Uh Oh! It's Nader: "21 Ways Why Canada's Health Care is Better."--Any DU Canadians Care to Discuss?

[KoKo]

Dear America:

Costly complexity is baked into Obamacare. No health insurance system is without problems but Canadian style single-payer full Medicare for all is simple, affordable, comprehensive and universal.

In the early 1960s, President Lyndon Johnson enrolled 20 million elderly Americans into Medicare in six months. There were no websites. They did it with index cards!

Below please find 21 Ways the Canadian Health Care System is Better than Obamacare.

Repeal Obamacare and replace it with the much more efficient single-payer, everybody in, nobody out, free choice of doctor and hospital.

Love, Canada

------------------------

Number 21:
In Canada, everyone is covered automatically at birth – everybody in, nobody out.

In the United States, under Obamacare, 31 million Americans will still be uninsured by 2023 and millions more will remain underinsured.

Number 20:
In Canada, the health system is designed to put people, not profits, first.

In the United States, Obamacare will do little to curb insurance industry profits and will actually enhance insurance industry profits.

Number 19:
In Canada, coverage is not tied to a job or dependent on your income – rich and poor are in the same system, the best guaranty of quality.

In the United States, under Obamacare, much still depends on your job or income. Lose your job or lose your income, and you might lose your existing health insurance or have to settle for lesser coverage.

Number 18:
In Canada, health care coverage stays with you for your entire life.

In the United States, under Obamacare, for tens of millions of Americans, health care coverage stays with you for as long as you can afford your share.

Number 17:
In Canada, you can freely choose your doctors and hospitals and keep them. There are no lists of “in-network” vendors and no extra hidden charges for going “out of network.”

In the United States, under Obamacare, the in-network list of places where you can get treated is shrinking – thus restricting freedom of choice – and if you want to go out of network, you pay for it.

Number 16:
In Canada, the health care system is funded by income, sales and corporate taxes that, combined, are much lower than what Americans pay in premiums.

In the United States, under Obamacare, for thousands of Americans, it’s pay or die – if you can’t pay, you die. That’s why many thousands will still die every year under Obamacare from lack of health insurance to get diagnosed and treated in time.

Number 15:
In Canada, there are no complex hospital or doctor bills. In fact, usually you don’t even see a bill.

In the United States, under Obamacare, hospital and doctor bills will still be terribly complex, making it impossible to discover the many costly overcharges.

Number 14:
In Canada, costs are controlled. Canada pays 10 percent of its GDP for its health care system, covering everyone.

In the United States, under Obamacare, costs continue to skyrocket. The U.S. currently pays 18 percent of its GDP and still doesn’t cover tens of millions of people.

Number 13:
In Canada, it is unheard of for anyone to go bankrupt due to health care costs.

In the United States, under Obamacare, health care driven bankruptcy will continue to plague Americans.

Number 12:
In Canada, simplicity leads to major savings in administrative costs and overhead.

In the United States, under Obamacare, complexity will lead to ratcheting up administrative costs and overhead.

Number 11:
In Canada, when you go to a doctor or hospital the first thing they ask you is: “What’s wrong?”

In the United States, the first thing they ask you is: “What kind of insurance do you have?”

Number 10:
In Canada, the government negotiates drug prices so they are more affordable.

In the United States, under Obamacare, Congress made it specifically illegal for the government to negotiate drug prices for volume purchases, so they remain unaffordable.

Number 9:
In Canada, the government health care funds are not profitably diverted to the top one percent.

In the United States, under Obamacare, health care funds will continue to flow to the top. In 2012, CEOs at six of the largest insurance companies in the U.S. received a total of $83.3 million in pay, plus benefits.

Number 8:
In Canada, there are no necessary co-pays or deductibles.

In the United States, under Obamacare, the deductibles and co-pays will continue to be unaffordable for many millions of Americans.

Number 7:
In Canada, the health care system contributes to social solidarity and national pride.

In the United States, Obamacare is divisive, with rich and poor in different systems and tens of millions left out or with sorely limited benefits.

Number 6:
In Canada, delays in health care are not due to the cost of insurance.

In the United States, under Obamacare, patients without health insurance or who are underinsured will continue to delay or forgo care and put their lives at risk.

Number 5:
In Canada, nobody dies due to lack of health insurance.

In the United States, under Obamacare, many thousands will continue to die every year due to lack of health insurance.

Number 4:
In Canada, an increasing majority supports their health care system, which costs half as much, per person, as in the United States. And in Canada, everyone is covered.

In the United States, a majority – many for different reasons – oppose Obamacare.

Number 3:
In Canada, the tax payments to fund the health care system are progressive – the lowest 20 percent pays 6 percent of income into the system while the highest 20 percent pays 8 percent.

In the United States, under Obamacare, the poor pay a larger share of their income for health care than the affluent.

Number 2:
In Canada, the administration of the system is simple. You get a health care card when you are born. And you swipe it when you go to a doctor or hospital. End of story.

In the United States, Obamacare’s 2,500 pages plus regulations (the Canadian Medicare Bill was 13 pages) is so complex that then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said before passage “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”

Number 1:
In Canada, the majority of citizens love their health care system.

In the United States, the majority of citizens, physicians, and nurses prefer the Canadian type system – single-payer, free choice of doctor and hospital , everybody in, nobody out.
---------------

For more information see Single Payer Action.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/11/22-1

[Autumn]

1. Damn you Ralph!! My Corvair WAS safe. Thanks for the seat belts though Dude

and this article

[Egalitarian Thug]

4. GM could easily have fixed them, as always it was a corporate decision made

by psychopaths that have, with some success, spent decades fixing the blame for their negligence on the whistle blower.

[Autumn]

6. In the end, all that matters are the corporations, they can afford to buy the narrative.

Damn the ones who blow that whistle. Pariahs all.

[geek tragedy]

2. "Repeal and replace" is the motto of Republicans and their asswipe allies on the left. nt

[Mr.Bill]

31. And yet how many time have they voted to repeal,

and how many times have they proposed something to replace it with?

[George II]

61. I think your answers are 45 and ZERO!

[WowSeriously]

46. I understand you consider Ralph Nader

an ass wipe of the left because he is held accountable for AL GORE's loss. Nevertheless the fact remains that Heritage Foundation Care was conceived for the sole purpose of thwarting HillaryCare. I have no doubt most DUers considered this plan an abomination back then. It remains an abomination today.

