Sad... but I am really not thrilled by any. To me personally is an insult that Obama did not place his hand on the bible or slute our flag. ANother thing is that he is JUST a Jr.Senator not enought ecperience? and his name, ah his name really throws me OUT. OBAMA OSAMA?
Everyone has an opinion, I am entitled to mine. Though I always said not to involve myself in political talk anywhere...broke my own rule.... My opinion goes beyond the basic concept you pointed out, but again...opinions are like b-holes....everyone has them.
People are like slinky's, not really good for much. But its still fun to push them down the stairs.
The republicans did enough damage. It is time to give the democrats a shot. It can’t get any worse. Plus, I really like the idea of national health insurance. So that means Clinton or obama.
I like Obama, but I think the economy is so messed up, that it will take 2 presidents to fix it. Two Clintons will do a better job then one obama. Best case scenario would be two Clintons for presidents and Obama for vice president.
i am very upset rudy stepped down =( so now i am not voting period. as much as i would love to see a woman in the white house, i lost all respect for hillary over bill's "indiscretion". can't vote for obama either, so that leaves no one to vote for.
Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.
LOR: You're talking about Canadians who don't want to wait for their elective surgeries and who can afford to pay out-of-pocket here. It's a reasonable choice, but it's a small part of the big picture. A bigger part of the big picture is Americans getting their prescriptions filled through Canadian pharmacies. Plus, if I get LASIK eye surgery done, I'll probably go to Canada for it, where it costs far less and will be a wonderful vacation. I'm a healthy self-employed woman, and I have to pay $600 a month for my insurance (just me -- my kids have their own through their jobs), which is more than a lot of people's mortgages. That's my bias. Our current health care "system" discourages people from starting their own businesses, or from retiring young, because of how much it costs for an individual to buy a policy.
Clinton won't be nominated, because she can't get men to vote for her. Obama does almost as well with women now as Clinton does, and far better among men. I'm not saying men wouldn't vote for a woman (obviously more women are getting in as governors, senators and representatives), it's just that most men don't like this one. I'd love to see a progressive Democratic woman as President, but it won't be Clinton. I'm encouraged that her candidacy is being taken dead seriously, that people are ready for the idea. But when a woman is elected president, she'll be a woman men like too. Obama has my vote. Down the road, maybe Michelle Obama will have my vote too.
***Edited By: JoanEK on 2/14/2008 12:42:01 PM*** Reason: added sentence
JoanEK - You raised an interesting point about Michelle Obama. She is very well spoken, holds a high respect for families and is well educated. Her speaking ability far surpasses our current president. Everytime he opens his mouth, he comes off as uneducated. I am not talking so much about the content of his speeches, as his inability to get his point across. I am well aware that he has speech writers, but his speech pattern makes me cringe.
It's a funny thing about President Bush. I've always thought he had some kind of verbal disability, like dyslexia but also involving the spoken word. His SATs were actually pretty good if he took them himself, but like you'd probably expect, the verbal side was much lower than the math.
Michelle Obama impresses me even more than Hillary Clinton did in 1992. Plus she seems to have a better instinct for how to connect emotionally with her audiences, whether in prepared speeches or in less-scripted interviews. Like Bill Clinton, like her husband, and unlike Sen. Clinton, she seems to have a bit of the Elvis going for her.
No Joan, I know of many Canadians that have come over here to have procedures they would have died waiting for in Canada.
I'd rather pay a hospital bill the rest of my life because I dont have insurance, and be treated right away, than wait. And really, health care will NEVER be "free", your tax dollars will just sky rocket.
National health care doesnt work. I dont want it. Keep it in Canada and away from me.
Scout, I'm highly disappointed in this election. McCain sucks IMO and I'm certainly not voting for the two clowns on the other side. We're screwed.
but LOR for those who have come over here because they would have "died" waiting in Canada I can gurantee that there are 3 times as many people in our OWN country that die simply because they cannot afford life insurance.
