California Death Spiral

[msj]

Fair enough.

I take this back.

I just reread my OP and my second post in this topic and really don't see why the use of any stereotypes in this thread is/was necessary.

If the US and most Americans choose a system that is generally more expensive than Canada's, and if this brings some benefits to some Canadians who can choose to either use their system or the US system - well, so be it.

And if Canadians choose to employ a system that mitigates the "death spiral" effect, then, so be it.

We are fortunate enough to be in a position to have, to some extent, the best of both worlds.

This, however, is a fatal flaw since it leads to complacency.

Canada should and could have a better system (and so could the US, for that matter) but the impetus isn't there. So our system and the US system is both a blessing and a curse for both countries and their people.

There, I think that puts it better.

[Guest American Woman]

I just reread my OP and my second post in this topic and really don't see why the use of any stereotypes in this thread is/was necessary.

Like my sig line says ........

[msj]

The original comments were exactly as I claimed them to be, thus my response.

I point out the "Ugly American" aspect of such comments when it's appropriate, and I have to say, as an American who always hears how "ugly" Americans are and how "polite/caring" Canadians are, this board has been a learning experience for me; and pointing out such things, when it's appropriate, is all part of the interaction/reaction/responses this board generates.

I notice you feel it's fine for the Canadians to have made the comments they did; it's just my comments that were "unnecessary". Perhaps you should look at your own comments before telling me what's necessary/unnecessary on my part, because I'll be the judge of that, thank you very much.

Oh, sorry, I missed out on when and where I claimed you to be an Ugly American.

Oh, I don't even recall calling anyone an Ugly American at any point in this thread.

In fact, I don't even see where I claimed that Canadians are polite.

Oh right, you're the one bringing such unnecessary stereotypes into this thread. The baggage from all those other threads on the entire board.

I see.

Um, that's actually my point - address the substance within the thread rather than pile on the baggage you experience from elsewhere and pile it on within this thread.

As for some of the other comments by others - they weren't necessarily responding directly to me and sometimes I let people be and sometimes I don't.

Just because I choose to not respond to a comment does not mean I agree with that comment - it simply means I haven't read it or that maybe I have and don't care to respond for a variety of reasons.

Edited February 21, 2010 by msj

[eyeball]

Canada should and could have a better system (and so could the US, for that matter) but the impetus isn't there. So our system and the US system is both a blessing and a curse for both countries and their people.

I think the reason for a lack of impetus as far as correcting flaws in our public system goes in Canada is that it's flaws are all too often used to characterize the very system itself and by extension all public systems. As more effort is put into debating the utility of the system less is invested on its flaws, which correspondingly get worse.

That's the death spiral I'm more concerned about.

[Guest American Woman]

Oh, sorry, I missed out on when and where I claimed you to be an Ugly American.

Oh, I don't even recall calling anyone an Ugly American at any point in this thread.

In fact, I don't even see where I claimed that Canadians are polite.

Never said that you did.

Oh right, you're the one bringing such unnecessary stereotypes into this thread.

Good Lord. It's not up to you to determine what's "necessary" regarding what I post; try to get that through your head. In light of the comments that were made, *I* find my responses "necessary." So get over it already and get on with the rest of your life.

[msj]

Never said that you did.

Good Lord. It's not up to you to determine what's "necessary" regarding what I post; try to get that through your head. In light of the comments that were made, *I* find my responses "necessary." So get over it already and get on with the rest of your life.

I really don't think bringing up stereotypes was "necessary" here.

Still don't understand what point you were trying to bring up by using them other than showing yourself to have lots of baggage from other threads and then throwing that baggage around in this thread.

Not sure why that message isn't getting through here.

No, we don't want to be discussing things like:

1) Is there a death spiral?

2) How does this benefit Obama's efforts or not?

3) Does Canada's system mitigate said death spiral?

4) Do some Canadians benefit from the current health care systems in both Canada and the US?

5) Is it in Canadians' interests to maintain the status quo so that we can maintain the efficiencies of our system which do help keep our costs down and do help businesses employ people and stay in business etc... if the US chooses to maintain their system?

6) If the US switches to a system that is more efficient and allows US business to become even more competitive with Canadian businesses (but now on the healthcare front) then how should Canada respond.