I, for one, intend to "hold their feet to the fire" and "make them do it" since we are constantly admonished by the "sensible left" to "not let the perfect be the enemy of the good" and to "play the hand we're dealt".

[geek tragedy]

81. If you intend to 'make' them repeal the ACA you are playing for

Ted Cruz's team.

[WowSeriously]

87. I intend to "make" single payer a reality. What Republican plan do you intend to settle for next?

The fact of the matter is you and Ted Cruz play the same game. He scares you into settling for Republicanism for fear of right wing nuttery. And all he really cares about is Republicanism. So you both arrive at the same policy.

[geek tragedy]

102. No, I support expanding the good parts of the ACA.

Instead of repealing them as Nader does.

[WowSeriously]

115. As is your prerogative.

And science is on your side. The show Myth Busters did demonstrate it is possible to polish a turd.

[AgingAmerican]

84. Show us the 'asswipes' on the left who call for that

Thanks in advance.

[geek tragedy]

86. From the OP and article:

Repeal Obamacare and replace it with the much more efficient single-payer, everybody in, nobody out, free choice of doctor and hospital.

[Enthusiast]

97. Advocating single payer makes us asswipes?

Why so harsh?

We all prefer the ACA to the status quo but see single payer as the ultimate goal. Asswipes?

[geek tragedy]

101. No. People who prefer the ACA to the current status quo aren't calling for it to be repealed.

I prefer single payer to the ACA myself. But, where we wind up and where we start are two different places.

It's a helluva lot easier to get to single payer by expanding the good parts of the ACA--subsidies and Medicaid and profit controls on insurance companies--than it is to start over from scratch.

[LuvNewcastle]

3. Eeeeek! Nader! Get thee hence, Satan!

[jessie04]

5. Coming soon to a website near you....NADER 2016

I can see it now.

[Fumesucker]

9. Conservatives are not normally prone to praising the Canadian health care system

Perhaps some new talking points are in order?

[geek tragedy]

18. "Repeal and replace" puts Nader in some pretty spiffy company.

Mitt Romney, Ted Cruz, John Boehner.

Even little Ricky.

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/20/santorum-obamacare-no-care/

SANTORUM: Obamacare is no care
Repeal and replace health law

[Fumesucker]

21. Frothy Mix, Rmoney, Orangeman and Cruz are in favor of single payer?

Who knew?



What exactly is incorrect about the statements made regarding the difference between the ACA and Health Canada?

[geek tragedy]

23. Anyone who states ACA repeal could be followed by single payer

is either a complete moron or a congenital liar.

"Repeal and replace" means "repeal."

In calling for repeal, he's objectively allied himself with the wingnuts.

[Fumesucker]

25. What are the incorrect statements regarding the differences between the two systems?

Evidently you missed that question in my post.

[geek tragedy]

85. Kind of like asking if a dolphin can swim better than a hippo.

Sure it can, but hippos can't just grow flippers overnight. They evolved differently from their common ancestor, just as the US and Canada did.

No one who is serious about single payer is vomiting up this repeal and replace garbage. They're talking about how to use the ACA as a way of moving in that direction.

Heck, Medicare isn't even administered on a tranactional level by the government. That work is contracted out to . . . private insurance companies.

People who talk about repeal and replacing with (a) the largest income tax increase in our history; (b) taking away everyone's current healthcare insurance plan and replacing it with an unknown future plan; and (c) leaving this unprecedented information technology feat to the team that built healthcare.gov is a poser, not someone who is serious about the issue.

One does not go forward by going backwards. Repeal is going backwards.

Nader wants to go backwards, because he is a Republican ally. He's not so stupid as to believe single payer can be enacted as a one-time piece of legislation, but he is dishonest enough to pretend.

[Fumesucker]

98. What does that have to do with the question I asked?

Your focus is on personalities, to a lot of us personalities are unimportant, rather we are focused on policies.

A list has been posted of policy differences, evidently you can find nothing to quibble about regarding the policy differences so you try to shift the conversation back to personalities. Do you not realize you are doing just what the M$M does, ignoring policies to talk about personalities?

[geek tragedy]

100. No, what you're not grasping is that there is no "single payer" button that one

just pushes to convert the US to that kind of system. Not in terms of politics, not in terms of disruption to the health care system, not in terms of being able to successfully implement it.

The very easy part is to say the US should be more like Canada in terms of health care delivery. The challenge comes in getting from here to there.

[Fumesucker]

131. I predicted the private mandate right here in GD on Nov 19, 2008

That was less than two weeks after Obama was elected and despite the fact that Obama mocked the private mandate during the campaign.

It was an easy peasy prediction, all I had to do was take the most cynical position as to what "health care reform" in America might look like and voilà.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4494168&mesg_id=4494251

[geek tragedy]

133. Krugman was right all along about the mandate.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/more-obama-ugliness-on-health-care/?_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/opinion/30krugman.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html

Imagine this: It’s the summer of 2009, and President Barack Obama is about to unveil his plan for universal health care. But his health policy experts have done the math, and they’ve concluded that the plan really needs to include a requirement that everyone have health insurance — a so-called mandate.

Without a mandate, they find, the plan will fall far short of universal coverage. Worse yet, without a mandate health insurance will be much more expensive than it should be for those who do choose to buy it.

But Mr. Obama knows that if he tries to include a mandate in the plan, he’ll face a barrage of misleading attacks from conservatives who oppose universal health care in any form. And he’ll have trouble responding — because he made the very same misleading attacks on Hillary Clinton and John Edwards during the race for the Democratic nomination.

[Fumesucker]

138. If you can't afford to make use of the insurance you are forced to buy it's not really "universal"

And there are going to be tens of millions of Americans in just that position.

I might as well have supported Ms "I can envision a day when you have to show proof of insurance at the job interview" as Obama, the results would have been identical.

[NoOneMan]

139. If everyone could afford to use their insurance, it would have to cost more

To you or the government. Just saying. Those prices are based on only serving the ones fortunate enough to beat down the deductible. Those who were doing just fine at that before the ACA are still going to be fine. Those who get the new policies with government dough who can't pay to play....well their premiums just go to the comfy middle class folks who already were doing solid.

[geek tragedy]

140. "can't afford to make use . . ."

What is your basis for the assertion that tens of millions of Americans will be unable to afford to make use of the insurance they purchase?

[Fumesucker]

142. The financial reality of an under $8.00 minumum wage and sub 30 hour work weeks

Most of the people I know are struggling to make ends meet as it is, I have a hernia myself that I can't remotely foresee being able to afford getting surgery to remedy.

