Obama: Canadian Health Care Model Won't Work In U.s

[Paddington]

I wanna hear a conservative rant against a health care [i]option[/i] that will never include birth limits, abortion, euthanasia, birth control and surgeries that are obviously cosmetic.

Unfortunately, I don't really trust the liberals to come up with that option. I hope they do and that it works after tweaking it. (I assume it will need tweaking and that it will - like desegregation or say overturning Roe v Wade - have practical problems at first that can be corrected.)

[Hassan]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1946470' date='Aug 11 2009, 06:20 PM']Funny. Where are all wild and outrageous comments from the peanut gallery, now? Nothing constructive to say to this?[/quote]

I hear Obama want to use his "health care plan" for the mass execution of puppies

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1946857' date='Aug 12 2009, 12:07 AM']I hear Obama want to use his "health care plan" for the mass execution of puppies [/quote]
Probably. They're a burden.

Besides, it doesn't say he [i]can't[/i], so he probably will.

[Nihil Obstat]

To be fair, Canadian healthcare will become the worst in the entire world ever if the new bill passes making euthanasia legal.
It does to euthanasia more or less what they already managed to do to abortion.

It shouldn't pass though. Liberals can't afford an election yet, which is what would happen if they decided to defeat the government.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1946857' date='Aug 12 2009, 01:07 AM']I hear Obama want to use his "health care plan" for the mass execution of puppies [/quote]

[url="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aGrKbfWkzTqc"]Obama Says Grandmother’s Hip Replacement Raises Cost Questions[/url]


By Hans Nichols

April 29 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama said his grandmother’s hip-replacement surgery during the final weeks of her life made him wonder whether expensive procedures for the terminally ill reflect a “sustainable model” for health care.

The president’s grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, had a hip replaced after she was diagnosed with cancer, Obama said in an interview with the New York Times magazine that was published today. Dunham, who lived in Honolulu, died at the age of 86 on Nov. 2, 2008, two days before her grandson’s election victory.

“I don’t know how much that hip replacement cost,” Obama said in the interview. “I would have paid out of pocket for that hip replacement just because she’s my grandmother.”

Obama said “you just get into some very difficult moral issues” when considering whether “to give my grandmother, or everybody else’s aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they’re terminally ill.

“That’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues,” he said in the April 14 interview. “The chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health- care bill out here.”

Obama promised during his presidential campaign that a health-care overhaul would be a top priority, and he said at a Missouri town hall meeting today that he hopes Congress will pass health-care legislation this year.

The issue has been divisive, and finding an answer that will keep costs down while extending coverage to the estimated 46 million Americans without health insurance has eluded past presidents.

‘Ruthless Pragmatism’

Obama also said his economic advisers aren’t constrained by ideology or connections to former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin. “What I’ve been constantly searching for is a ruthless pragmatism when it comes to economic policy,” he said, in the interview.

Obama also pointed to Canada as an example of a country that has effectively regulated commercial and investment banking without requiring legal separation of those activities.

“When it comes to something like investment banking versus commercial banking, the experience in a country like Canada would indicate that good, strong regulation that focuses less on the legal form of the institution and more on the functions that they’re carrying out is probably the right approach to take,” he said.

To contact the reporter on this story: Hans Nichols in Washington at hnichols2@bloomberg.net

[dairygirl4u2c]

that 'ruthless pragmatism' is definitely a step in the right direction.
no one can have everything they want in the legislation, but at least this way it's a balance, and it's realistic, and sustainable etc, and something both sides can agree on to some extent.

i started to give up hope on obama, but that article actually says maybe he's gettin his sh*t together after all.
time will tell.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1946948' date='Aug 12 2009, 09:42 AM'][url="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aGrKbfWkzTqc"]Obama Says Grandmother’s Hip Replacement Raises Cost Questions[/url]


By Hans Nichols

April 29 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama said his grandmother’s hip-replacement surgery during the final weeks of her life made him wonder whether expensive procedures for the terminally ill reflect a “sustainable model” for health care.

