SlothB77: loabn: It's not so much that we can't afford it. It's that it is more cost-effective to ship patients to Detroit. The goal of our health care system isn't to have x number of MRIs, it's to prevent the greatest number of Canadians from dying.

exactly, a public system will stifle innovation. and arguments like this are why. to prevent people from dying, you have to innovate and you have to take some risks. yeah, you can keep the status quo and try to save as many as you can with what we know and what we can do now. but to truly improve care, you have to take risks and innovate. and no one is more adverse to risk than government. when they run the show, innovation will cease. that is why the US has equipment and Canada doesn't.

Then why does India have more equipment than the US and overall lower healthcare prices? Clearly, they are the leaders in medicine by this standard.

Mr. Right: Cash for clunkers isn't working because the dealers aren't getting paid. One dealer in my area is currently on the hook for nearly 3/4 of a million dollars and nobody in the adminstration can tell him when he's going to get any money or even IF he's going to get money. So the administration has created an artificial demand with money they don't have and then stuck the little guy (dealers) with the bill. Total FAIL.

You are so full of shiat. Between your stories about people you know, and this crap, your credibility is worth exactly squat. The freakin' manufacturers are reimbursing the dealers in lieu of government funding. Dealerships that are "out" the money they have fronted over the Cash for Clunkers program choose to be "out". Either way, the money is coming, and everyone knows it. Sure, it would be easier if there was a big "Bank of Government" ATM at every dealership that spit out $4500 every time the proper paperwork was submitted, but it doesn't work that way -- and the dealerships knew that when the offered to front the cash and play the middle-man.

The program is and has been a success. Any failure on the part of the dealerships to follow through either with government or manufacturer channels is not the fault of the program.

next thing you know, canadians will be forced to go to detroit for a decent football game.

Only when a winning team is in town.

/0-16
//never forget

wmoonfox: Mr. Right: Cash for clunkers isn't working because the dealers aren't getting paid. One dealer in my area is currently on the hook for nearly 3/4 of a million dollars and nobody in the adminstration can tell him when he's going to get any money or even IF he's going to get money. So the administration has created an artificial demand with money they don't have and then stuck the little guy (dealers) with the bill. Total FAIL.

You are so full of shiat. Between your stories about people you know, and this crap, your credibility is worth exactly squat. The freakin' manufacturers are reimbursing the dealers in lieu of government funding. Dealerships that are "out" the money they have fronted over the Cash for Clunkers program choose to be "out". Either way, the money is coming, and everyone knows it. Sure, it would be easier if there was a big "Bank of Government" ATM at every dealership that spit out $4500 every time the proper paperwork was submitted, but it doesn't work that way -- and the dealerships knew that when the offered to front the cash and play the middle-man.

The program is and has been a success. Any failure on the part of the dealerships to follow through either with government or manufacturer channels is not the fault of the program.

Umm, no. The program takes perfectly fine vehicles off the road, and uses taxpayer money to redistribute wealth. That is like saying welfare is a success.

SlothB77: loabn: It's not so much that we can't afford it. It's that it is more cost-effective to ship patients to Detroit. The goal of our health care system isn't to have x number of MRIs, it's to prevent the greatest number of Canadians from dying.

exactly, a public system will stifle innovation. and arguments like this are why. to prevent people from dying, you have to innovate and you have to take some risks. yeah, you can keep the status quo and try to save as many as you can with what we know and what we can do now. but to truly improve care, you have to take risks and innovate. and no one is more adverse to risk than government. when they run the show, innovation will cease. that is why the US has equipment and Canada doesn't.

Don't hurt yourself when you stretch that far.

Mr. Right: tombotia:
I know you're trolling but it does show one thing that people tend to forget.

You're lucky to be where you are. Lucky. Not everyone who is working below their pay grade [so to speak] is there for a lack of education or effort. You should instead be appreciative of what fortunes you do have instead of trying to rub it in peoples faces.


I get really tired of losers claiming that anybody who has more than they do is lucky. I know of plenty of instances where two people with equal education working for the same company at the same salary have totally disparate lifestyles. One makes intelligent choices and lives comfortably with a very nice savings account and is in good shape to weather the storms such as the current economy. The other lives beyond his means and can't make it from payday to payday without begging for some client to buy his lunch. I also know several folks with nothing more than a High School diploma and a relatively low-level job who, through intelligent decisions in their life, are supporting a wife and a passel of kids comfortably. Luck has nothing to do with it. Lottery winners are lucky. Look how many of them fail.

That's because you think you're owed a living (re: self-centered prick)

Figure out all the things that had to go a certain way to get you where you are.