[pangaia]

43. 2 questions..

1- Did you read the list?
2- Did you ever hear of Ralph Nader?

"congenital liar?" Jeez, chill, dude.

I understand your concern about Nader's phrase, 'repeal and replace.'

However, he is calling to replace it with single payer, as difficult as that may be to bring about. It is rather obvious totally different than what wingnuts are always screeching.

Thousands of Americans and tons of people at DU have called for the same thing.

[geek tragedy]

82. Repeal and replace means repeal and nothing else.

It means the same thing when Nader says it as it did when Rick Santorum said it.

[pangaia]

112. OK.

[NoOneMan]

132. So does Nader == Santorum?

And what does this thread have to do with anal?

[geek tragedy]

134. Nader and Santorum both want to screw everyone who's being helped by

the ACA.

[NoOneMan]

136. I thought Santorum (and now Nader) was the discharge after the screwing

And I'm not sure how that relates to the ACA. You don't need either to be screwed by a high deductible and shitty copay outlined in a super keen, menschen Bronze plan.

[dsc]

146. number 14 is wrong

health care costs are rising, but at about the rate of inflation, and at the slowest rate since the 1990's. That isn't skyrocketing.

[Fumesucker]

8. This should prove amusing

[Autumn]

10. These threads always are, here, share my couch

[LuvNewcastle]

14. Gore/ Nader 2016

[Fumesucker]

15. Lieberman/Nader 2016

Joementum At Any Speed!

[LuvNewcastle]

16. Beautiful.

[pangaia]

44. :>))))))))))))))))))))))))

[otherone]

11. Nader!

Oh no!

[Autumn]

12. It all sounds good to me, of course I'm not Canadian so I only get to buy insurance.

insurance is not health care.

[truedelphi]

32. Isn't the ACA health care - if enough people say so

Long enough?

All I know is that living in California, I am given till March 31st to buy into the ACA. And for the last two weeks, the recording at "California Covered" has told me I am going to have a half hour wait in order to apply.

This tells me a lot - for instance, once insured under the ACA, I am probably going to have quite a wait to see a doctor, or get a procedure. The ACA is attempting to insure over 6 million uninsured Californians, and even if we all get on, who the heck is going to provide the services? The ACA isn't upping the number of medical providers in the state. It is just allowing for Big Insurers to have a whole lot more people paying premiums.

[Autumn]

34. Health insurance is not health care.

I had an insurance that I could afford with high deductibles and co pays. I couldn't afford to use it. I dropped it a couple of years ago.I haven't signed up yet through the ACA, I figured I can wait till the glitches are out to see what I can get. My Dr has been good at taking cash and giving me a discount the past few years and I have come out ahead. knock on wood.

[truedelphi]

123. Totally agree. Sorry if I made the point in a confusing

Manner.

And I too am going to wait till the glitches are out.

[WinkyDink]

13. Of course, such thoughts occurred to Nader only under a Democratic Administration.

[MisterP]

45. just like with Snowden!

[DisgustipatedinCA]

68. Snowden never had boxes in his garage during the Bush administration.

Coincidence? I don't think so.

[MisterP]

122. and I once saw a picture of a ballerino who looked like Nader!

(or Derrida)

[eqfan592]

50. Pretty sure Nader has always been a vocal supporter of a single payer system. nt

[NaturalHigh]

54. I'm not an expert on Nader...

but from what I know of him, I would imagine that he has been criticizing the American healthcare system since long before Obama took office.

[indepat]

17. The bidness of 'murika is bidness. Bidness must be free from governmental regulation and oversight

in 'murika so it can maximize its profit and despoil the environment unfettered by governmental interference. Since the purpose of bidness is profit and to maximize profit for bidness (the insurance companies, for profit hospitals, et al), insurance costs must be high and include high deductibles and co-pays and exclude those with a previous condition and: those who can't afford this typical arrangement often will be left to die needlessly. This is emblematic of the fu*ked-up right-wing society 'murika has evolved into with the electorate figuratively jumping through their collective assholes to maintain the status quo by electing and re-electing the type of bastids who will stay the course.

[LuvNewcastle]

22. RW ideology in a nutshell:

Why should the government provide a beneficial program when someone can do the same thing and profit from it?

What good is anything if someone isn't making money from providing it?

[jtuck004]

29. That's what the insurance companies lobbyists that wrote their provisions in the ACA said...n/t

[NaturalHigh]

19. If Nader was to write that "water is good"...

people on here would shit sideways and go blind. It's some of the most irrational hatred I've ever seen.

[pangaia]

47. I had a colonoscopy last week.

Don't joke about shitting sideways.

[NaturalHigh]

49. I've never had the "pleasure."

[pangaia]

55. Actually, its not bad at all you just......

well.. never mind...

[NaturalHigh]

57. I don't even want to think where you were going with that thought.

[pangaia]

59. Me neither.

[QC]

62. Let's hope they don't find out Nader breathes air.

On second thought.....

[NaturalHigh]

64. The bastard probably drives a car with airbags too.

[QC]

65. He's a big ole meanie!!!

[niyad]

20. still waiting for someone to point out the inaccuracies in this list.

[Fumesucker]

24. Their greatest hits compilation..

[KoKo]

26. I don't understand..there are many VOCAL Canadian DU'ers here. I'd like to

know about how "their system" is different from ACA. They are here on DU and usually vocal about most issues...but, not so much our new ACA.

Hopefully they will show up and do a comparison of the Two Plans and how they differ.

[Autumn]

30. Now koKo, some of them are very vocal on our "health care"

[KoKo]

33. There is a Host of this Group who is very vocal and I'd hoped that He/She

would show up. Because they have such strong opinions ...that I would have thought a DEBATE on Canadian vs. ACA would be a wonderful opportunity to discuss the differences in the ACA Program here on DU.

Many of us know there are Canadians who are Hosts of our Forums who are very "Vocal" on issues.. So, I thought this was an excellent opportunity for them to Compare what Their Coverage is compared to ACA. And, certainly Nader's 21 should/would be open for our DU Canadians to do a Great DU DEBATE.

Many of us DU'ers are confused.

[LuvNewcastle]

37. I know what you mean, KoKo. Seems like the perfect opportunity to compare the two.

[KoKo]

69. Only one Canadian (declared) posting...and we know there are others...

maybe they are taking off for the Holidays?

