Today, Obama said the Canadian health care model won't work for us

[Holly_Hobby]

...

Obama also talked about comparisons between the U.S. and Canadian health care systems, saying Canada's government-run health care model won't work in the United States. "We've got to develop a uniquely American approach to this problem," he said.

Opponents of health care legislation in the U.S. House and Senate say it will lead to a single-payer system like the government-run program in Canada, with some warning the Canadian system means restrictions on treatments and long delays.

Obama noted the U.S. system is based on employers providing health insurance for most Americans. Throwing that out would be too radical an overhaul, he said.

However, he said he expects opponents of health care legislation to continue to make what he called the misleading comparison between proposed U.S. legislation and Canada's system.

...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/10/obama.mexico/index.html

Anyone have a clue why not?

[villager]

1. because the insurance companies say so?

:shrug:

[Holly_Hobby]

3. Sad, but true n/t

[movonne]

21. Yes...

[ananda]

2. insanity still rules.

nt

[csziggy]

4. Employer based health insurance is a big part of what is wrong with our system!

Dear President Obama, :wtf:

[DJ13]

5. Corporate influence over even our best politicians is alive and well

I had such high hopes that Obama would be different.

[rollingrock]

6. Obama pulling a Kerry?

he advocated single-payer before he was against it.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE

[PHIMG]

23. Obama paid lip service to it

Why did Obama get the keynote? Wall Street wanted him for 2008. They didn't think Hillary could win or they thought the Clinton brand was too damaged. So the plucked Obama from Obscurity and thrust him on the national stage.

Who gave Obama all the early money he needed to be a credible challenger to Hillary? Wall Street.

He's BY AND FOR WALL STREET - big money power.

A lot of us supported him b/c he was not Hillary and Edwards was not viable but knew he would disappoint.

NOBODY will be treated as a viable candidate by the MSM unless vested power has given their stamp of approval.

Trust me on that. WE need to focus less on the WH and more on the Senate and the House.

[Le Taz Hot]

51. The MSM is merely a tool.

They are not the ones pulling the strings. The reality is, "NOBODY will be treated as a viable candidate by the MAJOR POLITICAL PARTIES unless vested power has given their stamp of approval."

[PHIMG]

64. Yes I agree.

But what I meant was.... when you have a candidate that gets constantly dissed by the MSM (Kucinich, Paul, Perot) that is because they are not controlled by the power elite. By and large Obama got favorable coverage because he's playing for the power elite. Now that he's in office the power elite will use the MSM to beat him into submission if he steps out of line.

[dionysus]

61. yes, it's all a rovian plot.

:eyes:

[PHIMG]

65. Oh god find a more modern way to dismiss me as a conspiracy nut.

You are so 2005.

[dionysus]

67. don't need to.

[defendandprotect]

7. Let's follow the guidelines of systems that ARE working .....MEDICARE FOR ALL --

We don't need to invent anything -- Medicare is ready to go --

simply remove the age limitations from Medicare.

Edited to reply to "why not?" . . . I think corporate-DLC for one is a major reason --

and then there is the treasure chest of money Obama took in from "for profit" health care

industry!!! And that so many Dems have also been BRIBED with!!!

[Holly_Hobby]

9. And appoint a waste and fraud Czar n/t

[defendandprotect]

12. Right, big corporations ripping off Medicare/Medicaid . . .

and after we fine them we should create future penalties for them . . .

for instance if they do $100 million in drug business with Medicaid they should be

assessed a penalty that business based on their past criminal activities.

[elocs]

32. I heard a woman on Bill Moyers a couple of weeks ago suggest

that the age for Medicare could be lowered incrementally to 55, then 45, until everyone is covered and it gives the insurance company time to get out of the health insurance business.

[defendandprotect]

33. Right . . . Bill Clinton wanted to lower it to 57 years old. . . couldn't get it done . ..

yes, that's exactly how I would begin with this "reform" . . .

put ten years onto to it every 6 months or so until we had everyone covered.

[slipslidingaway]

37. That was Dr. Marcia Angell...

Examining the Single Payer Health Care Option: Marcia Angell Testimony
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQNphM6xUsE

[TexasObserver]

8. We need Obama to be a leader, not a mediator.

LBJ would have had this passed already, because LBJ understood you have to force things through sometimes, even if it means kicking the crap out of some of your own party's congressional members.

The president is getting beat by a bunch of minority party goons, mainly because he's too much of a marshmellow.

[bighart]

56. that sums it up well.