For me for example

1. Born in Canada in the early 80s, so 1st world nation with access to public schools, technology, health care, etc..

2. Mother worked at BNR, access to tech, smart people, ideas...

3. Natural aptitude for math/comp.sci [yay genetics]

4. Parents insisted on having computers in the house

5. Was able to live with the folks while going to college for comp.sci

6. Free time provided by not having to work long hours because of #6 afforded me the chance to work on OSS projects

7. OSS projects got me noticed

8. I was offered a job [where I still work, 5 years later] making decent coin because of the OSS projects.

Sure I worked hard on the OSS projects, I studied during college, and applied myself. But imagine if my mother didn't work at BNR. My father was a printing press operator. I could as easily been a tradesmen as a result. Or what if I were born in the 60s instead of 80s? Or born in Rwanda not Canada, or ...

I definitely think my effort plays a big part of where I am today, but I'm not stupid enough to think that that alone is sufficient to say I'm owed my status in life.

So unlike you I don't look down upon people who at least give an honest effort in life. Sure I have no sympathy for the drug abusers sleeping on the streets, but some guy who works an honest 37.5 a week is no less deserving of a decent [re: not squallered] life just like I am. Sure my car may be fancier, and my LCD TV be wider, but he's just as entitled to be healthy, send his kids to school, have roads to drive on, police to protect him, etc...

Noone paid my way in life but me.

So you built the roads you use all on your own? You installed all the toilets you take a dump in? You strung the power lines and planted the telecom cables you use to waste time on Fark?

Your myopia is showing.

SlothB77: Mr. Right: Cash for clunkers isn't working because the dealers aren't getting paid. One dealer in my area is currently on the hook for nearly 3/4 of a million dollars and nobody in the adminstration can tell him when he's going to get any money or even IF he's going to get money. So the administration has created an artificial demand with money they don't have and then stuck the little guy (dealers) with the bill. Total FAIL.

half of all car dealers in new york state have pulled out because they aren't getting paid back.

I read that story too... it seems like people are shocked that it takes more than 14 days to get paid... which is weird, because at my second job, we wait two weeks to get paid every pay period... so I dunno why the dealerships are surprised about not having a shorter turnaround.

If people have filled out the paperwork properly and are still waiting after 60 days, then I'll say it's a problem... but 2 weeks seems like an inordinately short time frame to declare something a beurocratic failure...

/my private health insurance only says they will turn around payments in 30 days (if we're going to draw comparisons to health insurance options)...

Majority of Americans don't want this bill passed. Pretty simple. Why do Farkers overwhelmingly support it? Cause you are crazy ass liberals?

OhioStateOutlaw: If I were born into wealth or family power, that would be lucky. I have overcome plenty of bad 'lcuk' if anything on my way in life. You have no clue man, none. Don't tell me I'm lucky. Paris the slut Hilton is lucky. I'm a damn hard worker and survivor.

Mental exercise. Compare your family's income to that of a typical third world nation family income.

Heck even inside Canada my family which was "middle class" was better off financially than the average Canadian family.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

I had you a $100 bill and you say "big deal, that's small change." Try handing a $100 bill to a person who works 40+ hours a week and has an income of $200/yr. You think everyone who makes less money than you obviously works less hard than you, or are somehow non-contributing members of society.

That's because you're stupid.

Sure, let's live in your world, where everyone is Engineers. Nobody picks up trash, paves roads, cleans up offices, polices the streets, etc...

Yah, your world sounds awesome.

I can walk into a clinic here and get service from a doctor with wait times ranging from 10 minutes to an hour.

My mother has had both knees replaced, and waited a couple of months for the first one; the second was done when the first was healed enough so that she would be able to move around well enough.

Do note that reports saying the Canadian system is broken generally come from people who are encouraging the development of private, for-profit health care; despite a system in which some family doctors can make huge amounts of money through their charges to the government, many of the medical associations want to bring in a two-tier system and allow doctors, surgeons, etc., to sell their services privately. They'll always point to things like this to get their way.

Thunderpipes: Umm, no. The program takes perfectly fine vehicles off the road, and uses taxpayer money to redistribute wealth. That is like saying welfare is a success.

You are confusing "success" with "good idea". The program was a success in that it has been and is accomplishing the goals it was designed to accomplish. Whether or not it was a good idea is certainly up for debate, but I'm a helluvalot happier with the results to date of spending $3B on a consumer-oriented economic stimulus than the $700B+ we have earmarked for corporate-oriented economic stimuli.

Thunderpipes: They elected your savior.

