of the capitalists, is keeping the money that rightly belongs to the people, and working hard to ensure that the privileges enjoyed by the upper class is not shared. Because they feel that it cannot be shared. Hence the reason why US senators and congressman have an excellent medical insurance package, one they would not share with the public at large. So that was certainly not very nice. But to them this sort of thing is a "success". Some call it a success to screw people. The meaning of the word depends on what your values are.

As for what eyeball was alluding to, it's difficult to know sometimes since the U.S. is criticized for everything we do differently, it seems.

Who is "we"? I did not know, you were a spokesman for your government.

Rest assured, whenever I criticize the United States it's not you I'm criticizing, usually. Likewise when you criticize Canada, it don't bother me. In fact, please, bring it on

"the powerful insurance industry is a big reason we don't have universal health care, not "fear of communism."

Corporations do not want any oversight, especially by a third party not-for-profit group that can't be bought (ie, government), because it might reduce their profitability. No one suggested introducing communism as a solution, but the rightists used that word to invoke fear or disapproval, of the proposed plan. This was targeted towards the general public, ie. dumb people who don't fully understand what the word "communism" means, only a general perception that it is very bad.

In truth socialism is a better word for the universal health care idea. But that word was also demonized, not even allowed to say it. Called it the S word... very clever. Very successful in maintaining the political ideology, regardless of whats truly right or wrong.

There's also a fear of inferior care by those who have good health plans through their employer, and a lot more people have health coverage than don't, so it's difficult for some to give up what they have for something less; and that's a legitimate fear. They don't want to give up their choices, either, which is the case in Canada. Again, a legitimate concern.

US is a nation in a state of fear over many things, more so than in Canada. I think it's one important difference. People who fear act impulsively and with too much aggression. Thats why we usually beat you in hockey, bunch of wankers can't hold the puck. But I digress...

For me, as a health care user I don't have much concern over my "choices". True, going to the doctor here is not like going to the supermarket and choosing from a menu of treatment options (some of which are worthwhile, others are offered just to make more money). The only places that try and do that to us here, are at the Vet. They always want to give us some stupid extra x-ray, or things like that. They ask me what I want. I look at them and wonder, how do they expect me to know whats the right choice to make, I'm not a doctor! You tell me what the best treatment is. In our case, with doctors and hospitals, we hardly ever make a choice, we get the best treatment option available, and cost is almost always NOT a consideration. We never have to balance our decisions for treatment based on cost. Except for very rare unusual circumstances with very new treatments or drugs that have not yet been accepted by Health Canada. When that happens that the cost can't be covered, people usually start a lottery to help that person.

Thats the way we do it, here in the communist true north

;^)

Edited January 5, 2010 by Sir Bandelot

[Oleg Bach]

The term anarchist was also demonized. We now equate it with violence and disorder. Orignially the movement was not about this untill that Duke was assasinated just before WW One. To this day we really don't know if the supposed assasin really was responsible for the killing or was set up.

[Guest American Woman]

What matters more, doing what is best for the people (because its the peoples money, not the governments) or dogmatically adhering to some ideology, just because?

I'm saying keeping our health care system the way it is now is "doing what's best" for some people. Others not so much. So you'd basically be moving the 'not so much' group to a better middle ground while the 'what's best for some the way things are now' group would be moved to a not-better middle ground. I think therein lies a big part of the problem. I believe there should be health care for everyone, but this bill of Obama's most definitely doesn't provide that. It's not "what is best for the people" by any means.

Demonized, by the US media I think. For a while during the start of all this medical insurance hullabaloo I kept hearing it ("the 's' word") on tv and reading about it in US news.

I hope you don't judge us by what the media says. The media is only interested in making money.

Success, in the view of the capitalists, is keeping the money that rightly belongs to the people, and working hard to ensure that the privileges enjoyed by the upper class is not shared. Because they feel that it cannot be shared. Hence the reason why US senators and congressman have an excellent medical insurance package, one they would not share with the public at large. So that was certainly not very nice. But to them this sort of thing is a "success". Some call it a success to screw people. The meaning of the word depends on what your values are.

This really has nothing to do with the points that I brought up. "Not wanting to share" is a completely different concept than 'fear of losing the good health care/choices' that one now enjoys. And as I said, it's a legitimate concern.

Who is "we"? I did not know, you were a spokesman for your government.