[LuvNewcastle]

94. But Canada's Thanksgiving is in October, isn't it?

Maybe Canadian DUers celebrate our Thanksgiving, too. Some of them seem to have an inordinate amount of interest in all things American.

[NoOneMan]

126. I'll bite

Im Canadian-ish. What do you want to know? ACA is shit. I'd riot if they forced it on us. Do you really not understand the difference?

[Doctor_J]

124. Did you not read the OP? It lists 21 stark differences

And there is not a single one of them that can even be contested by the most devoted BOGer.

[Number23]

128. Fear not! The source of this call out... er, I mean thread took the bait

Post #56.

Let the anti-Canada, anti-world frothing continue!

[Monk06]

27. Number 2 and 21 are not strictly accurate.

First nobody is automatically covered at birth. Your family is covered and you with it at birth but your family has to ad you to their plan when you are born. Small detail.

As for 21, although there is a magnetic strip on your medical card it is never used. Hospitals and GPs type your personal id number into their computers and you never have to show your card again. Mine is decaying in my wallet. Every four years or so I check to see make sure I haven't lost it. Everything else in the article is accurate as far as I know.

[madrchsod]

52. number 21

i haven't used my medicare card in months. the only time i have used it was at a new doctor. any other time i just sign my name on the digital pad.

[Monk06]

99. 57,375 posts !!! Respecto !!!!!

[laundry_queen]

91. yeah, the infant is usually covered under the mother's plan

for a few months anyway. I can't remember but I think generally the hospital will give you the application or you get it in the mail - a packet where you register the birth, order the birth certificate and add the child to the provincial health care plan.

Oh, and Alberta doesn't have magnetic strips. Just a piece of paper with your AHC number on it. Like you said, you hardly ever use it unless you go to a new doctor's. As long as you use the same hospital and doctor's office you can go a pretty long time without pulling out that card.

[NoOneMan]

127. I lost my card

They'll look you up by id. Its not biggie

[NoOneMan]

129. Why are you assuming there are significant inaccuracies

[niyad]

141. I didn't think I would have to explain it to anyone. as has been pointed out elsewhere in this

thread, the anti-nader force is strong. waiting for them to step up and show where he is wrong, if they can.

[ProSense]

28. False

Number 3:
In Canada, the tax payments to fund the health care system are progressive – the lowest 20 percent pays 6 percent of income into the system while the highest 20 percent pays 8 percent.

In the United States, under Obamacare, the poor pay a larger share of their income for health care than the affluent.

The lowest 26 percent (those earning less than $15,000) are eligible for Medicaid.

Still, it figures this asshole would lead with RW BS: "Repeal Obamacare and replace"

Yeah, Boehner will get right on that.

Also, there is a new tax on the high-income earners and the wealthy.

Reported when the law passed in 2010:

A big chunk of the money to pay for the bill comes from lifting payroll taxes on households making more than $250,000. On average, the annual tax bill for households making more than $1 million a year will rise by $46,000 in 2013, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research group. Another major piece of financing would cut Medicare subsidies for private insurers, ultimately affecting their executives and shareholders.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/business/24leonhardt.html

Krugman in 2011:

<...>

What would real action on health look like? Well, it might include things like giving an independent commission the power to ensure that Medicare only pays for procedures with real medical value; rewarding health care providers for delivering quality care rather than simply paying a fixed sum for every procedure; limiting the tax deductibility of private insurance plans; and so on.

And what do these things have in common? They’re all in last year’s health reform bill.

That’s why I say that Mr. Obama gets too little credit. He has done more to rein in long-run deficits than any previous president. And if his opponents were serious about those deficits, they’d be backing his actions and calling for more; instead, they’ve been screaming about death panels.

Now, even if we manage to rein in health costs, we’ll still have a long-run deficit problem — a fundamental gap between the government’s spending and the amount it collects in taxes. So what should be done?

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/18/opinion/18krugman.html

It's the law, 2013:

Net Investment Income Tax

A new Net Investment Income Tax goes into effect starting in 2013. The 3.8 percent Net Investment Income Tax applies to individuals, estates and trusts that have certain investment income above certain threshold amounts. The IRS and the Treasury Department have issued proposed regulations on the Net Investment Income Tax. Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail or hand delivered to the IRS. For additional information on the Net Investment Income Tax, see our questions and answers.

Additional Medicare Tax

A new Additional Medicare Tax goes into effect starting in 2013. The 0.9 percent Additional Medicare Tax applies to an individual’s wages, Railroad Retirement Tax Act compensation, and self-employment income that exceeds a threshold amount based on the individual’s filing status. The threshold amounts are $250,000 for married taxpayers who file jointly, $125,000 for married taxpayers who file separately, and $200,000 for all other taxpayers. An employer is responsible for withholding the Additional Medicare Tax from wages or compensation it pays to an employee in excess of $200,000 in a calendar year. The IRS and the Department of the Treasury have issued proposed regulations on the Additional Medicare Tax. Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail or hand delivered to the IRS. For additional information on the Additional Medicare Tax, see our questions and answers.

http://www.irs.gov/uac/Affordable-Care-Act-Tax-Provisions

[Logical]

40. LOL, "this asshole" wants single payer. Count me in. and about 75% of posters here! n-t

[ProSense]

41. Really? Well,

"LOL, "this asshole" wants single payer. Count me in. and about 75% of posters here!"

...so do I and a lot of other rational people, but only an asshole would be advocating "repeal."

[pangaia]

51. I don't agree that Nader is aligning himself with RW assholes at all.

Perhaps he used the wrong phrase.
Maybe .. "Replace the ACA with single payer'
Or just 'America needs single payer for all' would have been better.

[TexasBushwhacker]

66. Medicaid eligibility

"The lowest 26 percent (those earning less than $15,000) are eligible for Medicaid."

If you live in a state with a horse's ass for a governor, like Texas or Florida, Medicaid eligibility isn't being expanded.

[ProSense]

107. Similar

"If you live in a state with a horse's ass for a governor, like Texas or Florida, Medicaid eligibility isn't being expanded."

...to when Medicaid was first enacted, there were holdouts.

<...>

Over time, however, the lure of federal dollars proved strong enough to win over resistant states. Eleven joined the program in 1967. Another wave of eight, largely Southern states came on board in 1970. Arizona proved the last holdout, not joining Medicaid until 1982.

