A Primer on Government Role

This recent discussion (if you can call it that) about government run health insurance (the liars call it “government run health care”) has involved a process of deep denial on the part of the Party of  ‘No.’

I asked Brewski yesterday, which government run services he would like to live without.  Nobody seems to want to answer that question.  The hypocrisy is unyielding.

, , , ,

  1. #1 by cav on August 27, 2009 - 7:37 am

    But privatization is the wave of the future. Get used to it. There are more Blackwater personnel in Iraq than U.S. military.

  2. #2 by Richard Warnick on August 27, 2009 - 8:14 am

    All through last year’s campaign, Dems were proclaiming the advent of “universal health care,” which it turns out was code for an individual mandate that requires everybody to buy health insurance. This was originally a Republican policy proposal.

    If the public option is taken out of the legislation, then we’ll all be forced to buy private insurance whether we want it or not. Even under the HR 3200 plan, most of us won’t be allowed to sign up for the public option (although the proponents still hope that it will somehow compete with the private sector).

    President Obama has assured Big Pharma they can continue to charge whatever they want for drugs, which means health care costs will continue to rise faster than inflation.

    I guess I can’t understand why the corporations are fighting this.

  3. #3 by brewski on August 27, 2009 - 8:52 am

    The corporations are not fighting this. Big Pharma, Big Insurance, Big Lawyers and Big Hospitals are all in favor it it. It makes money for them. All of those Big Interests have been bought with this bill.

  4. #4 by brewski on August 27, 2009 - 9:02 am

    Cliff, I am flattered by the reference. As for the hypocrisy, please see my answer to your question.

    Also, if liberals would limit their notion of government to being the good stewards of providing services, then call me a liberal. The problem is that liberals don’t limit themselves to that.

    As we are now all paying for, the housing bubble was created by a convenient collaberation of interests including liberals, Wall Street and homebuilders who all bought Congressmen to “help” people buy a home.

    Well, like all good ideas, the unintended consequences were not forseen. “Helping” homeowners turned into a subsidy for leverage, which turned into government approved lenient borrowing requirements, which turned into government approved lax capital requirements, which turned into an asset bubble and crash. So the liberal good intentions of meddling in the mortgage market was just as causal as the greed and short-sightedness of Wall Street.

    So yes, I am skeptical that the liberal notion of government limits itself to proving services. There is always the next good idea, the next program, the next special interest to help. Pretty much always with disasterous consequences.

    • #5 by Cliff Lyon on August 27, 2009 - 5:05 pm

      Brewski,

      Canard. As far as I can tell nobody is blaming democrats for the current economic crises. Did some participate? Yep. There is a weak but not unreasonable argument.

      Funny that ultimately, you are talking about de-regulation. Thats not a liberal thing.

      I think your angst with liberals has something to do with a hot’n freaky hippie chick that broke your heart and humped a long-hair.

      • #6 by Ironical Chronicle on August 27, 2009 - 5:50 pm

        Entering the 4th year of the Democrat congress. It is now the Democrat Party’s fault entirely. No one is buying the blame the last idiot schtick.

        Just shows that “as far as you can tell” is not a very generous measure.

      • #7 by brewski on August 28, 2009 - 6:58 pm

        The conservative girls were always much better in the sack than the hairly legged hippie chicks.

        • #8 by Gorgon Stare on August 28, 2009 - 8:08 pm

          “angst with liberals has something to do with a hot’n freaky hippie chick that broke your heart and humped a long-hair”.

          Or at least gave you Clam Mid I Yaah! Or at least Yaaah for about 10 minutes!!

    • #9 by Larry Bergan on August 30, 2009 - 3:24 am

      Just seems like the old canard to me brew: “They’re all the same.”

      So liberals caused the housing bubble and the wall street meltdown, and Fannie and Freddie and probably even the My Lai Massacre.

      • #10 by brewski on August 30, 2009 - 5:45 pm

        Larry, when you subsidize just about anything you end up causing its price to be low, which causes overconsumption of it. So subsidizing mortgages with tax deductions, Fannie, Freddie, FHA, etc. resulted in borrowing to be too cheap and easy. That caused people to over-lever and over-invest in their homes vs other things. This isn’t a bash on liberals as much as an analysis on subsidizing anything. Sometimes it can be argued this is good, but it also has side effects such as causing bubbles and subsequent crashes. This is not a partisan point.

  5. #11 by JHP on August 27, 2009 - 9:49 am

    Interesting to see the arguments for government-run, etc. etc. insurance.