As a college student I pray to God that I have a full-time job directly out of college because at that time my dad's insurance will no longer cover me and I won't be able to afford COBRA or anything because I'll be paying off my 30,000 + of tuition debt because the educational system in this country is so unbelievable
LifeOfRiley, I can't endorse your information if I don't know where it comes from. If you're talking about Canadian friends or family that's one thing, but it's anecdotal and doesn't speak to the big picture. If you're just repeating something you heard, it would help if you would cite your source.
Here is an abstract of a study paid for by Pfizer, an American drug company, concluding that the cost of bypass surgery in Canada costs their system half as much to perform as it costs in America, with the same outcome:
The cost of medications used to treat bypass patients were as much as 68 percent greater in the U.S. than in Canada and the cost of a surgical bed was 36 percent greater in the U.S.. In Canada, nursing accounted for 44 percent of the treatment costs, compared with 21 percent in the U.S. and patients stayed longer in hospital following surgery in Canada.
Americans pay twice as much for heart-bypass surgery as the socialized Canadian system, with no difference in outcome, according to today's issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine in a study funded by American drug company, Pfizer Inc.. The research found that heart bypass surgery costs an average of $10,373 in Canada, compared with $20,673 in the United States. Even though the costs were double in the United States, the rate of complications and death following bypass surgery was similar.
High administrative costs and overtreatment are usually blamed for the higher cost in the profit-driven U.S. system. Americans spent $5,635 per capita on health care in 2003, while only $3,003 was spent by Canadians. Health spending accounts for almost 15 per cent of gross domestic product in the U.S. and just under 10 per cent in Canada; while at the same time, all Canadian residents are full covered. In addition, the average Canadian lives 2 years longer than the average American.
This is one of the first studies directly comparing the costs of surgery in Canada and the United States and it reinforces the view of Dr. Mark Eisenberg, head of cardiovascular epidemiology at Jewish General Hospital in Montreal; "The conventional wisdom is that health care is much more expensive in the U.S. and the conventional wisdom is right." by finding that Canada's socialized system is far more cost efficient than the U.S. model.
people in our OWN country that die simply because they cannot afford life insurance the educational system in this country is so unbelievable
I have spent thousands of dollars on health care recently, in addition to the cost of my insurance. And I owe more than $20,000 in student loans (not to mention my Mother refinanced her mortgate and took out a line of credit on our house). But how do I look at it? I'm grateful for the fast, comprehensive care I've recieved. And I'm grateful for a wonderful education and undergraduate experience, which I'll gladly pay for when my deferral period is over.
Perspective is everything, and this country needs optimists, not ingrates. If you think the United States is so miserable, then move to Canada. Personally there is nowhere else I would rather be, even if it is expensive to live here.
Illini wrote: Perspective is everything, and this country needs optimists, not ingrates. If you think the United States is so miserable, then move to Canada. Personally there is nowhere else I would rather be, even if it is expensive to live here.
Is it possible to point to something I think another country is getting right, without somebody countering with, Obviously you love them and hate it here, so why don't you move there?
One way countries move forward is by studying what works well in other places and whether those methods can be adapted to improve something we're doing here. The way some other countries have modeled their constitutions on ours, for crying out loud. And the way they're studying how the Dutch build and maintain their levies, because the engineers realize there are lessons there that can be applied to the levies in New Orleans. It's how we grow.
***Edited By: JoanEK on 2/15/2008 12:13:03 PM*** Reason: took it down a notch
I wasn't in any way implying that I don't want to live here. I truly appreciate what this country is based on am grateful for the freedom to choose my own path. The only thing I have issues with is the govenments way of executing funds. Personally, I think that more time needs to be given to our educational system, and I don't just mean colleges I'm talking k-12. The "No Child Left Behind Act" is nothing but a piece of crap as far as I'm concerned. All it does is take away from actual learning in schools because the schools are so concerned with the students passing the tests that that's all they focus on.