The president’s grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, had a hip replaced after she was diagnosed with cancer, Obama said in an interview with the New York Times magazine that was published today. Dunham, who lived in Honolulu, died at the age of 86 on Nov. 2, 2008, two days before her grandson’s election victory.

“I don’t know how much that hip replacement cost,” Obama said in the interview. “I would have paid out of pocket for that hip replacement just because she’s my grandmother.”

Obama said “you just get into some very difficult moral issues” when considering whether “to give my grandmother, or everybody else’s aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they’re terminally ill.

“That’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues,” he said in the April 14 interview. “The chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health- care bill out here.”

Obama promised during his presidential campaign that a health-care overhaul would be a top priority, and he said at a Missouri town hall meeting today that he hopes Congress will pass health-care legislation this year.

The issue has been divisive, and finding an answer that will keep costs down while extending coverage to the estimated 46 million Americans without health insurance has eluded past presidents.

‘Ruthless Pragmatism’

Obama also said his economic advisers aren’t constrained by ideology or connections to former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin. “What I’ve been constantly searching for is a ruthless pragmatism when it comes to economic policy,” he said, in the interview.

Obama also pointed to Canada as an example of a country that has effectively regulated commercial and investment banking without requiring legal separation of those activities.

“When it comes to something like investment banking versus commercial banking, the experience in a country like Canada would indicate that good, strong regulation that focuses less on the legal form of the institution and more on the functions that they’re carrying out is probably the right approach to take,” he said.

To contact the reporter on this story: Hans Nichols in Washington at hnichols2@bloomberg.net[/quote]
He had a point. Why would an elderly person who is near death need something like a hip replacement? It's not cost effective. If they're never going to walk again anyway, it's a waste of time and money. It's not a matter of emotion and "feeling bad" for them. It's about practicality. The surgeons just wanted to make money.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1946973' date='Aug 12 2009, 11:08 AM']He had a point. Why would an elderly person who is near death need something like a hip replacement? It's not cost effective. If they're never going to walk again anyway, it's a waste of time and money. It's not a matter of emotion and "feeling bad" for them. It's about practicality. The surgeons just wanted to make money.[/quote]

Why would an elderly person who is near death need something like a hip replacement? Because they choose to, they choose to make their last days as normal as possible. Clearly he believes health care rationing should not be limited to hip replacement for “The chronically ill and those toward the end" since they account for "potentially 80 percent of the total health-care bill out here.” What about people with terminal deceases like cancer and heart decease? Say persons who are believed to live more that two years [b]with[/b] expensive non-cost effective treatments? Why waste the time and money? Their going to die anyway, j[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-dQfb8WQvo&"]ust give grandma a pill. [/url]

Dening people health care because their going to die anyway sounds dangerously close to something like a 'death panel.'

[CatherineM]

My grandmother also had a hip replacement 3 months before her death from colon/liver cancer. How would her quality of life been without the hip replacement? It would have saved her some pain. She never got out of bed and moved around again. She had no rehab because she was sick and dying. She was surprisingly chipper while fading, and I treasured the last days I got to spend with her, so I am certainly glad she didn't just take a pill, but truthfully, having the hip replacement could well have been passed on with her.

[Hassan]

I'd like to add that it's not as though she couldn't get the hip replacement. It just would not be paid for by the government program.

[Sirklawd]

so lets get this straight now, correct me if im wrong:

1. government creates an option that doesn't have to make a profit. It can (and will) vastly undercut private insurance companies so that people without income can have insurance.

2. the same government puts into laws that simply prevent private insurance companies from taking on new customers...

which leads to 3. anyone who loses or switches jobs, and loses their health insurance through that job, HAS to get the government option..

and finally 4: the government penalizes those who dont have health - further forcing people to get on board.

This is the first problem. It's not a real option. If it was a true OPTION, maybe it wouldnt matter so much. But its not an option. I want a new plan, I have to choose the government's, and if I lose or change my job I have to take the government's. I cant choose "no option" because i'll get fined. Eventually theres not even going to be private options..

The other problem is this:

5. the government then decides who can get what procedure...