    Of course, if companies weren’t making profits, then more money could go to caring for people. However, this argument doesn’t include the innovation factor that accompanies profit. There’s a lot less incentive to invent new technology, medicine, etc. without a profit motive.

    The fire insurance comparison is interesting but not remotely comparable with health insurance.

    • #12 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on September 1, 2009 - 6:48 am

      The incentive to do a thing need only reach 100% commitment from any source in order to become actionable. I believe we can find 100% commitment in sources other than profit, provided people aren’t hassled by the material concerns of losing their home, food, and clothing.

      • #13 by cav on September 1, 2009 - 7:54 am

        Ding Ding Ding, We have a winner!

  6. #14 by Richard Warnick on August 27, 2009 - 11:56 am

    One of the incredible ironies of the health care debate is that Senator McCain is against government health care. This is a man who has received U.S. government provided health care literally from the day he was born on August 29, 1936 (happy birthday, senator!) with the notable exception of his years in a North Vietnamese prison.

    Yesterday, in a town hall forum in Phoenix, somebody decided to call him on his hypocrisy:

    Why don’t I have the health insurance you’ve got! Because I’m paying for it! And I’m paying for the President of the United States’ health insurance and Congress’ health insurance. Why don’t I have that! I’m your employer! I’m your employer! You work for me, and you’ve got a better health insurance plan than I’ve got!

  7. #15 by brewski on August 27, 2009 - 12:40 pm

    You are right.

    Which is why McCain replied “You’re exactly right”

    • #16 by Richard Warnick on August 27, 2009 - 12:57 pm

      As far as I know, Senator McCain did not then announce his support for government health care. Which he must be happy with, since his wife is rich enough to afford the finest private care for him if he wanted it.

  8. #17 by cav on August 29, 2009 - 7:53 am

    Re: Healthcare / getting the insurance co’s out,

    The best way to manage risk is to enlarge the risk pool so that it is more broadly shared. The largest possible risk pool is the whole bloody country.

    Single payer becomes a logical consequence.

    If cost is an issue, then structuring the system such that all incentives are to do more, at greater expense, rather than provide primary care and prevent disease, immediately becomes absurd.

  9. #18 by Ironical Chronicle on August 29, 2009 - 8:07 am

    Not necessarily, this isn’t how the German model works, and they do fine covering everyone.

    Single payer works very well for health maintenance, but if you are really ill chronically, or need specialists this is where the care becomes “rationed”. 842,000 people are currently on waiting lists for care and procedures in Canada. From their own figures. The nation has 30 million people.

    The ratio of diagnostic machines to population is 10 times less than the US. The maintained care is excellent, the tough stuff more problematic. We have to decide what we want first as a people.

    Problem with our government is that it simply attempts to spend its way out of problems with no real plan. There is absolutely no guarantee from this government that any savings would be passed on to the taxpayer. Obama has promised to get us out of wars, yet he escalates them, the budget deficit is ridiculous. He, and congress cannot be trusted is the simple fact.

  10. #19 by cav on August 31, 2009 - 7:16 am

    From Krugman:

    ‘Every desperately needed reform I can think of, from controlling greenhouse gases to restoring fiscal balance, will have to run the same gantlet of lobbying and lies.’

  11. #20 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on September 1, 2009 - 6:58 am

    Cav–I actually downloaded a financial report from an insurance company in which an accountant recommends ways for the company to compete with Medicare. He cites that very reason–enlargement of the risk pool–as the cause of government-run healthcare’s superior efficiency. He also mentions, of course, the waste of profit and marketing spending.

    Thanks for the Krugman quote. Insightful, as usual.

    Gosh, IC. More than 8.42 million people are denied care outright in the U.S. (many medical facilities won’t treat non-emergency care even if you pay out of pocket). Our nation has 300 million people. That’s an equal ratio of rationing, dontcha think? And, heck, at least the people in Canada are ON a waiting list for specialized care. A lot of U.S. citizens can’t even get primary care, even in “the greatest healthcare system in the world!” (Thanks, Glenn Beck)

    No guarantee of passed-on savings? How about we try something called risk? The problem with too many Americans is that they criticize new ideas in government because there isn’t an absolute 100% guarantee of success. Life is risky. It’s icky at times. Take on the same risk as the uninsured for just a little while, to see if we can make something better.