7) Etc... hopefully you get the drift but I can no longer assume that to be the case.

Instead, what is important to *you* is:

1) Whether or not the OP somehow relates to some greater question about the alleged moral superiority of Canadians and how this might effect the perceived stereotype of the "nice" Canadian in the world.

Yeah, I can see now why *you* think *your* responses are so "necessary."

Edited February 22, 2010 by msj

[Guest American Woman]

I really don't think bringing up stereotypes was "necessary" here.

I get that, since you've repeated yourself about half a dozen times now. Unbelievably, evidently you're still not getting that I do think it was necessary.

No, we don't want to be discussing things like:

1) Is there a death spiral?

2) How does this benefit Obama's efforts or not?

3) Does Canada's system mitigate said death spiral?

4) Do some Canadians benefit from the current health care systems in both Canada and the US?

5) Is it in Canadians' interests to maintain the status quo so that we can maintain the efficiencies of our system which do help keep our costs down and do help businesses employ people and stay in business etc... if the US chooses to maintain their system?

6) If the US switches to a system that is more efficient and allows US business to become even more competitive with Canadian businesses (but now on the healthcare front) then how should Canada respond.

7) Etc... hopefully you get the drift but I can no longer assume that to be the case.

Evidently not, since your opening comments didn't mention any of those things. Here's what you did say:

hope this [California's death spiral] doesn't push the US over the edge to reform their healthcare.

As a Canadian, I support the current US system: its inefficiencies benefit Canada's economy while its better parts also benefit Canada (with Danny Williams of Newfoundland being the most recent example).

Let's continue to have it both ways forever!

So that's what I responded to. Are you getting it yet?

I then responded to this comment:

Got to admit I support the US system as well, for purely selfish reasons.

Perhaps you didn't find it necessary for me to respond to it, but I did feel it necessary. Are you getting it yet?

Instead, what is important to *you* is:

What's important to me is responding to the comments I responded to. If you still don't get that, too bad.

Yeah, I can see now why *you* think *your* responses are so "necessary."

In light of your opening post and the comment I responded to, I would hope so.

[bloodyminded]

The fact is that almost all Americans say that reform is needed. There is hot disagreement about the shape of the needed reforms...but not that reform is necessary.

The last thing anyone should do is hope for a retention of a status quo that nobody wants, for the perceived benefit of a different country. (I find the thesis of dubious logic as it is, even in terms of cold practicality, but that's beside the point.)

I don't know what the best system would be for the Americans, but I hope whatever finally happens is the best one for them.

The idea that another country's ills are good, because they benefit us, is already perversely in place in the West's dealings with parts of the Third World. This kind of thinking has to stop. Anyone who claims their health depends on another's ill-health...well, they don't deserve good health in the first place. This is true of health care, finance, or political ideology.

Edited February 22, 2010 by bloodyminded

[msj]

The fact is that almost all Americans say that reform is needed. There is hot disagreement about the shape of the needed reforms...but not that reform is necessary.

I agree.

The last thing anyone should do is hope for a retention of a status quo that nobody wants, for the perceived benefit of a different country. (I find the thesis of dubious logic as it is, even in terms of cold practicality, but that's beside the point.)

Well, one advantage of my post is that it allows respondents to feel morally superior.

Too bad one (here's looking at you AW) have to rely on a stereotype to create a straw man argument to beat me over the head with.

I don't know what the best system would be for the Americans, but I hope whatever finally happens is the best one for them.

Sure, but Canadians should be contemplating a better system too and that should also consider whether or not any reform to the US system will remove certain advantages that we have and that may help keep businesses in this country.

And no, I don't think there is anything wrong with looking after our own interests, despite being a Canadian.

The idea that another country's ills are good, because they benefit us, is already perversely in place in the West's dealings with parts of the Third World. This kind of thinking has to stop. Anyone who claims their health depends on another's ill-health...well, they don't deserve good health in the first place. This is true of health care, finance, or political ideology.

I think it is to Canada's economic benefit, and in individual cases, health benefit, to maintain the status quo and, as Canadians, we aren't going to have any impact on whether the US reforms or not so going down this moral road is really a waste of time.

[msj]

I get that, since you've repeated yourself about half a dozen times now. Unbelievably, evidently you're still not getting that I do think it was necessary.