Rest assured, whenever I criticize the United States it's not you I'm criticizing, usually. Likewise when you criticize Canada, it don't bother me. In fact, please, bring it on

When you speak of Americans not wanting health care for all because they don't want to 'share,' when you state that as the reason, it sounds to me as if you are criticizing Americans.

"the powerful insurance industry is a big reason we don't have universal health care, not "fear of communism."

Corporations do not want any oversight, especially by a third party not-for-profit group that can't be bought (ie, government), because it might reduce their profitability. No one suggested introducing communism as a solution, but the rightists used that word to invoke fear or disapproval, of the proposed plan. This was targeted towards the general public, ie. dumb people who don't fully understand what the word "communism" means, only a general perception that it is very bad.

In truth socialism is a better word for the universal health care idea. But that word was also demonized, not even allowed to say it. Called it the S word... very clever. Very successful in maintaining the political ideology, regardless of whats truly right or wrong.

I've never once heard the word "communism" in regards to overhauling our health care system. It's just not a big "fear" of actual people in our actual country. I think it's big on the minds of others outside the U.S., but not in reality. I've also never heard anyone express a "fear of socialism," and have honestly never even heard it referred to as the "s word" until now; and I'm betting if I were to take a poll on the streets asking people what the "s word" refers to, by far the vast majority, if anyone, wouldn't know.

I think other nations have pinned this 'fear of communism/fear of socialism' as another form of criticism. I suppose it also makes us look bad for not wanting the health care system that you have.

US is a nation in a state of fear over many things, more so than in Canada.

"Fear" and "concern" are two different things. But again, I think this idea that the U.S. is "living in fear" is just another misconception that that the rest of the world has pinned on us.

I think it's one important difference. People who fear act impulsively and with too much aggression. Thats why we usually beat you in hockey, bunch of wankers can't hold the puck. But I digress...

If acting in fear makes you win, can't be all bad ....

For me, as a health care user I don't have much concern over my "choices".

Sounds as if you've been in the fortunate position of not having "choices," or lack thereof, as being an issue in your life. But others can't say the same.

True, going to the doctor here is not like going to the supermarket and choosing from a menu of treatment options (some of which are worthwhile, others are offered just to make more money). The only places that try and do that to us here, are at the Vet. They always want to give us some stupid extra x-ray, or things like that. They ask me what I want. I look at them and wonder, how do they expect me to know whats the right choice to make, I'm not a doctor! You tell me what the best treatment is. In our case, with doctors and hospitals, we hardly ever make a choice, we get the best treatment option available, and cost is almost always NOT a consideration. We never have to balance our decisions for treatment based on cost. Except for very rare unusual circumstances with very new treatments or drugs that have not yet been accepted by Health Canada. When that happens that the cost can't be covered, people usually start a lottery to help that person.

I'm not talking "choices" as in a "list;" I'm talking choices of doctors and medical institutions. I'm talking choices when one medical facility can't provide services for a week or more, having the choice to seek others out. I'm talking having the choice to go to a place like Mayo, and having it covered; a choice you don't have in Canada.

Thats the way we do it, here in the communist true north

;^)

That's all well and fine, but we don't want to do it the way you do it, and that's another problem. While I agree with a public health care option for all, I disagree with Canada's lack of choice, and I think that's the "fear" that most people in the U.S. have. It likely makes you, in the true north, feel better to believe that it's fear of communism or the s-word, though.

[Sir Bandelot]

While I agree with a public health care option for all, I disagree with Canada's lack of choice, and I think that's the "fear" that most people in the U.S. have.

Maybe. But we could argue about that until the cows come home. If I had cows

Mortality rates between the two countries don't bear out any significant difference in the quality of care. At least the ones I've seen. So, quality should not be the main question that should cause so much concern.

Maybe the real fear in the US about the health care dilemma is about making a radical change, from one type of system to another, where that transition would be very difficult. In the Canadian system the doctor and the patient never discuss cost at all. Money is not a consideration. But in the US I imagine they must inevitably concern themselves with cost, and ensure there is appropriate coverage. Asking people who are born and raised into a system to not concern themselves with money, is asking for a kind of "trust" to be there, trust in the social system, maybe thats where the barrier is. Because to me the perception is that the American philosophy is about making profit, antithesis to communism/ socialism. Maybe it's too much to ask people to believe in the opposite of what they've been raised into. Maybe it needs a generational change.