- more -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/09/six-governors-say-they-will-opt-out-of-medicaid-how-long-will-they-hold-out/

They will eventually cave. Opposing Medicaid is a political loser.

Florida in secret talks to accept funding for Medicaid from Affordable Care Act
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/21/florida-secret-medicaid-talks-healthcare-expansion

The next conservative litmus test: Opposition to Medicaid expansion
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024066044

[TexasBushwhacker]

145. Good to know

Considering that Texas is a bit of a donor state, receiving fewer federal dollars than it contributes, it seems only sensible to get as many of those dollars back as possible.

[Bluenorthwest]

103. Medicaid expansion is doing great things in Democratic States, but not in the States of the

Republicans and 'Blue Dogs' who refused to expand. That is a huge wrong, millions suffering. In addition, those whose income is low enough to get Medicaid in a Blue State are unable to use the exchanges to buy any sort of plan at all, they are excluded entirely.
Everyone in. No one out. That's what Americans want.

[ProSense]

106. What?

"In addition, those whose income is low enough to get Medicaid in a Blue State are unable to use the exchanges to buy any sort of plan at all, they are excluded entirely. "

That makes no sense.

[NoOneMan]

130. "the poor pay a larger share of their income for health care than the affluent"

This is true by most broad measures in the US, minus those that qualify for Medicaid. Those whose income become arbitrarily close to infinity pay a minuscule, negligible share of their income for health care. You cannot possibly think that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet pay a percentage of their income for care that is even close to the average American.

[DrDan]

35. we are frequent travelers to Canada - the latest trip a little over a month ago

and we frequently ask Canadians about their healthcare coverage.

We have yet to meet anyone who would trade their coverage for ours - regardless of what sean Hannity says. That also applies to Sweden.

[Logical]

39. Same with me, I ask a lot also. They love it. And how many want Aetna up there to replace....

there government system? NONE!

[pangaia]

53. An Norway, and Denmark, and Finland, and the UK

and Germany, and Belgium and The Netherlands, and Luxumbourg, and France, and Spain and Portugal?, and Austria, and Switzerland.......and.............and.........and......

[rug]

36. I can't wait to hear from Sid.

[Dragonfli]

76. He prefers for profit insurance over his health care (judging by his posts) with only one caveat,

That all enemas are covered with only a small co-pay.

[ErikJ]

38. One Canadian tourist practically shouted to me "Obamacare is NEVER going to work!"

Last week, I asked him like I do a lot of Canadian tourists how he liked their healthcare system. He said "LOVE IT!" then immediately loudly said "Obamacare is NEVER going to work!" I think I sheepishly said something like 'yeah you might be right its too complex'. Then I think I said that lots of Republicans say all the Canadians come down to the US for their healthcare which he answered, "LIES!"

[joelz]

42. Mr. Nader is right I came to Canada in 72 and have had two children born here

a couple operations for skin cancer and a few more things like annual physicals, shots etc. cost nothing my brother in Philadelphia not so lucky he has tons of medical bills and really no way of paying them off,it strikes me as barbaric to let private insurance companies make a profit on health care they produce nothing of value but make a lot of money reminds me of ticks and fleas

[madrchsod]

48. this was discussed here several years ago about the canadian system

if i remember correctly the discussion was about a canadian citizen could`t get a special treatment in canada. a hospital in the usa had the specialized doctors for the problem. the canadian system pays the hospital bills and such to the american hospitals and doctors.

i doubt medicare does this or does american insurance companies.

[laundry_queen]

72. Also

if an American hospital is significantly closer than a Canadian hospital, then the provincial health care plan will pay for you to go to the American hospital. My grandparents lived 5 min away from the US border and their hospital that they went to was on the other side of the border since the closest Canadian hospital was an hour away. Everything was paid for them when they went (although they stopped going there and started driving an hour away, since they found the care subpar, go figure.)

[KoKo]

74. I remember in the 80's during Reagan there were News Stories about

Canadians coming here to US for procedures their Health Insurance wouldn't allow. There were "Waiting Lists" and stuff reported about how awful their care was that they had to come to the USA for treatment.

Yet...I wonder now if that wasn't just typical "Media Disinformation" from the Reagan Crowd that did such terrible damage that we are still living with it to this day!

So...whatever was going on with those reports...it did seem to die down after Reagan left Office...so assume it was just his Media Spin and the Think Tanks doing what they do MORE OF these days.

[madrchsod]

137. thanks for the info.

[SidDithers]

56. Number 8 and Number 14 are false...nt

Sid

[eqfan592]

58. Could you elaborate please? nt

[QC]

92. ...

[SidDithers]

108. Cost is not controlled at 10%...

Nader makes it sound like Health Care spending in Canada is capped at 10%. It isn't:

The proportion of Canada’s gross domestic product (GDP) spent on health care will reach 11.6% this year—down from 11.7% in 2011 and the all-time high of 11.9% in 2010.

http://www.cihi.ca/CIHI-ext-portal/internet/EN/document/spending+and+health+workforce/spending/release_30oct12


The Ontario Health Premium is, in effect, a co-pay. There are also small co-pay charges for many things my doctor does.

Sid

[eqfan592]

110. Gotcha, thanks. nt

[NoOneMan]

135. I've never seen the OHP before

But I wouldn't call it a copay in the traditional sense that Americans known them as, being that copays in the US are tied to health costs, and thereby, are used in the to self-rationing when facing costly procedures. This premium is actually income dependent, and seems to be much more similar to a tax. It does not seem to be tied to the actual health care delivery at all.

The structure is absolutely terrible. Someone making 200K only pays two times as much as those making 38K?

I pay a flat ~$1600 in premiums. I didn't realize those OHP rates were annual. Look, don't tell an American that has to pay 30% on a few thousand dollars of surgery, after meeting a few thousand dollar premium that your ~$400 a year premium (or whatever based on income) is a copay too. Seriously? Are you fucking kidding me?

That's not a copay.

There are also small co-pay charges for many things my doctor does

Like what? Isn't that against the Canada Health Act? A doctor should not be able to bill you for any necessary medical procedure covered under your provincial plan.

[locdlib]

60. i got into a conversation with a canadian a couple of weeks ago. that person told me that if a

person needs a knee replacement surgery they have to wait several months before getting it. the person that I was speaking with lives in Ontario. my husband and I went to montreal in September and while we were taking tour, the conductor was giving some general information about the healthcare system in Canada. the tour conductor seemed to be very happy with the Canadian healthcare system. I really do wish some Canadians would weigh in on this. and it is true that health insurance is not health care. really, in order for the system to work as a whole, the entire system needs an overhaul. single payer would be fantastic and a great way to start. how healthcare is administered is a whole other issue that needs to be addressed.