He's not my saviour; I didn't vote for him. Actually, he may be bad for Canadian industry. Generally Canadians are pleased when a Democrat is elected because we're more aligned socially, but we alwasy forget that Democrats are beholden to the unions, which in turn want less competition. The result is greater tariffs on our gods, NAFTA notwithstanding.

Honestly, I got no horse in this race. I'd just like to see you guys come up with an effective plan that actually get everyone covered. I know you can, you just lack the will to make it happen.

However, the company I work for is expanding aggressively in the US, so I'd be a lot happier if you got your recession under control. My bonus depends on it.

bulldg4life: What's the going rate for a bone marrow transplant with an unmatched donor using the US healthcare system?

More or less than $251,000? And, would insurance pay for $200,000 or more?

For just the procedure? That's about the right price. Of course the pre-procedure testing cost almost as much. Pre-BMT transplant patient generally have to undergo testing of just about everything since they are extremely immunocompromised after it. Then there's the post procedure process which especially for unrelated donor transplant requires careful monitoring since there is a higher risk for graft versus host disease.

For the whole thing you're looking at easily $500k-$1mil for the procedure, pre-testing, post procedure follow up and the first years worth of medications, and that's if it works the first time.

I'm more amazed that the Detroit hospital did just the procedure part of it.

canuck88: Blah blah blah - it's all just noise. I'm a 33 year old Canadian, and besides some 3-hour waits in the ER (admittedly for minor injuries), I've never had a problem. I've had several surgeries, several broken bones, have a 5-month old daughter... and never had a problem getting great care.

You sound... accident prone

Canadians are the biggest thieves of intellectual property in the world because they steal drug patents. This makes up most of their savings in the health care system. Who would we steal from, our own drug companies? As for sending people over from Windsor this has been going on for decades. When CT scanning, then called CAT scanning was in its infancy there was a waiting list for CTs in Windsor and a Canadian who had a headache came to the hospital where I was employed for a scan rather than wait the months the Canadians wanted him to wait. He had to pay out of pocket but it saved his life because he had a grade 4 astrocytoma AKA a glio blastoma multiforme and would have been dead well before he would have gotten his scheduled scan back in Canada.

When the health care gets nationalized here where are they going to go, more importantly where are we going to go for good health care TJ, Nuevo Laredo?

wh0mprat: Mr. Right: wh0mprat:
Wow. That wasn't even hyperbole. You're actually trying to paint Obama as some sort of anticorporate communist tyrant.


So far he's wrecked the auto industry in this country; he wants to pass Cap and Trade which would destroy the rest of the manufacturing sector in this country; he is, through his various czars, ipso facto controlling banking and insurance; he is dictating what kind of cars we should drive, how we should use energy and what kinds we should use. He is now trying to get a bill passed which would control every facet of health care in this country and, by extension, usurp a large percentage of control over every American's life. Can you honestly argue that he isn't an anti-corporate communist tyrant?

In the meantime, his administration has demonstrated that they can neither successfully plan, manage, nor execute something so simple as "cash for clunkers." We should trust this bunch of fools why?

I seem to recall that the auto industry and the mortgage-backed securities industy fell apart before the inaguration. As for the czars, I'd argue that he's trying to put together a capable and comprehensive team to properly regulate industry, which is governmetn's tole.

As for your contention that "He is now trying to get a bill passed which would control every facet of health care in this country and, by extension, usurp a large percentage of control over every American's life", well, that just so full of rhetoric and weasel words that it's difficult to respond to. Would you care to elaborate one your point?

The auto industry was in difficulty for the last several years because of unions and government interference. 2007 saw GM and Toyota making roughly the same number of vehicles: Toyota made a profit on the order of $39billion, GM lost something like $100billion. GM's union expenditures (those are expenditures for which the company recieves absolutely no value such as union stewards, retiree pensions, retiree health care, etc) were about $180 billion. I know the auto companies signed those union contracts but their financial ends were based on the assumption that the market would continue to grow. When the Japanese penetrated the market that assumption became invalid. Also, unions have been granted a monopoly from the government and add huge expense to the company with no benefit whatever. Unions don't hire people, don't train people - they just cast money. Also, unions don't do anything for the workers but that's a whole other discussion.

U.S. companies made money on SUVs and other large vehicles which were enormously popular as long as energy prices were low. Because of their labor contracts, they couldn't make enough money on small vehicles to push them as hard so they ceded that market to the Japanese. When energy prices went through the roof, domestic auto makers were hurt the most.