Edited January 9, 2010 by Sir Bandelot

[bush_cheney2004]

...That's all well and fine, but we don't want to do it the way you do it, and that's another problem. While I agree with a public health care option for all, I disagree with Canada's lack of choice, and I think that's the "fear" that most people in the U.S. have. It likely makes you, in the true north, feel better to believe that it's fear of communism or the s-word, though.

Agreed...that is the main rub....reduced choices and options so that everyone can have some choice, even if it's the same and longer to get. I was checking out colorectal screening in Canada and was surprised that there is still a strong reliance on cheaper but less effective fecal occult blood (FOB) screening compared to colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy, particularly for people over 50 years old (higher risk group). In the USA, you routinely get "prepped and scoped" at age 50 when insured, with follow ups if polyps are found / removed.

From a 2003 CMAJ Commentary:

Colonoscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy are also options for colorectal cancer screening. Colonoscopy is probably a better screening tool than FOB testing for average-risk people who are prepared to accept the discomfort and inconvenience of the procedure. Colonoscopy appears to be at least as cost-effective as FOB testing, the higher cost per procedure balanced by lower frequency and higher yield., The deal breaker for colonoscopy is inadequate health system capacity.

We are far from having enough capacity to offer colonoscopy as primary screening for the more than 7 million people aged 50–75 in Canada.

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/168/2/178

[Sir Bandelot]

Exactly but this only shows how the system is capable of criticizing itself, and making corrections. Techniques and technology constantly evolve, and data from statistics is used to point the way. The health care system can never be static.

If there's a weakness in the system, a problem, it first needs to be understood and then dealt with appropriately. Because everyones ass can get that, even the doctors and the policy makers.

Edited January 9, 2010 by Sir Bandelot

[bush_cheney2004]

Exactly but this only shows how the system is capable of criticizing itself, and making corrections. Techniques and technology constantly evolve, and data from statistics is used to point the way. The health care system can never be static.

Self criticism is wonderful, undetected (and preventable) colorectal cancer is not.

If there's a weakness in the system, a problem, it first needs to be understood and then dealt with appropriately. Because everyones ass can get that, even the doctors and the policy makers.

OK...so 6 years later...is cheaper FOB screening still the standard screening method in provinces, or has screening been upgraded to endoscopy with immediate polyp removal?

[Guest American Woman]

Mortality rates between the two countries don't bear out any significant difference in the quality of care. At least the ones I've seen. So, quality should not be the main question that should cause so much concern.

Maybe the real fear in the US about the health care dilemma is about making a radical change, from one type of system to another, where that transition would be very difficult.

I've stated the fear concern that a lot of Americans have. I've had different experiences with our health care issue as I've been insured but I'm presently uninsured, and I've also had what I refer to as useless insurance as the deductible was so high that I never received any payment, but my children, while I was raising them, had excellent insurance through their dad's employment (and I had a daughter with serious medical issues, which were dealt with at Mayo without cost ever being an issue), and now that they're grown, my daughter, a university student, had excellent insurance through the government when she became pregnant.

Her son was born with lung/breathing issues, and was immediately put on a neo-natal life-support helicopter and brought to the nearest neo-natal health care facility. None of this cost her a penny, and except for the helicopter ride, she never even saw a bill.

Now here's what I'm seeing in Canada: Canada's U.S. baby boom

With neonatal resources stretched thin, more and more high-risk infants are sent south to find a bed

What happens when/if the U.S. no longer has room for U.S. babies, let alone Canadian babies?

In the Canadian system the doctor and the patient never discuss cost at all. Money is not a consideration.

I don't believe that's true. I believe, by virtue of the government funds available, money is most definitely a consideration in the tests that are given/not given, the care given, and the type of equipment/sevices available.

But in the US I imagine they must inevitably concern themselves with cost, and ensure there is appropriate coverage. Asking people who are born and raised into a system to not concern themselves with money, is asking for a kind of "trust" to be there, trust in the social system, maybe thats where the barrier is. Because to me the perception is that the American philosophy is about making profit, antithesis to communism/ socialism. Maybe it's too much to ask people to believe in the opposite of what they've been raised into. Maybe it needs a generational change.

You have to get away from your 'for profit' line of thought and recognize that the people, outside of corporations, have concerns; legitimate concerns.

I see not having a choice as a real problem. I see being limited by the government's income/budget as a problem. I think this is a legitimate concern for those who have good coverage who stand to lose it; who "fear" getting a lower standard of care/service/availability for health care as a result of changing the system.

Edited January 9, 2010 by American Woman