Evidently not, since your opening comments didn't mention any of those things. Here's what you did say:

hope this [California's death spiral] doesn't push the US over the edge to reform their healthcare.

You're not very good at picking up on implications, are you?

I was hoping that my subtle bluntness would open up some discussion on such things without directly having to ask the questions.

I mean, c'mon, if one reads the article and then my comments, those questions are just begging to be asked.

Instead, it gets redirected thanks to a stereotype wielding straw woman warrior such as yourself.

I really should know better by now.

As a Canadian, I support the current US system: its inefficiencies benefit Canada's economy while its better parts also benefit Canada (with Danny Williams of Newfoundland being the most recent example).

Let's continue to have it both ways forever!

Yes, and I should have put a behind that as my sarcasm there did not come through.

So that's what I responded to. Are you getting it yet?

Oh, I got that a while ago.

The question is when will you get it?

I then responded to this comment:

Got to admit I support the US system as well, for purely selfish reasons.

Perhaps you didn't find it necessary for me to respond to it, but I did feel it necessary. Are you getting it yet?

Respond to it anyway you feel necessary.

I'm disappointed in that it is not a particularly intelligent response and I expect better from you because usually you come across as an intelligent person.

Obviously I've rubbed you the wrong way with my little sarcastic barbs and I'm sorry for that, but, you know, c'est la vie.

[Guest American Woman]

The fact is that almost all Americans say that reform is needed. There is hot disagreement about the shape of the needed reforms...but not that reform is necessary.

Exactly.

The last thing anyone should do is hope for a retention of a status quo that nobody wants, for the perceived benefit of a different country. (I find the thesis of dubious logic as it is, even in terms of cold practicality, but that's beside the point.)

Once again, exactly.

I don't know what the best system would be for the Americans, but I hope whatever finally happens is the best one for them.

That's the thing; it's not easy to determine what the best system would be. I think it would be to retain the private sector for those who want it/benefit by it, while adding a public option for those who need it.

The idea that another country's ills are good, because they benefit us, is already perversely in place in the West's dealings with parts of the Third World. This kind of thinking has to stop. Anyone who claims their health depends on another's ill-health...well, they don't deserve good health in the first place. This is true of health care, finance, or political ideology.

My point exactly (though some apparently don't get it).

[Bonam]

There's nothing wrong with pointing out that America's existing medical system serves as an excellent safety valve for Canadians. If reform happens in the US that ends up making the health industry less profitable, that any reform will inevitably do, that will mean less new technology being installed, less state of the art clinics, and less availability for Canadians to go and promptly have procedures that are not immediately available in Canada.

Frankly, Canada needs its own healthcare reform, allowing in more of a private option, so that people who can afford it can pay for improved facilities and prompter procedures, rather than having to go and spend their money in another country.

[Oleg Bach]

Give me your tired, your sick and your dieing...and make sure they bring their savings with them.

[eyeball]

Frankly, Canada needs its own healthcare reform, allowing in more of a private option, so that people who can afford it can pay for improved facilities and prompter procedures, rather than having to go and spend their money in another country.

I've got nothing against private medical practices setting up business but as far as allowing Canadians to opt out of universality within Canada I say forget it. Simply put the queue for the treatment of any life-threatening or crippling illness should stay the same within Canada for all Canadians regardless of who's providing the service and no matter how entitled people may feel. The same obviously goes for putting foreigners in the queue ahead of Canadians within Canada.

Edited February 23, 2010 by eyeball

[Bonam]

I disagree. If someone is going to pay for their own services (and still also pay their full share of taxes that support the public system), then the whole point is that they are getting better service. Why would you pay for something when you can get the same thing without paying? You wouldn't. A private option exists to deliver superior health care to those who are willing to pay, while also reducing the load on the public system by taking a portion of the population (the rich) out of it.

Keep in mind rich Canadians already have this option, just right now they do it in another country. If they instead spent more of this same money in Canada, it would certainly be beneficial to our economy and allow us to have more of our own state of the art facilities and top experts in their field, rather than having them all go to the US where the financial incentive exists.