Problem is I don't see ANY leaders in DC right now on any issue. It seems it is all about power and making deals under the table. What is leadership? In my mind it is doing the right thing, the thing that will be most beneficial to the maximum number of people long term, REGARDLESS of personal cost or short term consequences. When was the last time you saw ANY politician do that?

[alc]

10. we can't limit pharma for 10 years

And possibly deals with other groups we don't know about. (congress disagrees but who knows?) If we are only working on insurance and not healthcare then Canada's system won't work.

[Solly Mack]

11. What does "a uniquely American approach" mean exactly?

I watched his speech earlier.

[defendandprotect]

13. It's means corporate-DLC and corporations are making deals with White House . . .

[jody]

16. Bingo ! n/t

[City Lights]

25. It means keeping the insurance companies profitable.

:puke:

[Evoman]

35. It means you will have to work three jobs to afford it.

Ha!

[JVS]

45. Fucked up beyond all comprehension

[PVnRT]

52. One wear someone can profit at the expense of someone else

AMERICA FUCK YEAH

[Solly Mack]

55. Thank you all for your answers!

:D

lolol

[Raineyb]

57. The last few decades it seems to mean corporatist.

Not for nothing, but why does everything have to be "uniquely American?" There are other countries that do things better than we do why the hell can't we adopt these methods for ourselves? This "uniquely American" bullshit always ends up being half assed and backward. This American way or the highway rhetoric is literally killing us and we've got people too stupid to realize it.

:grr:

[Solly Mack]

58. That's what gets me about using "uniquely American"

"Not for nothing, but why does everything have to be "uniquely American?" There are other countries that do things better than we do why the hell can't we adopt these methods for ourselves?...This American way or the highway rhetoric is literally killing us and we've got people too stupid to realize it."


I agree. Substance, not a slogan. If we're a nation of hype then we're a product, a brand & where do the needs of the people really fit into that?

I know the phrase is rhetoric, and I know it's code for "We're not trying to emulate europe or canada" - but like you said, why not? If it works, it works.

All the flag waving and the shouting of "We're #1" isn't going to make America a better country. It doesn't improve lives. It doesn't create jobs. It doesn't help people in any meaningful way. It's just feel-good nothingness. 2 minutes of feel-good flag waving isn't all that different from 2 minutes of hate.

[Raineyb]

59. It certainly seems to be the way things are sold.

And that's part of the problem. Everything seems to be broken down into terms of business. This is our government we're talking about and what our government is supposed to do for us. Not everything is a commercial venture.

Have you noticed that we're consumers but not citizens? (Unless we're talking about immigration) The Republicans (and frankly the bloody DLC) talk about freedom what they mean is the freedom to spend your money on some stupid bauble. The idea of freedom to move about, to work in the field you want, to not be tied down to a job you hate because you might not be able to get insurance. This they don't talk about. But they harp on the freedom to choose insurance plans and doctors when the truth is most of us don't have much choice in any of these things. You choose a doctor because they take your insurance and if you change jobs and have to change insurance you may have no choice but to change your doctor. And the plan you have (if you have insurance) is one that your employer chose for you. At best you have a choice in a list but it's not really a choice is it? If you are happy with your insurance and your employer decides not to continue with that company, you're changing your plan. Whose choice is this again? So for all the talk about freedom we don't have much of it going on where it counts do we? I'd gladly give up having a million different brands of bloody toothpaste to choose from if I didn't have to worry about being bankrupted if I get sick.

There's a lot of talk about freedom but not where it actually counts.

[Solly Mack]

62. Your post reminded me how much I miss George Carlin.

"So for all the talk about freedom we don't have much of it going on where it counts do we? I'd gladly give up having a million different brands of bloody toothpaste to choose from if I didn't have to worry about being bankrupted if I get sick."

YES!!

[Raineyb]

63. Aww shucks That's quite a complement.

:blush:

[Posteritatis]

66. Throwing a bone to exceptionalists who believe the other 95% has nothing to offer (nt)

[WCGreen]

14. In Obama's defense

changing overnight from an insurance based system to a government run single-payer system would be fairly traumatic to the millions of people who work in the Insurance industry.

Having said that, I truly believe a single-payer system is viable if arrived at through a step by step process.

The first step should be a single payer system for those who are not currently in the system. That would expand Medicare. But, the people who are going to join the expanded medicare system would have to pay on sliding scale monthly payment based on income. Of course the top would cap off at some point.

Doing this would not effect the insurance companies at this moment because they are not going to get these people in their system due to cost.