What Obama has done with his car czars (who know nothing about cars, about business, about transportation or about energy) is give large segments of two auto companies to the unions and siezed control of the rest. They are now dictating who gets to run the companies, what kind of cars they need to make, what kinds of fuel they should use. No domestic manufacturer I've heard of is actively pursuing the diesel option, for example. In the meantime, Audi, VW and others have developed diesel vehicles that get over 50 mpg. Why are we forcing domestic manufacturers to develop (at great expense) electric and other unproven technology when the ability to exceed CAFE is readily available? It's about Obama and his czars being simultaneously ignorant and in charge.

The auto companies have restructured. However, their long term viability is no better now than it was 3 years ago. In order to get short term profitability they have shed so many assets that they no longer have the capacity to produce enough vehicles to satisfy the market, should it ever rebound. Automotive suppliers (I work and have worked with lots of those companies) are desperately pursuing other markets. Not a one of them has any confidence whatsoever that the domestic auto companies will every sufficiently rebound to support their current supplier network. That should signal something to anyone who cares.

As to health care - the bill currently in the House does intrude on facet of the average American's life. Health insurance choices will become ever more limited, who controls the health insurance controls the health care. That should be pretty obvious given how badly current insurance companies manage health care.

tombotia: OhioStateOutlaw: If I were born into wealth or family power, that would be lucky. I have overcome plenty of bad 'lcuk' if anything on my way in life. You have no clue man, none. Don't tell me I'm lucky. Paris the slut Hilton is lucky. I'm a damn hard worker and survivor.

Mental exercise. Compare your family's income to that of a typical third world nation family income.

Heck even inside Canada my family which was "middle class" was better off financially than the average Canadian family.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

I had you a $100 bill and you say "big deal, that's small change." Try handing a $100 bill to a person who works 40+ hours a week and has an income of $200/yr. You think everyone who makes less money than you obviously works less hard than you, or are somehow non-contributing members of society.

That's because you're stupid.

Sure, let's live in your world, where everyone is Engineers. Nobody picks up trash, paves roads, cleans up offices, polices the streets, etc...

Yah, your world sounds awesome.

You know I tried to respond to you, but you are just one of those self-loathing, guilt ridden losers.

Jesus titty farking Christ. Oh no, there are millions of people in the world that are worse off than me therefore I cannot be proud of any of my accomplishments or enjoy the fruits of my labor.

Now go and save Africa. Don't catch the AIDS!

CBR ME ASAP: mechgreg: CBR ME ASAP: pukingtrader: CBR ME ASAP: Why is there a lack of facilities?

The lack of facilities is a free market problem. Health care in Canada is all private, only the insurance is socialized.

The same free market that is forcing every doctor out of Canada.

Actually the idea that there are a ton of Canadian doctors moving out of the country is pretty much false. In 2004 there were 262 practicing doctors that moved out of Canada, hardly a huge number. At the same time 317 Canadian trained doctors who left Canada in the past decided to return. From the few doctors I know most of them move to the US to do their residency then return once they have experience. 262 is hardly any kind of mass exodus.

Source of those numbers (new window)

Great, an article from 2005. Check out the one I posted from 2007.

Check out Mythbusters busting your myth in 2008, CBR.

Link (new window)

OhioStateOutlaw: Jesus titty farking Christ. Oh no, there are millions of people in the world that are worse off than me therefore I cannot be proud of any of my accomplishments or enjoy the fruits of my labor.

Yeah, just don't think you didn't start out with a massive headstart compared to a Laotian dirt farmer or something.

PanicAttack: I'm so sick of this us versus them mentality in the US. If you group everyone into either friends or enemies based on whether or not they're clones of your beliefs, then you don't deserve to have good healthcare because you're too stupid to understand complex issues.

THIS^infinity.

OscarTamerz: Canadians are the biggest thieves of intellectual property in the world because they steal drug patents. This makes up most of their savings in the health care system. Who would we steal from, our own drug companies? As for sending people over from Windsor this has been going on for decades. When CT scanning, then called CAT scanning was in its infancy there was a waiting list for CTs in Windsor and a Canadian who had a headache came to the hospital where I was employed for a scan rather than wait the months the Canadians wanted him to wait. He had to pay out of pocket but it saved his life because he had a grade 4 astrocytoma AKA a glio blastoma multiforme and would have been dead well before he would have gotten his scheduled scan back in Canada.

When the health care gets nationalized here where are they going to go, more importantly where are we going to go for good health care TJ, Nuevo Laredo?

Well I think that drugs shouldn't be patentable. The public should invest in drug labs through the government.

Because honestly I couldn't look a dying cancer [or whatever] patient in the eyes and say "I won't give you this drug because you won't give me enough imaginary assets."