[eyeball]

I disagree. If someone is going to pay for their own services (and still also pay their full share of taxes that support the public system), then the whole point is that they are getting better service. Why would you pay for something when you can get the same thing without paying? You wouldn't. A private option exists to deliver superior health care to those who are willing to pay, while also reducing the load on the public system by taking a portion of the population (the rich) out of it.

If you're talking about things like liposuction or breast implants that's one thing but if you're talking about really necessary treatments forget it. I'll fight that tooth and nail and vote for anyone who thinks likewise.

Keep in mind rich Canadians already have this option, just right now they do it in another country. If they instead spent more of this same money in Canada, it would certainly be beneficial to our economy and allow us to have more of our own state of the art facilities and top experts in their field, rather than having them all go to the US where the financial incentive exists.

I don't think it would be beneficial to the principle of universality in our country's health and social systems. To paraphrase your question, why would you want to pay premiums into a public system when you don't intend to use it? You wouldn't, and as such you would begin to lobby to be allowed to completely opt out of it and before long start extending this rationale to other sectors of our social system.

If our system lacks resources i.e. money I say take it out of our budgets for things like warring uselessly in far off lands and fighting useless wars right here at home.

Above all else I think privatization for the purpose of queue jumping is inhumane and it should be forbidden because I think it would be the beginning of our own death spiral. Like I said, let private practitioners operate but everything else stays the same.

Canada is a socialist country, get over it.

[Bonam]

If you're talking about things like liposuction or breast implants that's one thing but if you're talking about really necessary treatments forget it. I'll fight that tooth and nail and vote for anyone who thinks likewise.

I don't think it would be beneficial to the principle of universality in our country's health and social systems. To paraphrase your question, why would you want to pay premiums into a public system when you don't intend to use it? You wouldn't, and as such you would begin to lobby to be allowed to completely opt out of it and before long start extending this rationale to other sectors of our social system.

If our system lacks resources i.e. money I say take it out of our budgets for things like warring uselessly in far off lands and fighting useless wars right here at home.

The costs of these "useless wars" pales in comparison with healthcare, and the costs of healthcare will only continue to increase as more advanced procedures and technologies come along and become "standard", and as the population ages. Any projects I've ever seen show that health costs will consume the entire budget revenue within a few decades and after that it will simply be impossible to offer top tier health services to the entire population. Should EVERYONE be excluded from getting top tier medicine simply because the government can't afford to provide it for some?

For me, the answer is no. Perhaps you prefer universal poor healthcare, but I would rather have the opportunity to top tier healthcare, even if not everyone can get it.

Above all else I think privatization for the purpose of queue jumping is inhumane and it should be forbidden because I think it would be the beginning of our own death spiral. Like I said, let private practitioners operate but everything else stays the same.

There is nothing inhumane about offering services for profit.

Canada is a socialist country, get over it.

I did, it's one of the several reasons I'm in the US now.

[Guest American Woman]

There's nothing wrong with pointing out that America's existing medical system serves as an excellent safety valve for Canadians.

Pointing out that America's exiting medical system serves as an excellent safety valve for Canadians and posting an article saying how devastating it is for some Americans and then saying 'I hope this doesn't make things change even though Americans are hurting because it's good for us' are two very different things.

If reform happens in the US that ends up making the health industry less profitable, that any reform will inevitably do, that will mean less new technology being installed, less state of the art clinics, and less availability for Canadians to go and promptly have procedures that are not immediately available in Canada.

So why not post an article about the deficiencies in Canada saying you hope things do change there rather than post an article about Americans' hardships and saying 'I hope things don't change because it's good for us even if it's at their expense?'

Frankly, Canada needs its own healthcare reform,

Exactly. So quit pinning your hopes on ours.

Edited February 23, 2010 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

I disagree. If someone is going to pay for their own services (and still also pay their full share of taxes that support the public system), then the whole point is that they are getting better service. Why would you pay for something when you can get the same thing without paying? You wouldn't. A private option exists to deliver superior health care to those who are willing to pay, while also reducing the load on the public system by taking a portion of the population (the rich) out of it.

Keep in mind rich Canadians already have this option, just right now they do it in another country. If they instead spent more of this same money in Canada, it would certainly be beneficial to our economy and allow us to have more of our own state of the art facilities and top experts in their field, rather than having them all go to the US where the financial incentive exists.