[EFerrari]

22. The truth isn't that he's protecting those workers.

Ask the auto workers.

[defendandprotect]

34. Why are you worried about insurance companies . . . ???

That's capitalism . . . as for workers, presume many of them would be picked up

by the new medical set up.

Evidently, expanding Medicare to all would create 2.3 million new jobs!

[WCGreen]

42. It has to be a consideration when the country is hemorrhaging hundreds

of thousands of jobs each month...

But that's okay, I guess.

[defendandprotect]

44. Medicare for all would CREATE 2.3 MILLION jobs . ..

but you can ignore that a second time, I guess.

:evilgrin:

[PVnRT]

53. Why?

People who lose their jobs at health insurance companies would simply get the chance to work for the government health service. The jobs argument just makes no sense.

[jody]

15. It's the Change uninsured people have Hoped for. :sarcasm:

[Cleita]

17. That's because he's been convinced by the DLCers in his administration

that cutting out the insurance industry would make a sixth of our economy collapse. I really wish he would listen to some real economists for a change.

[iamtechus]

18. "employers providing health insurance for most Americans"

It is un-american to grant employers that kind of influence over the lives of employees and their dependants.

[JVS]

46. It's also stupid, considering that long term employment is a thing of the past.

Binding healthcare to a job makes job changes and unemployment real big problems, and since we have moved toward the trend of many short term jobs rather than one long term employer the current employment norms make us more vulnerable to such problems. It might have worked 55 years ago, but it doesn't now.

[PHIMG]

19. Paying twice per capita as any other country and getting less = Uniquely American

If Obama really wanted to fix health care he'd have Holder indict the Insurers on some federal racketeering charges (they are so criminal it shouldn't be hard) and use this as an excuse to push Single Payer thru.

[dysfunctional press]

20. with "us" being the american oligarchy, NOT the people.

[slipslidingaway]

24. White House contact page, write and call...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/CONTACT/

[Echo In Light]

26. "uniquely American approach to this problem" = Profits Over People

[villager]

30. he could've said "a psychotically American approach," as well...

n/t

[heppcatt]

27. I wonder if anyone will mention on TV that Canada copied our Medicare and even used the same name?

[PHIMG]

28. Taiwan also did the same thing in 1995!

They went from 57% coverage to 97% without spending any more than they did when only 57% had coverage.

This is THE REASON why Single Payer is the health care reform that dare not be debated by Congress.

It's the only truly universal system that is AFFORDABLE.

The best of a private system (competition among providers) with the administrative cost savings that result from having only one insurer.

MEDICARE FOR ALL!

[kevinbgoode]

39. . . .and you can bet it will never be mentioned on television

the only thing we are going to hear about is how awful everyone else's system is and how our profiteering corporate-driven dictated "insurance" is the envy of the world.

[Johonny]

29. Because Americans like sound bites like this

[GCP]

31. I'm not voting for him in 2012 if he drops this ball

I've never been so disappointed in a politician, and I'm a life-long Dem.

[kevinbgoode]

41. ditto

He seems more committed to the GOP than to anyone who worked or believed in his candidacy. We need to find a primary candidate to run against him.

[leftstreet]

48. I seriously doubt he'll run in 2012 n/t

[scheming daemons]

54. Bwahahahahaha!

Wanna put money on your prediction?

[Karmadillo]

36. Maybe Big Pharma told him he had to say that.

nt

[kevinbgoode]

38. yes..throwing out the profiteering "middleman" would be too hard. . .

because we all know that profiting from illness is a hallmark of American ideals. Employers don't pay for health care - they pay "taxes" to private insurance entities who govern every aspect of the patient/doctor relationship.

[bluethruandthru]

40. He never says why!

He needs to explain why clinging to employer based health care is good. It's been devastating to businesses...it holds employees hostage and employers take advantage of that...if forces everyone to work a full time job or be without healthcare...and it allows employers to make all employees "part time" in order to avoid having to provide benefits. THe entire system sucks. I want Obama to explain why he thinks it's so great.

[Skittles]

49. but that's the beauty of Obama

you ASSUME the rest - depending on where you are coming from

[Canuckistanian]

43. Being 43rd in health care outcomes is "uniquely American"

I thought he'd have more vision than that.

[RedCappedBandit]

47. Because he's a fucking puppet

just like the rest of em

[GeorgeGist]

50. No profit for his buddies in the insurance racket.

[asdjrocky]

60. If by "us" he mean the insurance companies, then he is correct.