[laundry_queen]

70. The knee replacement thing is variable.

Last edited Mon Nov 25, 2013, 02:26 AM - Edit history (1)

Same with hip replacement. It varies from province to province, from city to city. My xFIL had a double knee replacement (well, one at a time, but close together). My xMIL will tell you he waited for years. She's mistaken. Some people don't understand that when the doctor says, "You may need a knee replacement someday/soon/whatever" doesn't mean you automatically go on the list. It means you might need one sometime in the future and you need to go back to your doctor. Then your doctor has to refer you to a specialist. My xFIL never followed up, never told any other doctors about his knee pain. Anyhow, finally when they moved, my xFIL told his doctor he was still in pain and his doctor asked him why he didn't say anything sooner? He had a new knee 3 weeks later. His second replacement was done as soon as his first knee was healed up, 3 months after the first one. A lot of the "I had to wait forever" stories are people who aren't clear with their doctor about their needs and just assume the doctor is going to take care of getting them on the list asap. There are a few steps that have to be followed first (as mentioned, x-rays, MRIs, referrals...) I think many Canadians are not proactive with their health care, because, unlike Americans, they don't usually have to advocate for themselves, the doctor does it for them. It can make for lazy patients, ime.

My dad had a hip replacement and he could've gotten in sooner than he did - he had to wait a few months longer than normal because he wanted a new technique for younger people who still play sports and only one surgeon in the province performed that surgery at the time. He could've had his new hip in 6 weeks if he stayed with the older method. It's been 6 years since his hip replacement and he's thrilled he waited the extra time because he got the surgery that allows him to continue with his sports. There are now a few surgeons that perform the surgery and the wait list is significantly shorter.

For the record, I know dozens of people who have had surgeries because of old sports injuries. None of these people were in regular pain because of their issues - they just wanted something fixed so they could continue with sports and keep up their level of play. My own brother had a shoulder surgery due to a lot of hockey and baseball injuries, and then recently had a second surgery because he wants to continue to play hockey without worrying about injuring his shoulder. Day to day his shoulder is fine. He just wanted to keep playing sports. So he had a second surgery. All covered under our health care. So there may be some waiting for those types of surgeries, because there are tons of people who want them, and because there are few surgeons that perform them, PLUS, those injuries generally don't affect day-to-day functionality, so I personally don't see the big deal of waiting for those types of surgeries.

[Humanist_Activist]

116. My grandma waited about 6 months to get knee replacement surgery, and that's in the US...

when you require a specialist procedure for a non life threatening condition, expect a wait, regardless of where you are.

[JBoy]

63. Several inaccuracies, to varying degrees:

Tackling them in the order presented, here's what jumps out at me:

#16 - Depending on the province, some funding comes from monthly fees. Full time employees will typically have these paid by their employer, though it would be a taxable benefit. If you're self-employed, you're mandated to pay that fee (unless you fall below an income threshold). Fees are not outrageous, something like $40/mo for individual, $80 for a family.

#14 - Don't know where they get the notion that costs are controlled. We're suffering from escalating health care costs, like every developed nation. I suppose costs are controlled by limiting services. You can't just walk into a hospital and expect a quick MRI. Elective surgeries can have significant wait times.

#13 - Nobody will go bankrupt due to injury or illness in the short term, but medication is often not covered. If you need expensive medication, you could suffer severe financial hardship, until you get so poor that you get your medication covered that way.

#8 - Even the better employer extended health plans, which provide coverage for medication, will typically have a deductible or copay. And note - dental, other than "medically necessary" services, are not part of Canada's health care system. Employers will often provide that coverage, typically with a copay of say, 20%. Without employer coverage you're on your own. Get a cavity? Well, if it gets real bad and they need to yank it out in a hospital, then you'll get that covered by the government. Preventive dental care is not covered.

#3 - I don't know where they get this info from, or what it means. To the extent that funding the system comes from general revenue, and the fact we have a progressive income tax system, then funding the system is progressive. The percentages don't look right to me. The lowest income people would pay no income tax, and get credits to offset some of the sales taxes they pay. Higher income people's tax rates would be well over 8%. I'd need to see the math on how they come up with those figures.

#2 - I'm sure they're saying this metaphorically. They don't "give you a card when you're born", like "here's your card, kid".

[KoKo]

67. Thanks...was looking for discussion from those who live in Canada...

to do the comparison.

I don't recall a discussion of Canadian vs. ACA here on DU...EVER.

Hopefully other Canadians will join in on the differences and how we can improve.

[laundry_queen]

71. re: What you said about #8

Some provinces (I'm in Alberta) will cover children's eye exams. Also, if you are under a certain income, your children's basic dental and prescriptions will be covered. I was in BC and I know they do the same for eye exams, but not sure about the low-income extended coverage for kids, since I was never low income in BC.

[laundry_queen]

73. Fairly accurate.

Most of the issues with the list have been discussed. For me, the biggest one is that dental, drugs and eye care is not covered (unless you are a low income child). You need secondary insurance for those things, and that secondary insurance functions exactly like the crappy insurance in the US. Right after I split with my ex there was about a year I had no coverage. I tried to get coverage and none of them would cover my asthma or GERD meds because everything was pre-existing. So I didn't get coverage. I have it now through my school, but it will lapse next term when I go part time. It's a hardship for me, currently, as a student and a single mom. Also, I have heard of people going bankrupt, but don't know of anyone, KWIM? When you add up expensive drugs and travel and parking costs I can see how expensive it gets. If I, or my children, ended up with a serious illness right now, the small additional costs would probably bankrupt me.

For the record, I'm for those things being covered as well. I've spent literally thousands on my kids' teeth because 3 of 4 were born with enamel defects and their dad was self-employed at the time. 4 dental surgeries for 3 kids before they were 3 years old. At one point, I was paying our dentist in installments, but when we moved the new dentist refused to do installments. It was humiliating. We got a lot of "well, brush your kids' teeth and this wouldn't happen" and other demeaning comments (yes we switched dentists, but still couldn't find a place that did installments). Thankfully they are older now and their adult teeth came in normally.

So, I'm very thrilled with our system, I just wish it covered more. I have no complaints about the things it does cover.