Money ultimately is just a flow-control of asset/liabilities. It's what prevents hording and resource depletion. Make LCD TVs cost money then people can't just go out and grab 100 of them when they feel like. Means more to go around for everyone else.

So you'd tell a dying person that despite the fact you have a drug that could easily turn their problems around and give them an extra go at life, you'll deny them the drug because they're not making you rich enough.

I agree that if private organizations invest in an IP design they should have reasonable means to profit from it, but I just don't think medicine should be a field where traditional IP rules apply.

OscarTamerz: Canadians are the biggest thieves of intellectual property in the world because they steal drug patents. This makes up most of their savings in the health care system. Who would we steal from, our own drug companies? As for sending people over from Windsor this has been going on for decades. When CT scanning, then called CAT scanning was in its infancy there was a waiting list for CTs in Windsor and a Canadian who had a headache came to the hospital where I was employed for a scan rather than wait the months the Canadians wanted him to wait. He had to pay out of pocket but it saved his life because he had a grade 4 astrocytoma AKA a glio blastoma multiforme and would have been dead well before he would have gotten his scheduled scan back in Canada.

When the health care gets nationalized here where are they going to go, more importantly where are we going to go for good health care TJ, Nuevo Laredo?

As explained... we'll keep going to India... cheaper medicine... more equipment... go google medical tourism in india and you'll see a bevvy of Indian hospitals catering to Americans who need care but can't get what they need stateside.

OhioStateOutlaw: You know I tried to respond to you, but you are just one of those self-loathing, guilt ridden losers.

Jesus titty farking Christ. Oh no, there are millions of people in the world that are worse off than me therefore I cannot be proud of any of my accomplishments or enjoy the fruits of my labor.

Now go and save Africa. Don't catch the AIDS!

Ok let me swing this around for you.

The average Canadian makes 36000 a year. I make 80000. There are more of them than me. That means collectively, the average Canadian pays more taxes for roads, schools, etc than I do.

So using your logic, I should not be entitled to use public roads because I'm "not paying my share" ...

Is that how this works?

You're saying the individually the average income earner isn't paying the same amount of taxes as you, therefore is not entitled to the same services as you from the government. I'm saying as a class they contribute more to public services [roads, fire dept, police, schools] that you take advantage of than you do.

cyber_slacker

What aboot Alaska?

Remember now,the US has about 40% useless eaters,millions of unemployed who's jobs have been exported,and a big crop of banksters,wall street gangsters,plus a breeding horde of illegal,non assimilating aliens.
All this riff raff has to be gotten rid off,so what better way to start with highly contagious diseases,especially engineered to reduce the population.
who needs Healthcare,we might look at Sickcare as an alternative for the surviving bunch of US citizens.
Congress needs to switch their health insurance to the Healthcare,they are trying to ram down our throats.

Mr. Right: wh0mprat: Mr. Right: wh0mprat:
Wow. That wasn't even hyperbole. You're actually trying to paint Obama as some sort of anticorporate communist tyrant.


So far he's wrecked the auto industry in this country; he wants to pass Cap and Trade which would destroy the rest of the manufacturing sector in this country; he is, through his various czars, ipso facto controlling banking and insurance; he is dictating what kind of cars we should drive, how we should use energy and what kinds we should use. He is now trying to get a bill passed which would control every facet of health care in this country and, by extension, usurp a large percentage of control over every American's life. Can you honestly argue that he isn't an anti-corporate communist tyrant?

In the meantime, his administration has demonstrated that they can neither successfully plan, manage, nor execute something so simple as "cash for clunkers." We should trust this bunch of fools why?

I seem to recall that the auto industry and the mortgage-backed securities industy fell apart before the inaguration. As for the czars, I'd argue that he's trying to put together a capable and comprehensive team to properly regulate industry, which is governmetn's tole.

As for your contention that "He is now trying to get a bill passed which would control every facet of health care in this country and, by extension, usurp a large percentage of control over every American's life", well, that just so full of rhetoric and weasel words that it's difficult to respond to. Would you care to elaborate one your point?

The auto industry was in difficulty for the last several years because of unions and government interference. 2007 saw GM and Toyota making roughly the same number of vehicles: Toyota made a profit on the order of $39billion, GM lost something like $100billion. GM's union expenditures (those are expenditures for which the company recieves absolutely no value such as union stewards, retiree pensions, retiree health care, etc) were about $180 billion. I know the auto companies signed those union contracts but their financial ends were based on the assumption that the market would continue to grow. When the Japanese penetrated the market that assumption became invalid. Also, unions have been granted a monopoly from the government and add huge expense to the company with no benefit whatever. Unions don't hire people, don't train people - they just cast money. Also, unions don't do anything for the workers but that's a whole other discussion.

