Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

You've heard the mantra, chanted by everyone on the left, from Michael Moore to The New York Times: America's profit-centric health-care system is dismally inferior to that of Canada's purely pristine humanitarian-driven version.
...
Well, tell that to Danny Williams, premier of the Canadian province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The popular 59-year-old politician has discovered that nothing is for free. He's somewhere in the US today -- prepping for heart surgery.

Seems the procedure he needs simply isn't available in Newfoundland -- at any price.

And, with his own health on the line, he prefers to put his trust in the "second-rate, profit-driven health-care behemoth" south of the St. Lawrence, rather than try a hospital in Canada.

"Ultimately, we have to be the gatekeepers of our own health," said Williams' deputy premier, "and he has taken medical advice from a number of different sources,"

Williams, he added, "is doing what's best for him."

Precisely.

Last summer, President Obama -- who still hopes to overhaul American health-care -- defended the Canadian system as one that "works for Canada."

Not for all Canadians, apparently.

Certainly not those well-connected pols, who -- like Danny Williams -- can afford better health care in the good ol' US of A.

catamount man wrote:Brock Lesnar was extremely critical of it as well. I still don't see why our government is afraid of letting workers invest in HSAs with their own income? I guess because they don't have the final say in it....

93henfan wrote:

catamount man wrote:Brock Lesnar was extremely critical of it as well. I still don't see why our government is afraid of letting workers invest in HSAs with their own income? I guess because they don't have the final say in it....

Huh? I can't speak for other folks' employers, but federal employees already have several HDHPs with HSAs to choose from:

http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/hsa/

Col Hogan wrote:

93henfan wrote:
Huh? I can't speak for other folks' employers, but federal employees already have several HDHPs with HSAs to choose from:

http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/hsa/

The two companies I have worked for since retiring from the military both have HSAs...good deals...

catamount man wrote:To my knowledge, not every employer offers them but again, what do I know. I made the mistake of once again posting in the politics forum where I obviously do not belong seeing as how I know so little about these subjects. I will try not to make the same mistake again.

Grizalltheway wrote:No healthcare system is going to be perfect, but it seems like Germany's is at least less dysfunctional than ours or Canada's

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_in_Germany

catamount man wrote:Brock Lesnar was extremely critical of it as well. I still don't see why our government is afraid of letting workers invest in HSAs with their own income? I guess because they don't have the final say in it....

Skjellyfetti wrote:I doubt many would argue that America's healthcare system is among the best in the world for wealthy individuals.

But, it's also among the worst in the developed nations for the poor and lower incomes.

Gil Dobie wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:No healthcare system is going to be perfect, but it seems like Germany's is at least less dysfunctional than ours or Canada's

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_in_Germany

Do you mean more people are covered as meaning less dysfuntional? Canada provides more medocre care for more people. To get better healthcare for non-emergency medical procedure's, many Canadian's that can afford it come to the USA.

Skjellyfetti wrote:I doubt many would argue that America's healthcare system is among the best in the world for wealthy individuals.

But, it's also among the worst in the developed nations for the poor and lower incomes.

death dealer wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:I doubt many would argue that America's healthcare system is among the best in the world for wealthy individuals.

But, it's also among the worst in the developed nations for the poor and lower incomes.

So?

And there is no heaven or hell. Jesus was a carpenter. He hammered nails and planks.

kalm wrote:

death dealer wrote: So?

And there is no heaven or hell. Jesus was a carpenter. He hammered nails and planks.

And it's really expensive for all income levels.

America...We're exceptional...for many people...especially the wealthy...or for those fortunate enough to have their employers cover healthcare expenses...and for those with the socialized VA and Medicare.

death dealer wrote:

kalm wrote:
And it's really expensive for all income levels.

America...We're exceptional...for many people...especially the wealthy...or for those fortunate enough to have their employers cover healthcare expenses...and for those with the socialized VA and Medicare.

Beats a poke in the eye with a stick.

kalm wrote:

death dealer wrote: Beats a poke in the eye with a stick.

Even better.

The American healthcare system...it beats a poke in the eye with a stick.

Gosh I'm proud.

death dealer wrote: Jesus was a carpenter. He hammered nails and planks.

kalm wrote:

death dealer wrote: So?

And there is no heaven or hell. Jesus was a carpenter. He hammered nails and planks.

And it's really expensive for all income levels.

America...We're exceptional...for many people...especially the wealthy...or for those fortunate enough to have their employers cover healthcare expenses...and for those with the socialized VA and Medicare.

UNI88 wrote:

kalm wrote:
And it's really expensive for all income levels.

America...We're exceptional...for many people...especially the wealthy...or for those fortunate enough to have their employers cover healthcare expenses...and for those with the socialized VA and Medicare.

First, so the wealthy, many employees, and people with VA and Medicare benefits are covered. What percentage of the population of the U.S. has good coverage? Maybe 80%. I understand that the remaining 20% is a problem; what I don't understand is why we would risk fvcking it up for the 80% who do have coverage in order to provide coverage for the 20%.

Second, is it a problem that health insurance is expensive? Think about some of what goes into quality healthcare: a long and expensive educational process, equipment that is expensive to develop and produce, drugs that are expensive to research & develop, etc. Are there inefficiencies and excess profits in healthcare? Yes. But the same could be said about other expensive products such as the automobile. Yet most people seem to be able to find a transportation solution that meets their budget, a used Civic might not be as nice as a new Cadillac but it can still get you where you need to go. Why can't we find a "used Civic" solution for the 20% who can't afford the Cadillac? They need basic coverage to help keep them well and to take care of catastrophes, they don't need all of the bells and whistles.

kalm wrote:

UNI88 wrote:
First, so the wealthy, many employees, and people with VA and Medicare benefits are covered. What percentage of the population of the U.S. has good coverage? Maybe 80%. I understand that the remaining 20% is a problem; what I don't understand is why we would risk fvcking it up for the 80% who do have coverage in order to provide coverage for the 20%.

Second, is it a problem that health insurance is expensive? Think about some of what goes into quality healthcare: a long and expensive educational process, equipment that is expensive to develop and produce, drugs that are expensive to research & develop, etc. Are there inefficiencies and excess profits in healthcare? Yes. But the same could be said about other expensive products such as the automobile. Yet most people seem to be able to find a transportation solution that meets their budget, a used Civic might not be as nice as a new Cadillac but it can still get you where you need to go. Why can't we find a "used Civic" solution for the 20% who can't afford the Cadillac? They need basic coverage to help keep them well and to take care of catastrophes, they don't need all of the bells and whistles.

Other countries are providing equal basic care for less money.

People with health insurance are going bankrupt over medical bills.

Health Insurance CEO's are overpaid.

UNI88 wrote:

kalm wrote:
Other countries are providing equal basic care for less money.

People with health insurance are going bankrupt over medical bills.

Health Insurance CEO's are overpaid.

Are other countires providing equal basic care for less money? Or is American healthcare more expensive because we want the Cadillac? Because we're more litigous? Because we limit a healthcare insurer to a single geographic region (i.e. state)?

So what that Health Insurance CEO's are overpaid? Most CEO's are overpaid. A lot of people are overpaid. UAW workers are probably overpaid for what they have to do on an automated assembly line.

I don't think the system is perfect but I also think the Dems are throwing the baby out with the bath water. The Dem leadership is so focused on solving the country's problem as they see it that they aren't listening to the people when they're trying to tell them what their problems really are and what they want and need. If the Dems force through a healthcare bill that is enormously expensive and fvcks up the healthcare of the 80% they risk rendering themselves irrelevant for a long time.