Obama has made it blatently clear that it would be better if people near the end of their life simply take a pain pill to ignore the pain instead of actually getting real treatment. The sentiment behind this belief, echoed here on this board, is that [i]old people arnt worth it[/i]. Why should we spend the money on someone who probably has only 3 years to live anyway when we could spend it on a 20 or 30 year old? So much for this presidency heralding in a new period of equality...

This is an insult to humanity, and when its enforced by taxation and law, its tyranny. Some relativists may argue its always up to the person (or family) to make the choice for "end-of-life care", but the government has taken away that choice. Obama has admitted it. its been admitted on this thread and board. everyone knows it. why in the hell would anyone give a government the power to decide who is worth it or not...

Edited August 12, 2009 by Sirklawd

[homeschoolmom]

Are lots of elderly people who are so close to death that it's considered imminent (ie "you have three months to live," etc) getting major elective surgeries routinely? I mean, seriously. Hip replacement is major surgery. Are most surgeons really willing to put a deathly ill patient through an elective surgery?

[kamiller42]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1946470' date='Aug 11 2009, 07:20 PM']Funny. Where are all wild and outrageous comments from the peanut gallery, now? Nothing constructive to say to this?[/quote]
I like peanuts. Mmm...

No one for true healthcare reform said the current plan is Canadian. It is the crack in the door to a Canadian style system. Obama can cleverly fool those not following closely of his intentions. Even he stated in an interview that it would take time. Remember, social security is just going to be a safety net for the elderly. Right?

The label of death panel is correct because some bureaucrats will be decided who receives what procedure and who doesn't because it would be more cost effective not to, thus resulting in death. Wait... cost effectiveness and government don't usually go together. The sky is the limit. I am sure a government run healthcare insurance program would not be prone to [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/15/AR2009071503929.html"]waste, fraud, or politics[/url].

"UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. It's the Post Office that's always having problems."
- Obama

With a government supported monopoly, tax breaks, and price fixing, the USPS still can't get efficient and turn a profit. It's not the first time the government has tried to [url="http://www.autoblog.com/2009/08/04/report-new-gm-entitled-to-16-billion-in-federal-tax-breaks-cou/"]cheat[/url] and [url="http://www.autoblog.com/2009/08/07/report-gm-gets-out-from-under-its-polluted-sites-scot-free/"]get an advantage[/url] in the private sector and ultimately be a catastrophe.

How are the two other government businesses going, Fannie and Freddie? Not too good. I can bet when Government Motors reports in September, we'll hear another bad quarter. Their only hope is cash for clunkers; that is if the people have faith in their government run car company. Why not? So many love the idea of their health insurance.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1947045' date='Aug 12 2009, 12:59 PM']I'd like to add that it's not as though she couldn't get the hip replacement. It just would not be paid for by the government program.[/quote]

exactly.

so far, what's being said here per bad stuff, is stuff that maight happen, and we should be fearful and cautious over... but that doesn't mean it's wrong to do anything per health care.

it seems the ultimate argument is becoming "if you give em an inch, they'll take a mile".
i mean, sure, maybe, i don't know. you'd have to be strong in your ocnfictions if that's the case. ultiamtely, it just makes the person who says it sound bad, even if they're right. it's like they're that whacky conservative at the town hall meetings.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1947284' date='Aug 12 2009, 03:45 PM']exactly.

so far, what's being said here per bad stuff, is stuff that maight happen, and we should be fearful and cautious over... but that doesn't mean it's wrong to do anything per health care.

it seems the ultimate argument is becoming "if you give em an inch, they'll take a mile".
i mean, sure, maybe, i don't know. you'd have to be strong in your ocnfictions if that's the case. ultiamtely, it just makes the person who says it sound bad, even if they're right. it's like they're that whacky conservative at the town hall meetings.[/quote]
Precisely. However, I disapprove of the tendency to wildly speculate and extrapolate. The fact of the matter is, no one can predict the future, and being overly pessimistic and downright morbid about it isn't helping anyone.

For the love of your God, trust Him! If you believe what you profess, you should be praying, not stirring up fear with lies.