[KoKo]

75. Thanks for your experience on this. I still haven't found US Plan for Dental

even without the ACA which I think doesn't offer Dental (unless in the Platinum Plan) and none of my Private Insurance that I could afford after being downsided from Big Corp where we had "some Dental help" have offered it either.

Dental is important and as folks get older and can afford little both eye and hearing aid care is important for quality of life. I hear there are some on Medicare that can get that covered but I think it's only with one of the Medicare Advantage Plans that not all can afford.

Thanks for your info!

[idwiyo]

77. I love NHS and will happily pay more to make sure everyone is covered. Including non-citizens.

I don't give a fuck if they are here illegally. Access to free Healthcare is a part of Universal Human rights for me.

[quakerboy]

78. One Canadian input

my Canadian wife says that he is mostly correct, except that practically speaking repeal will poison the well, and there will be no replacement for a minimum of 40 years. We should have had universal coverage, but thats not what happened. At this point, Repair and Improve is our slogan. Repeal should not be anywhere in the lingo of any responsible person. Let the one state who is doing universal care under Obamacare prove its model and then start watching the states join the bandwagon.

[Bluenorthwest]

105. Several other States will join Vermont, but ACA does not allow Vermont or any State to create

single payer until 2017. First, they have to spend on an exchange and do a few years under the ACA terms. My State of Oregon would have gone ahead with single payer if we had been allowed to, but we can't until 2017. California is also eager to do so and they are large enough to make a strong impression. But not until 2017. That's the law. A better model can not be offered until then.
'Should have but that's not what happened' is far too kind to the conservatives in our Party and the other one that made damn sure that's not what happened. This was not an act of nature, but of specific people. Max Bauchus says Oregon can't have what Oregon wants until 2017. So that's how it is.

[quakerboy]

143. Something is better than nothing. Especially if the future promises improvement

Here in Oregon, I will have health care for the first time since my parents coverage stopped covering me. Thats nothing to scoff at.

We should have gone straight to a single payer system, medicare for all. But thats not what happened. We are where we are, and have to proceed from here.

I knew some here in Oregon were interested in single payer. Has our legislature done anything to actually put us on the path og doing that in 2017?

My understanding was that Vermont was planning to have their single payer system go live in 2015, not 2017. Feel free to correct me.

[seabeyond]

79. how long has canada been at it? ACA hasnt even officially started yet and he is comparing

at this point. beyond ridiculous. does ACA have a long way to go? you betcha. but seems like kinda stupid to think that from the start it could possibly be comparable.

[polly7]

80. All I have to say, is that our national system didn't come about overnight either,

Last edited Sun Nov 24, 2013, 11:59 AM - Edit history (4)

and the ACA seems to be a great start. Even if it goes no further, it's still - imo, and just from what I've read here - far better than what was in place before it. I agree with most of his points on our actual HC system, but think he's being devious trying to make people think it happened all at once here, and was instantly a success for everyone. There were many bumps in the road ... it's still a work in progress and always will be.

The Fight for Medicare
Saskatchewan faces a bitter doctors' strike over Canada's first universal health care plan

http://www.cbc.ca/history/EPISCONTENTSE1EP15CH2PA4LE.html

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS
The Birth of Medicare
From Saskatchewan’s breakthrough to Canada‑wide coverage
LORNE BROWN AND DOUG TAYLOR | July 3rd 2012

http://canadiandimension.com/articles/4795/ - This article really illustrates all the players and their methods in the fight against Medicare both in Saskatchewan and all of Canada.

(fixed broken links)

[Warren DeMontague]

83. Number 22: Because of the idiot who ran on the Green Ticket in 2000 and gave us 8 years

Of President Numbnuts, instead of Gore.

[WowSeriously]

88. Ignoring the fact the Gore actually won Florida but failed to call for a statewide recount

Is entirely on Al Gore. So was Al Gore's choice of Joe Lieberman, a Senator few Progressives would admire. And so was Al Gore's strategy to run away from a President with a 65% approval rating.

The facts are that there were many reasons Al Gore lost, and none of them included Ralph Nader.

[Warren DeMontague]

89. Correct on all points except one word.

"none of them included Ralph Nader" is patently untrue. ONE of them was Ralph Nader. He wasn't the only one, but he was one of them.

Yet he still could have salvaged his reputation and argued he was acting from pure integrity, if he hadn't gone on to run again in 2004, letting Republicans run his state organizations and taking money from big Right Wing Donors, knowing full well what that meant for John Kerry.

[WowSeriously]

114. The reason I don't include Nader as one of the reasons Al Gore lost

Is because in a democracy you accept that others may run as well. Blaming Nader for taking votes away from Gore is like blaming Bush for taking votes away from Gore.

I confess it may be a somewhat pollyannic position.

[eridani]

90. Nader is wrong about repeal. ACA provides for state single payer in 2017

Anyone who followed the ACA debates in 2009-2010 should realize that national single payer isn't possible. We have to have a few states set a good example, and the rest will fall like dominoes.

[Bluenorthwest]

104. So then why demand that States spend millions during the interim? Why not let us have single

payer in States now? The delay is costly and absurd. It feels like paying a ransom to the Insurance Industry.
We had to beg and plead to get permission to be more than mediocre in 2017, the delay is unethical.

[Raine1967]

111. This article from 2009 gives a good explanation:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/01/26/090126fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=all

The entire article is worth the read. This part in particular sort of explains why waiting until 2017 makes sense.

Yes, American health care is an appallingly patched-together ship, with rotting timbers, water leaking in, mercenaries on board, and fifteen per cent of the passengers thrown over the rails just to keep it afloat. But hundreds of millions of people depend on it. The system provides more than thirty-five million hospital stays a year, sixty-four million surgical procedures, nine hundred million office visits, three and a half billion prescriptions. It represents a sixth of our economy. There is no dry-docking health care for a few months, or even for an afternoon, while we rebuild it. Grand plans admit no possibility of mistakes or failures, or the chance to learn from them. If we get things wrong, people will die. This doesn’t mean that ambitious reform is beyond us. But we have to start with what we have.

That kind of constraint isn’t unique to the health-care system. A century ago, the modern phone system was built on a structure that came to be called the P.S.T.N., the Public Switched Telephone Network. This automated system connects our phone calls twenty-four hours a day, and over time it has had to be upgraded. But you can’t turn off the phone system and do a reboot. It’s too critical to too many. So engineers have had to add on one patch after another.