  12. #21 by brewski on September 2, 2009 - 10:42 pm

    From that noted astroturfer, Robert Reich:

    The White House deal with Big Pharma undermines democracy

    Obama’s agreement with Big Pharma may help healthcare reform pass, but it may also mean higher drug prices for you

    By Robert Reich
    Aug. 10, 2009 |

    I’m a strong supporter of universal health insurance, and a fan of the Obama administration. But I’m appalled by the deal the White House has made with the pharmaceutical industry’s lobbying arm to buy their support.

    Last week, after being reported in the Los Angeles Times, the White House confirmed it has promised Big Pharma that any healthcare legislation will bar the government from using its huge purchasing power to negotiate lower drug prices. That’s basically the same deal George W. Bush struck in getting the Medicare drug benefit, and it’s proven a bonanza for the drug industry. A continuation will be an even larger bonanza, given all the boomers who will be enrolling in Medicare over the next decade. And it will be a gold mine if the deal extends to Medicaid, which will be expanded under most versions of the healthcare bills now emerging from Congress, and to any public option that might be included. (We don’t know how far the deal extends beyond Medicare because its details haven’t been made public.)

    Let me remind you: Any bonanza for the drug industry means higher healthcare costs for the rest of us, which is one reason why critics of the emerging healthcare plans, including the Congressional Budget Office, are so worried about their failure to adequately stem future healthcare costs. To be sure, as part of its deal with the White House, Big Pharma apparently has promised to cut future drug costs by $80 billion. But neither the industry nor the White House nor any congressional committee has announced exactly where the $80 billion in savings will show up nor how this portion of the deal will be enforced. In any event, you can bet that the bonanza Big Pharma will reap far exceeds $80 billion. Otherwise, why would it have agreed?

    In return, Big Pharma isn’t just supporting universal healthcare. It’s also spending lots of money on TV and radio advertising in support. Sunday’s New York Times reports that Big Pharma has budgeted $150 million for TV ads promoting universal health insurance, starting this August (that’s more money than John McCain spent on TV advertising in last year’s presidential campaign), after having already spent a bundle through advocacy groups like Healthy Economies Now and Families USA.

    I want universal health insurance. And having had a front-row seat in 1994 when Big Pharma and the rest of the health-industry complex went to battle against it, I can tell you firsthand how big and effective the onslaught can be. So I appreciate Big Pharma’s support this time around, and I like it that the industry is doing the reverse of what it did last time, and airing ads to persuade the public of the rightness of the White House’s effort.

    But I also care about democracy, and the deal between Big Pharma and the White House frankly worries me. It’s bad enough when industry lobbyists extract concessions from members of Congress, which happens all the time. But when an industry gets secret concessions out of the White House in return for a promise to lend the industry’s support to a key piece of legislation, we’re in big trouble. That’s called extortion: An industry is using its capacity to threaten or prevent legislation as a means of altering that legislation for its own benefit. And it’s doing so at the highest reaches of our government, in the office of the president.

    When the industry support comes with an industry-sponsored ad campaign in favor of that legislation, the threat to democracy is even greater. Citizens end up paying for advertisements designed to persuade them that the legislation is in their interest. In this case, those payments come in the form of drug prices that will be higher than otherwise, stretching years into the future.

    I don’t want to be puritanical about all this. Politics is a rough game in which means and ends often get mixed and melded. Perhaps the White House deal with Big Pharma is a necessary step to get anything resembling universal health insurance. But if that’s the case, our democracy is in terrible shape. How soon until big industries and their Washington lobbyists have become so politically powerful that secret White House-industry deals like this are prerequisites to any important legislation? When will it become standard practice that such deals come with hundreds of millions of dollars of industry-sponsored TV advertising designed to persuade the public that the legislation is in the public’s interest? (Any Democrats and progressives who might be reading this should ask themselves how they’ll feel when a Republican White House cuts such deals to advance its own legislative priorities.)

    We’re on a precarious road — and wherever it leads, it’s not toward democracy.

  13. #22 by Ironical Chronicle on September 4, 2009 - 9:31 am

    The latest from single payer land. Rationing is reality. If you book an MRI today, you can get one in March.

    http://www2.canada.com/nanaimodailynews/news/story.html?id=1af37b0a-9cff-4d7f-993b-1382f335d16b

  14. #23 by Dwight S. Adams on September 4, 2009 - 9:26 pm

    Please, IC, no more. We know your game already.

    Look at your own article, pgph 4.

    Please see this, especially pgph 5:The Doctor Will See You—In Three Months.