U.S. companies made money on SUVs and other large vehicles which were enormously popular as long as energy prices were low. Because of their labor contracts, they couldn't make enough money on small vehicles to push them as hard so they ceded that market to the Japanese. When energy prices went through the roof, domestic auto makers were hurt the most.

What Obama has done with his car czars (who know nothing about cars, about business, about transportation or about energy) is give large segments of two auto companies to the unions and siezed control of the rest. They are now dictating who gets to run the companies, what kind of cars they need to make, what kinds of fuel they should use. No domestic manufacturer I've heard of is actively pursuing the diesel option, for example. In the meantime, Audi, VW and others have developed diesel vehicles that get over 50 mpg. Why are we forcing domestic manufacturers to develop (at great expense) electric and other unproven technology when the ability to exceed CAFE is readily available? It's about Obama and his czars being simultaneously ignorant and in charge.

The auto companies have restructured. However, their long term viability is no better now than it was 3 years ago. In order to get short term profitability they have shed so many assets that they no longer have the capacity to produce enough vehicles to satisfy the market, should it ever rebound. Automotive suppliers (I work and have worked with lots of those companies) are desperately pursuing other markets. Not a one of th ...

Really, it didn't have anything to do with poor financial decisions, engineering, or design of crappy cars... we're just going to blame unions and the government... that's why people didn't want a truck that would break down every 500 miles while getting 8mpg... unions and government...got it.

This just in - The Canadian Health Service has figured out how to use the free market to access hospitals a short hop across a river.

Anyone pointing to this as having anything to do with Health Care Reform needs to have the ends of their wingnut filed down.

Canada's health care system is so good many Canadians have to go to Detroit for medical procedures

And ours is so damn fine we're ranked right up there with Uganda, Mongolia and the Congo.

We're # 127
We're # 127
We're # 127


~because everyone is guaranteed employment and health, their entire lives in the U.S.A.

/That is all.

firefly212: Really, it didn't have anything to do with poor financial decisions, engineering, or design of crappy cars... we're just going to blame unions and the government... that's why people didn't want a truck that would break down every 500 miles while getting 8mpg... unions and government...got it.

Hey don't try and inject logic into an arguement. Though the cost going to the unions is pretty absurd, there are a lot of factors. Which in many ways is similar to the whole health pay debacle we have now. Fact is, health care costs are absurd. We need some reform. What reform is best? Do we as taxpayers need to provide coverage for people through our taxes or through higher premiums? Either way, we're already covering them. I like the idea of a co-op. I think at the very least, you shouldn't get coverage if you don't file taxes. Your IRS forms will come with your gov't insurance card.

firefly212: Really, it didn't have anything to do with poor financial decisions, engineering, or design of crappy cars... we're just going to blame unions and the government... that's why people didn't want a truck that would break down every 500 miles while getting 8mpg... unions and government...got it.

Hell, the BIGGEST problem with the Big Three is the loss of trade protections leading to a major loss in domestic market share. That means they have an abnormally large ratio of former workers per current worker. And unlike their Japanese competitors, whose pensions are taken care of by the government, the Big Three have to pay pensions and health care for their former employees themselves. This means they have much worse profit margins.

My dad's company (in the electronics industry) has a similar problem. Loss of market share to southeast Asian companies has left his company in a position where they have 9 retirees for every current worker, and that puts a huge strain on their business.

jsobota: So they have an over-worked health system that they can't afford or simply choose not to upgrade with more facilities, doctors, nurses, orderlies, lab techs, etc.

This might have been pointed out already, but:

Hospitals, health care facilities, doctors, nurses, etc. are private in Canada. Obscure bone marrow transplant facilities might not exist because the country lacks the population to provide sufficient demand for such a facility. A fine entrepreneur such as yourself is welcome to open such a business, and the various provincial health plans will cover the cost of any patients who visit.

So from this discussion, I realize I still want a national healthcare system; my reasons for wanting one have just changed.

I want it for the travel opportunities now.

firefly212: As explained... we'll keep going to India... cheaper medicine... more equipment... go google medical tourism in india and you'll see a bevvy of Indian hospitals catering to Americans who need care but can't get what they need stateside.

Thousands of Americans also go to Mexico for health care. Either to get care they can not afford in the USA or to get procedures or medicines not available in the USA. Does this prove that Mexican health care is better than US health care?

Meanwhile, this American can report he is very happy with his Canadian dentist.

Sum Dum Gai: firefly212: Really, it didn't have anything to do with poor financial decisions, engineering, or design of crappy cars... we're just going to blame unions and the government... that's why people didn't want a truck that would break down every 500 miles while getting 8mpg... unions and government...got it.

Hell, the BIGGEST problem with the Big Three is the loss of trade protections leading to a major loss in domestic market share. That means they have an abnormally large ratio of former workers per current worker. And unlike their Japanese competitors, whose pensions are taken care of by the government, the Big Three have to pay pensions and health care for their former employees themselves. This means they have much worse profit margins.

My dad's company (in the electronics industry) has a similar problem. Loss of market share to southeast Asian companies has left his company in a position where they have 9 retirees for every current worker, and that puts a huge strain on their business.

Well then, let's talk about the biggest expense facing the big three right now... it isn't pensions, it's health insurance. People who have insurance are being overbilled to compensate for the load the uninsured are putting on the system, subsequently causing premiums in the private market to skyrocket... wouldn't it be better to get those uninsured people some insurance, then charge them a fair (income-based) amount, instead of having them piggyback on everyone elses' plans? Through insuring them, we also help keep premiums down and lower the single greatest non-wage cost of employment in the US today.

sweetmelissa31: The conservatives have an argument against that, saying that because countries report infant mortality differently, the results are skewed and the US should rank higher. They fail to realize that the statisticians doing these studies take into account and correct for reporting bias. I linked for them a couple studies on it, but they ignored it.

There's reporting bias, but there's also the fact that a significantly flawed embryo has a better chance of surviving gestation in the US than in, say, Bosnia. If, out of every 10 conceptions in Canada, you have 2 miscarriages and 8 live births, and of those 8, 1 dies in infancy, one at age 20, one at 40, 2 at 70, and 3 at 90, you'd have an average lifespan of about 59 years. If in the US, you had one miscarriage, one infant death, one dead at 5 years old, and the rest dead at 20, 42, 72, 73, 89, 91, and 93, then even though most of the 10 conceptions lived longer than their Canadian counterparts, the average lifespan is lower, at about 54 years.

If the stats don't take into account the variance in conception-to-birth rates from one country to the next, then the end result is to punish those nations that have made considerable efforts in the field of prenatal care. An argument can certainly be made that the parents might be better off if their flawed offspring miscarried, rather than survived to birth, underwent exhaustive, exhausting, and expensive treatments, only to succumb to its weakness in a few months anyway, but that brings us back to the debate over who holds the stakes in that decision.

SlothB77: firefly212: I read that story too... it seems like people are shocked that it takes more than 14 days to get paid... which is weird, because at my second job, we wait two weeks to get paid every pay period... so I dunno why the dealerships are surprised about not having a shorter turnaround.

this issue here isn't the turnaround time, but the amount of money. dealers have no cash flow, because they are entirely dependent on getting reimbursed. if this program was planned out better, C4C would understand the reimbursement needs of dealers and prevent them from having to pull out of the program.

but let's say this happened with health care. let's say doctors and hospitals weren't getting reimbursed fast enough and their cash flow problems forced them to shut down? would you trust a government unable to keep up with C4C for reimbursing hospitals in a timely fashion?

They don't get reimbursed for 30 days most of the time... the difference is they have the good sense to plan for it... sorry that some dealerships don't, but those that did have the capacity and ability to plan well will profit from it.

firefly212: Mr. Right: wh0mprat: Mr. Right: wh0mprat:

The auto industry was in difficulty for the last several years because of unions and government interference.

Really, it didn't have anything to do with poor financial decisions, engineering, or design of crappy cars... we're just going to blame unions and the government... that's why people didn't want a truck that would break down every 500 miles while getting 8mpg... unions and government...got it.


The financial decisions were based on the assumption of an ever-growing market which didn't happen because the government allowed every foriegn country to dump their cars here while not demanding that other countries allow access to our vehicles. Back when automakers had a monopoly on the domestic market, their engineering was uninspired at best. When faced with rigorous competition, they answered the bell as best they could given government mandates. I don't know what kind of truck you drive that breaks down every 500 miles and gets 8 mpg. Trucks are one thing Detroit has definitely gotten right.

But yes, unions, all by themselves, were the tipping point between profit and huge loss. And as I've pointed out earlier, unions are an enormous expense to companies and they provide absolutely no benefit. Not to companies, not to workers. The contracts they negotiate may provide some illusory benefit to the immediate local but the expense they add penalizes every other worker in the supply chain. The automotive suppliers, through their genius and efficiency, have supported the automotive companies since the 80s. It is their cost cutting measures that have driven down the material cost that have allowed the unions to continue their demands. Union leaders do not care one whit about any worker on the floor. I've negotiated contracts with 5 different unions. In every case, we were forced into much more time and effort spent in the language section to assure the power and influence of the union than in any benefit to the workers.