I am not against looking to other countries for direction, nor against looking to objective studies as you, Joan, have done. But nothing angers me more than people who do nothing but complain about the cost of health care, education, housing, and so on without any acknowledgement of how LUCKY they are to live here (thank you, lovinmylucy, for doing so). So what if it's expensive. If it's important you can go elsewhere to get better social benefit programs, but you will pay for it through taxation. There is NO free lunch.
I'm also not against some level of nationalized healthcare for those who cannot afford private insurance, but I think the cry "I can't afford insurance" would be less used if more Americans could learn how to prioritize and live within their means. Ditto for "I can't afford to send my kids to college."
Illini I agree with you on the fact that there are many people who do need to learn to "live within there means" but there are so many people who do the best they can to do so and are still struggling to make ends meet. My stepdad has a second job apart from owning his own business and my mom works 6 days a week and they are barely and I mean barely have their heads above the water. At 19 years old I am completly paying for college myself. I live on My own, pay for my own bills, my own car and car insurance and my loans are all in MY name, though my stepdad did cosign on one of my student loans. I know that my parents would love to help me out more but it's just not an option. At 19 I shouldn't get ulcers worrying about money and how I'm going to pay my bills, I should be worrying about my education not having my grades suffer from the stress I'm under. I graduated in the top twenty percent of my class and was on the Dean's List at my Community College but now that I'm at a University by myself that's no longer the case and a big part of that is because of money. They say there are millions of dollars in financial aid not used every year but what they don't tell you is that it's next to impossible to get and that needs to change.
Did you see the movie sicko? It is not all propaganda.
The Canadians can still come here if they wish and pay for it just as they have done before. It is not as if the docs here are going anywhere. Doctors in other Europeans countries are making a fraction of what they make here anyway, so they might as well stay and take advantage of those Canadians to help supplement their income. Beside, they do not have to accept the national insurance if they do not want to. Privet insurance can still coexist with the national one if they can compete. after all, the real reason for the high cost of health care is the lack of regulation.
the health care providers charge the insurance companies. They in turn pass the cost to their clients. Their clients have no real choice and they have to pay. the more the people pay, the greedier the health care provider get and the hire their prices gets. It is a self perpetuated vicious cycle that only government regulation can put and end to.
I have family in countries that have socialized health care. I am not talking about third world poor countries either. They are very happy with it. My brother has five kids, my sister has seven. They pay about 5% of their income which comes to about $300 per month plus about $100 for additional supplemental insurance for their entire family of 7 and 9. Between the national and the supplemental, they are fully covered for everything you can imagine, including going to specialists in other countries. There are no deductibles either as with most insurance policies here. Even though privet insurance and HMO like companies still flourish there, they still have to stay competitive and improve on the national one to stay in business. that system is good for everybody. I personally lived in England for a couple of years. I was pushed down the stairs and got banged up pretty good. Ended up in a hospital for 2 day. They took care of me at no charge. Paid few bucks for some pain med, but that was about it.
Although it is true that the US has the best medical care money can buy, the key word here is “that money can buy” if you can afford it or your insurance company pays for it, then you are set. If your insurance company refuses to pay, as they often do on things you can’t possibly pay on your own, then you may have to choose between destitution and your life. That is just wrong. No one should have to make that choice. Doctors, hospitals, drug and insurance companies are getting rich at our expanse. And that is what socialized health care supposed to prevent. It is not perfect, but it is better then the current system we currently have here. Government regulates other essential business that we can’t live without like water, gas and electricity. With out regulation, those privet companies could charge you whatever they wanted and you would not have any choice but to pay up or die. Why not regulate another essential life and death business like healthcare, like most of the civilized world does?
I am sure a balance between the national and privet insurance could be reach to make all happy. I know in many countries, the national insurance cover most things, and let you get privet supplemental insurance for treatment and drugs it does not cover. Since the national insurance cover most of the common things, the extra insurance can be really cheap. That could be one approach that would cover most people, and will still allow you to use your privet insurance when needed so your care is not compromised by the bureaucracy. There are many ways to implement it if they try. One thing for sure, the current system we have is really screwed up.