    And: Waiting Times for Care? Try Looking at the U.S.

    And this claim: If a country has waiting lists for elective health care, that is due to some specific design flaws in its health care system, not because it is financed by the government.

    And: Ugly Health Care Waiting Times? Look at the U.S. Not entirely accurate, but still worth considering.

    Strange how waiting list reports are always about Canada when they come from you. What about comparative reports? Or are you meaning to make us afraid of being Canadian when we might deserve to be afraid of being American just as much? The fact that you cite Canada over and over again implies that you’re spinning the data.

    Try to remember that we’re not ALL in favor of single-payer. You seem to be unable to separate single-payer from other national healthcare systems. Besides: weren’t you the one talking about a vibrant economy being necessary for good healthcare? And then you claimed that Canada provided such an economy by mining and deforestation, yet America had no such industry? Seems you’re trying to say that America can’t socially provide healthcare like Canada’s due to our poor economic model at the same time that you denounce the inadequacy of the Canadian healthcare system. Which are you really saying? Or are “facts” just expedients for you?

    So how about you explain why it is that single-payer CANNOT work? John Kenneth Galbraith, a far more knowledgeable economist than you, said that mathematical economic models were pretty much always fallacious, and that anecdotes and specific facts could hardly paint an accurate picture of the whole. So excuse me if I deny the accuracy of your “proof” of the inevitable failure of single-payer. Do you have anything to offer but your own insistence and a few slanted articles?

    Dwight Sheldon Adams

  15. #24 by Ironical Chronicle on September 5, 2009 - 8:53 am

    moderated reply.

  16. #25 by Ironical Chronicle on September 5, 2009 - 1:09 pm

    So where did it go Cliff? Posted twice.

  17. #26 by Ironical Chronicle on September 5, 2009 - 3:01 pm

    Well, it took long enough Dwight, if a game it be.

    We are talking about adopting a single payer plan, just pointing out the troubles they are having up north. Obama is the man citing Canada uniformly, so here is the flip side. It isn’t working as glowingly as it is being sold here. This isn’t proof that it doesn’t work, it is proof that isn’t working as people here believe it does.

    A few slanted articles. You really do not know what is going on up north. The problems are pretty dire, the Island is a place where the NDP rules, and socialist concepts are firmly in place in the culture. To see an article like this on the front page of the Nanaimo paper is a frank admission on everyone’s part involved in the system that things are pretty screwed up. I think you should follow it more closely. The people are really angry about government underfunding the health system up north. It will lead to privatization of some sort if they do not properly fund it. As commodity prices go so goes their economy.

    What Dwight do we have going these days that could pay for a system you would approve of? Galbraith aside, where does the money come from? It will in all likelihood come from you, your children, and grandchildren in the form of crushing debt.

    If you did not know, Canada has 1/10th the amount of MRI devices per capita than the US. The system just doesn’t have the money. They also don’t have much Life Flight capacity, and a whole host of things that keep people alive here whether they can pay or not.

    The question I ask now that it looks like we are not going to pass this crappy bill that Obama has produced, is what are we going to do after? I don’t have any faith in our government passing any savings on to the taxpayer in any of their schemes, as that doesn’t ever happen. Meanwhile the insurance companies remain intact, no medical tort reform(vital element in the Canadian system) and then of course the back room deals Obama has made with pharmaceutical giants.

    Getting pretty shrill out there. The articles Shane come from Canadian newspapers, they are not coming from the National Review.

  18. #27 by Cliff Lyon on September 5, 2009 - 5:36 pm

    There it is above.

    I think it got “spammed” because of all the medical words.

    Intersting that the great majority of such spam is health care related scams.

  19. #28 by Ironical Chronicle on September 5, 2009 - 6:12 pm

    It was not “spammed”, it was moderated, and that is your perview Cliff . Simple example that this is not an open site. The truth is progressives have too much to lose discussing this openly. How is an article from a Canadian newspaper concerning current difficulties in single payer care in their nation “spam”?

    I see that no one can answer any of these questions and never have.

    I will continue to post articles from Canada that are accurately describing the current crisis they are experiencing with their single payer system up north. The only purpose of this is dissemination of information. It is only key elements of what we need to know for a successful transition to whatever system we choose. It won’t be Obama care, of that I am sure.

  20. #29 by Cliff Lyon on September 5, 2009 - 7:44 pm

    Glenn,

    Only in your cramped mind do I have the time or interest to moderate you.

    You cannot find a more open site.