Understand something as well. I love American workers - they are the most productive and innovative in the world. It is the unions that are farking them over, far worse than any rabid practitioner of the worst of corporatism.

downtownkid: You didn't present an argument, you made a sarcastic comment. Do you understand the difference between the two?

Inherent in the sarcastic comment was a reference to my earlier comment. This was evidently lost on you.

sens: For fark's sake, can we just settle this already with a stone cold fact?

No matter how they do it, Canada's system is better than America's system.

It's reality. Since this whole health care bullshiat started I've had to listen to and read this fear-mongering crap about how the Canadian system sucks, and why you don't want it.

It doesn't. It's not perfect, but it works better than yours, so suck it already, and get with the farking program.

Millions of your citizens have no health care at all. For a country who calls itself the Greatest Country in the World, and screams it in the face of the world over and over and over and over and over again, this is so pathetic that it's not even funny.

The rest of the world is embarrassed for you. Your farking fly has been down for a long time, your underwear is showing, and the rest of the developed world has been jumping up and down and yelling at you to fix it for a very long time, but you have your own stupid farking national anthem cranked up way too high on your iPods to hear it.

PUT AWAY THE PARTISAN BULLshiat, THE FEARMONGERING, THE MISINFORMATION, AND GREED, AND FIX YOUR shiat. LOOK TO CANADA, IF NOT FOR SOME FORM OF MODEL, THEN AT LEAST FOR A FEW TIPS, YOU STUPID, BACKWARDS IDIOTS.

Can you hear me now, morons?



I'm happy with my health care plan. I do not want yours. Learn to deal.

"I go to the hospital in Windsor and two hours later, I'm done having angioplasty in Detroit," he said. His $38,000 bill was covered by the Ontario health ministry.

That's pretty FARKING good, IMO.

What amuses me most about the "debate" aka WHARRGARBL going on around health care right now is that it effectively swaps the roles of the parties.

Republicans on health care: Obama, noted Kenyan, wants to limit your choices on health care. We are pro choice.

Republicans on abortion: Obama, noted baby eater, wants to allow everybody the choice to get an abortion. We are pro life.

Democrats on health care: Obama, noted Messiah, wants to give everyone access to health care, thus extending their life. We are pro life.

Democrats on abortion: Obama, noted good guy, wants to open up stem cell research and put no additional limits on abortions. We are pro choice.

modelcitizen: "I go to the hospital in Windsor and two hours later, I'm done having angioplasty in Detroit," he said. His $38,000 bill was covered by the Ontario health ministry.

That's pretty FARKING good, IMO.

Completely agree. What, exactly, is the problem here? The publicly funded plan is paying for these procedures. This is anything but a failure of the "Canadian System".

OhioStateOutlaw: tombotia: OhioStateOutlaw: So let me get this straight. Most of you failed so badly in life you could not get a real job that provides insurance so you want the government to help make up for you lack of success?

Do I have that right?

/payed attention in school
//have good job
///don't have some useless lib arts degree

I know you're trolling but it does show one thing that people tend to forget.

You're lucky to be where you are. Lucky. Not everyone who is working below their pay grade [so to speak] is there for a lack of education or effort. You should instead be appreciative of what fortunes you do have instead of trying to rub it in peoples faces.

I routinely chat with friends from all over the planet who are better, same, and worse off than I am. Whenever my worse off friends get all depressed or whatever, I just remind them that it could just as easily be reversed. Nobody owed you a job, you're just lucky to have the coincidence of talent, availability, job opening, networking, and timing.

That being said, the purpose of UHC isn't to give healthcare to people less deserving than you. It's to keep society functional. Try to think about all the people that make your life livable [garbagemen, road workers, treatment plant workers, janitors, public transportation folk, etc] and realize that they're probably all making less than you. Now think about what it'd be like if they were not around for a day, week, month.

That is such a farking joke man. LUCKY? With all do respect, go to hell. I worked my butt off to be where I am today. I played by the rules, I was a good citizen, I didn't waste my life and that is how I got here.

If I were born into wealth or family power, that would be lucky. I have overcome plenty of bad 'lcuk' if anything on my way in life. You have no clue man, none. Don't tell me I'm lucky. Paris the slut Hilton is lucky. I'm a damn hard worker and survivor.

With that said, I respect what you were trying to say. I understand how you can come that opinion. I just disagree.

Too many people demanding healthcare who have no care for their health. Sorry, I don't want to contribute. Noone paid my way in life but me. Guess that makes me a bitter, jaded bastard.

Oh really?