I agree with you. That's what I think is needed in Canada and the U.S., public health care along with our existing health care. Let those who choose to pay for it pay for it, and let those insurance companies who want to offer something different offer it.

I don't agree with public health care without the private option. I don't think those who have the money should have to wait for care just because some don't have it. As long as the public option treats everyone the same, I don't see why there shouldn't there be a separate private which would, as you pointed out, take some of the burden off of the public health care. Seems to be a win-win situation.

[msj]

I don't agree with public health care without the private option. I don't think those who have the money should have to wait for care just because some don't have it. As long as the public option treats everyone the same, I don't see why there shouldn't there be a separate private which would, as you pointed out, take some of the burden off of the public health care. Seems to be a win-win situation.

Isn't that funny.

Exactly my point in the OP: that Canada does benefit from having a private outlet available to it thanks to the US.

Please stop the faux moral outrage on this - you obviously agree that Canada, to some extent, benefits from this.

And since Canadians have no control over health care reform in the US since the US is a responsible democracy with reasonable people electing reasonable politicians, any of our (as in Canadian) hopes for change, or not, have no implications anyway (moral wise, policy wise, any other way wise).

I suppose that's the last time I should try and garner any discussion using sarcasm when it goes over one's head to such an extent that it becomes a distraction....

[Guest American Woman]

...since Canadians have no control over health care reform in the US since the US is a responsible democracy with reasonable people electing reasonable politicians, any of our (as in Canadian) hopes for change, or not, have no implications anyway (moral wise, policy wise, any other way wise).

Wrong. What you say, what you hope for, as you basically say 'so what if it hurts some Americans,' most definitely does have moral implications; it speaks of your morals, or more accurately, lack thereof.

[msj]

Wrong. What you say, what you hope for, as you basically say 'so what if it hurts some Americans,' most definitely does have moral implications; it speaks of your morals, or more accurately, lack thereof.

I said it comes at the "expense" of Americans.

So it hurts your pocketbook by having an inefficient system. BFD.

How immoral of Americans for tolerating such a system in the first place. [/mock moral indignation] [/sarcasm]

[Guest American Woman]

I said it comes at the "expense" of Americans.

So it hurts your pocketbook by having an inefficient system. BFD.

How immoral of Americans for tolerating such a system in the first place. [/mock moral indignation] [/sarcasm]

Riiiight. You posted an article about how a lot of Americans are dropping their insurance and going without, and you said you hope that doesn't push the U.S. to change their health care, because it benefits Canadians. So what if Americans are going uninsured. So what if it affects their health. As long as Canadians benefit from it, let's hope nothing ever changes, eh?

I know exactly what you said. It's right there, along with Wilber agreeing "for purely selfish reason."

Let's continue to have it both ways forever!

Yeah, let's keep millions of Americans uninsured and therefore unable to afford proper care, forever. It's all about you.

Edited February 23, 2010 by American Woman

[msj]

Riiiight. You posted an article about how a lot of Americans are dropping their insurance and going without, and you said you hope that doesn't push the U.S. to change their health care, because it benefits Canadians. So what if Americans are going uninsured. So what if it affects their health. As long as Canadians benefit from it, let's hope nothing ever changes, eh?

I know exactly what you said. It's right there, along with Wilber agreeing "for purely selfish reason."

So now you're going to try and feed Wilbers words to me too?

Nice!

Let's continue to have it both ways forever!

Yeah, let's keep millions of Americans uninsured and therefore unable to afford proper care, forever. It's all about you.

Um, not sure why you aren't getting this but clearly you aren't.

I have clearly indicated above, at least twice, that I should have put the behind that statement.

[For clarity - the statement I'm referring to in the OP is right at the end "Let's continue to have it both ways forever!" which should also have had this right behind it]

Why?

As in - for those Canadians who think Canada's system is so much better, look at the hypocrisy here - we benefit from the US system.

And, for those Canadians who so prefer the US system, look at how good we do have it - we're not facing 39% increases and death spirals.

Yep, that little emoticon sure is powerful!

Edited February 23, 2010 by msj

[Guest American Woman]

So now you're going to try and feed Wilbers words to me too?

Ummmm. No. I'm trying to impress on you what I was responding to. ( back at'cha.) Your words stand on their own.