  21. #30 by Cliff Lyon on September 5, 2009 - 7:46 pm

    You should thank me for taking the time to dig your dribble out of the spam que.

  22. #31 by Ironical Chronicle on September 6, 2009 - 1:16 am

    That term is “drivel” for non erudite.

    Poor fools “dribble” upon themselves in the attempt sound intelligent.

    1. saliva flowing from the mouth, or mucus from the nose; slaver.
    2. childish, silly, or meaningless talk or thinking; nonsense; twaddle.
    –verb (used without object)
    3. to let saliva flow from the mouth or mucus from the nose; slaver.
    4. to talk childishly or idiotically.
    5. Archaic. to issue like spittle.
    –verb (used with object)
    6. to utter childishly or idiotically.
    7. to waste foolishly.
    Origin:
    bef. 1000; ME dryvelen, var. of drevelen, OE dreflian; akin to draff

    Sorry Cliff you driveler, it is only as much as you richly deserve.

  23. #32 by cav on September 6, 2009 - 7:22 am

    Well, since the U.S. is unquestionably the best provider of health care, we can not only bennifit from the example of canada, we can (and will) improve upon it.

  24. #33 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on September 7, 2009 - 3:01 pm

    Exactly, cav. This is what Ironical Chronicle doesn’t seem to get: if Canada can do as well as it does with single-payer and few resources (1/10th the number of MRIs, etc.), imagine what we can do with our excess?

    Honestly, though, IC, you need to stop being so paranoid. If Cliff wanted to moderate you, obviously, he would moderate your accusations of moderation as well. That way he would maintain apparent innocence at the same time that he silences the opposition. Of course, your paranoia in the face of contrary evidence is telling; if I may venture a guess, it indicates your approach to liberals in general. I’ve had stuff end up in spam plenty of times, even when it contained links that Cliff would appreciate. So don’t get your panties in a bunch.

    But it’s interesting how, all of a sudden, YOU of all people are the defender of intellectual integrity. How about we just play a meaningless mind game for my personal enjoyment? IC, a person like you doesn’t deserve to feel indignant about anything.

    As long as we’re choosing topics (I wasn’t aware we were only discussing single-payer, as you seem to think), I want to simply say that I am not at present a fan of H.R. 3200. I am simply a fan of public healthcare, specifically a regulated hybrid system. You ask how we would pay for it?

    Now THAT’S a tough question, assuming that the money used to pay for MRIs, Life Flight helicopters, and doctor’s visits will magically cease to exist upon the adoption of a government healthcare system. Oh well. Such is the world in which we live.

    Sarcasm aside, we will get it the same way we currently get it–through premiums, copays, and fees. They will just be gathered and disseminated differently, and by a different (and more efficient, by most measurements) entity. I mean, you tell me: what happens if you take a $300/month premium and take a third as much off the top for administrative purposes? Be careful in your response. You should know that any malfeasance that occurs in government is likely to occur in business as well, so you shouldn’t assume an increase.

    I’m so glad that we have you to tell us what is really going on up north. I, after all, am so much less capable than you of searching the internet for Canadians’ criticisms of their own system. Of course, I’m fairly good at finding Americans’ criticisms of their own system, but you are free to ignore those. But we all know you’re not just pointing out the problems with Canada with the intent of exploring ways of fixing them. Yours is never constructive criticism, IC. But if we’re to look at Canada, we must look at it comparatively. I could tell you horror stories about American healthcare, but it doesn’t challenge the view that it’s STILL the best in the world, unless I can show you somewhere else that’s better. But haven’t there already been enough studies to disprove THAT comparative claim? What we’re now involved in, since we know we’re not the best, is figuring out how to become the best. If you’re really concerned with Canada, offer your own solutions. Otherwise, just admit you’re an obstructionist. Besides, I actually read a report from Canada’s central government some time back, which detailed the worst problems in their system. They cited specific regions where waiting lists were far too long, as well as areas where they were some of the shortest in the world. The long waiting lists, they said, tended to be in rural areas. I’m sorry I don’t have a link to it. I read it about a year ago. The point is that they were investigating causes and solutions–solutions which didn’t include denying primary care to a significant portion of the population, which is the current American way to provide healthcare. Healthcare reform is an attempt to seek the same kinds of solutions.