The P.S.T.N. is probably the shaggiest, most convoluted system around; it contains tens of millions of lines of software code. Given a chance for a do-over, no self-respecting engineer would create anything remotely like it. Yet this jerry-rigged system has provided us with 911 emergency service, voice mail, instant global connectivity, mobile-phone lines, and the transformation from analog to digital communication. It has also been fantastically reliable, designed to have as little as two hours of total downtime every forty years. As a system that can’t be turned off, the P.S.T.N. may be the ultimate in path-dependence. But that hasn’t prevented dramatic change. The structure may not have undergone revolution; the way it functions has. The P.S.T.N. has made the twenty-first century possible.

[KoKo]

119. The New Yorker article is interesting read now that ACA is finally

being rolled out. I thought it made some good points about implementation of Canadian and Swiss plans. Also, about the Bush Prescription program's implementation (which may have killed people in it's roll out).

Thanks!

[Raine1967]

121. I thought so as well. Knowing how other countries health plans developed

is something I wasn't aware of. It was your OP that got me looking into that aspect KoKo -- so thank YOU!

What the author said, in 2009 became a big part of how the ACA was crafted. Now that I know some history behind other countries and how they got to where they are makes a lot more sense about why the ACA is crafted the way it is.

Have a great Sunday!

[pampango]

93. A diverse, North American nation can be progressive. Thanks, Canada. n/t

[Raine1967]

95. Found this on DU from 2009:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6359874

Count me in among wanting to hear from our Canadian members about this. It's been my understanding that the country's health system as it is didn't happen overnight (that link above seems fairly in-depth and it is a robust discussion)

I would love to see single payer, but I just don't see how it was/is going to happen overnight. I also don't believe that adding the public option would have made getting to single payer any faster. That said, I think we are on our way.

While the ACA doesn't have an outright Public Option, the federal government in mandated by law to support at least 2 insurance plans -- one of them must be nonprofit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/health/us-to-sponsor-health-insurance-plans-nationwide.html?_r=1&

The Obama administration will soon take on a new role as the sponsor of at least two nationwide health insurance plans to be operated under contract with the federal government and offered to consumers in every state. (snip)

These multistate plans were included in President Obama's health care law as a substitute for a pure government-run health insurance program the public option sought by many liberal Democrats and reviled by Republicans. Supporters of the national plans say they will increase competition in state health insurance markets, many of which are dominated by a handful of companies.

The national plans will compete directly with other private insurers and may have some significant advantages, including a federal seal of approval. Premiums and benefits for the multistate insurance plans will be negotiated by the United States Office of Personnel Management, the agency that arranges health benefits for federal employees. (snip)

Under the Affordable Care Act, at least one of the nationwide plans must be offered by a nonprofit entity. Insurance experts see an obvious candidate for that role: the Government Employees Health Association, a nonprofit group that covers more than 900,000 federal employees, retirees and dependents, making it the second-largest plan for federal workers, after the Blue Cross and Blue Shield program.

I would love to know more about the evolution of the Canadian health system. Repeal and replace is not feasible, in my view, but making the law better and moving towards a single payer system would be the way to go.

Raine

[mmonk]

96. No to repeal. Just shift over. I can't afford my grandfathered policy for even one more year.

[CanSocDem]

109. Of course he's right.

Even Democrats are notoriously unable to support legislation that is in their own best interests. Of course, now that the public has their foot in the door, it may be unwise to let the door close even if the medical industry promises to 'just remove the chain'.

Americans are gullible/trusting to a fault and on this issue seem happy to be alive despite their lack of complete access.

And if the public truly wants accessible, universal medical care it doesn't take that long to RAM it through...

The federal government, under Prime Minister John Diefenbaker, finally (after decades of failed Liberal government promises) agreed to fund 50% of hospitalization costs on a province-by-province basis. This made full medicare financially possible for Saskatchewan. And so it was that the Douglas government, in 1961, introduced legislation to implement full medicare in Saskatchewan. In the fall of 1961, Tommy Douglas was called to lead the newly formed New Democratic Party in Parliament. Premier Woodrow Lloyd and Health Minister Allan Blakeney carried on the task of implementing the legislation. The fight with the doctors was on. Following resolution of a bitter 23 day doctors' strike in July 1962, the Saskatchewan NDP/CCF government under Premier Lloyd finally brought in comprehensive medicare for all residents of Saskatchewan.

http://www.dufourlaw.com/ndp/tommy.htm



.

[LWolf]

113. Well that was guaranteed to get a lot of response, lol.

You said the "N" word: "Nader."

It doesn't matter how often he's right, because for way too many, issues aren't the point of anything. Partisan team support always trumps issues. I'm not going to read through this thread; I can predict a bunch of responses without it: some reluctant agreement, some mouth-foaming Nader hate/blame, and a bunch of excuses.

Health care? I'll take Canada's over the ACA any day. Or GB's. Or...any of the other more evolved nations' out there.

[progressoid]

117. What?

No "fuck Nader" posts yet?

[gulliver]

118. There's a one room cabin in a deep, impenetrable forest.

It has a little garden and a stove. It has a root cellar. In the middle of the cabin floor is a rocking chair. It was made for someone to sit in and quietly rock. The rocking chair is there for that person to use every second they aren't working to sustain themselves. They can sit in it, weep quietly, and ask themselves, "What have I done? Oh God, what have I done? How could I have been so stupid? How can I ever undo the damage I caused?"

If Nader had any class or insight, he would be sitting in that chair, not lecturing.

[spanone]

120. repeal and replace...where have i heard that before?

no way this is gonna happen. repeal? maybe...replace? bwahahahahahahahaa

[adieu]

125. I completely agree with Nader

However, I think he should have said, ".... under Obamacare, and DEFINITELY under the previous (non-)solution for Healthcare..."

Because while Obamacare is woefully inept -- it is, after all, a Heritage Foundation proposal -- it is better than the previous situation of no-health care. So he should definitely state that.

And frankly, even the parts of the HF/Obama proposal that are definitely detrimental, the solution is not to retreat back to square one, but fix those parts that are detrimental and leave alone those parts that are not.

[KoKo]

144. "Raine1967" at #111 with the Link from the New Yorker

is a good read on how long it took the Canadian and Swiss systems to get going ...along with Johnson's Medicare and Bush's Prescription Drug Program.

ACA could build on imperfect...but, it will take awhile.

The article was written before the this ACA Rollout and yet it makes alot of sense about what we are seeing.