    You should also note that single-payer tends to provide services which keep people healthy longer, rather than the rare, expensive procedures for the uncommon ailments (which it still tends to cover at least fairly well). It still has its problems, however, such as the irresponsibility for one’s own health that comes from the perception that a system is “free” when it, in reality, is not. Even with these problems, it is my experience that those with public healthcare tend to like it. Even when they whine and moan, they still don’t want it to be privatized–they want it fixed.

    To simply state my perspective: I have never approached this as a winner-takes-all proposition. To me, the healthcare debate is not about the bill so much as it is about the possibilities. So harp on about single-payer if you want, and debate it with those who care, but we have yet to hear anything that you think will actually work. You have cited the effectiveness of the German system when it serves your argument. But if we all shifted into a discussion about emulating that system, I’m sure you would promptly find newspapers in Munich to disprove yourself.

    Your last substantive post’s last paragraph is surprisingly equivocative. I appreciate that. So, if it really is your goal to disseminate information and provide key elements for effectively transitioning to a new system of our choice, then I appreciate your articles. You must understand, however, that my incredulity at this possibility is well-deserved.

    But, if you have any ideas, I’m glad to hear them. What works? Why? Is government inherently less effective than private industry? If so, why? If not, what can government do to be the most effective?

    But if you’re just here to Bible Bash, you should know that none of us is powerful enough to change the outcome of the H.R. 3200 vote. The best we can do is deepen our own understanding in the hope that we can have some minor effects now and try to prepare ourselves for the potential times in the future when we might have more significant effects.

    Dwight Sheldon Adams

  25. #34 by Cliff Lyon on September 7, 2009 - 4:47 pm

    That way he would maintain apparent innocence at the same time that he silences the opposition. Of course, your paranoia in the face of contrary evidence is telling;

    Thank you Dwight. Whenever IC (Glenn) whines about being moderated, I am reminded of the above consideration and I just chuckle.

    You would think he could figure this out without your help. Apparently, he can’t.

  26. #35 by Ironical Chronicle on September 7, 2009 - 10:14 pm

    Who is paranoid? BTW the site is operating like a hunk of junk and has for the last week. The site says “post moderated” what is one to think? Does Cliff have no idea how his site works or is operating? Not that it matters by now. This site cannot be of relevance anymore as it is, it takes 3 minutes to even access it.

    Two paragraph rule Dwight. I have long argued the virtues of the Canadian system long before you were here, so untwist the panties and pay attention. In other guise naturally, you just don’t know it.

    The reality of what is happening in Canada is obviously unknown to you. Their economy relies on our own, as we go, so do they. Since we are tanking, they are having problems. If you make 60k in Canada, half of your money goes to taxes, this leaves not so much for about anything.

    The soon to be minted HST(harmonized sales tax) will be a 12% tax on everything, in addition to all other taxes already levied. Everything but food and baby clothing. If you have not lived there you have no idea. Utah is about the cheapest place to live in the US. BC is about the most expensive North America. Their system is collapsing as they have similar problems to us. Aging demographics. Ask an old person how they like the system in Canada. Don’t ask healthy young people. Their system is facing aging population and aging hospitals. Average age of a US hospital is 9 years. Average age of a hospital in Ontario, 40+ years. They can’t keep them clean, that is privatized, and in Canada, suing is pointless even if blame can be fixed, monetary awards are limited. It makes for some really unprofessional behavior and laxity.

    As it is currently constructed the system will have trouble maintaining monies to keep the system afloat, this is why Canada is right this minute looking at private options at the provincial level. The people’s commitment to care is there, the money unfortunately is not.

    As a resident there attempting to gain landed immigrant status I was informed that for a period of 2 years I would have access to care, but only if I paid out of pocket. Process takes 2 years, during which time you cannot legally work. You must also put up 50k in monetary assets in a Canadian bank, even if married to a citizen. That is the health care side of their immigration policy. If you think it is a free ride, think again. In my experience living in Canada, people may have access to care, but people are also pretty poor by American “poverty” standards.

    So check this out, if I needed care as a foreigner without insurance, I had to pay upfront. Not for an emergency, but for any health maintenance issues. Contrast this method with the open door policy for indigent people from all over, and illegal aliens, and you will understand that our own system is quite generous.

    Single payer achieves longer lives by prevention, something you must pursue YOURSELF! This comes in the form of advice in how to live from professionals, and works in any type of health care system. Canadians just happen to listen more as a population, and they have less money to waste as most is spent on day to day and taxes.

    What you do with any information I put up Dwight you can do what you like with, and whatever you think of my reasons for it, is of limited concern to me. cheers.

    PS: What are you on about with bible bashing?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: