Krugman Poll on Canadian Healthcare

[Gurdari]

[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Fexz8Ij-OBQ&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Fexz8Ij-OBQ&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

that was a poll? hahaha


What was this - a conference or hearing of some sort?

 

[Jay Canuck]

Medical bills underlie 60 percent of U.S. bankrupts: study

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Medical bills are behind more than 60 percent of U.S. personal bankruptcies, U.S. researchers reported on Thursday in a report they said demonstrates that healthcare reform is on the wrong track.

More than 75 percent of these bankrupt families had health insurance but still were overwhelmed by their medical debts, the team at Harvard Law School, Harvard Medical School and Ohio University reported in the American Journal of Medicine.

"Unless you're Warren Buffett, your family is just one serious illness away from bankruptcy," Harvard's Dr. David Himmelstein, an advocate for a single-payer health insurance program for the United States, said in a statement.

"For middle-class Americans, health insurance offers little protection," he added.

CANCELED COVERAGE

"Nationally, a quarter of firms cancel coverage immediately when an employee suffers a disabling illness; another quarter do so within a year," the report reads.

Medical bills underlie 60 percent of U.S. bankrupts: study | U.S. | Reuters

 

[PoliticalChic]

Another right wing "truth" based on LIES... keep swallowing the shit being fed to you by insurances and phama corporations pea brain...


Ezekiel Emanuel, MD, PhD
Title:
Chair of the Department of Bioethics at the Clinical Center of the National Institutes of Health

Position:
Con to the question "Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal?"

Reasoning:
"The proper policy, in my view, should be to affirm the status of physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia as illegal. In so doing we would affirm that as a society we condemn ending a patient's life and do not consider that to have one's life ended by a doctor is a right. This does not mean we deny that in exceptional cases interventions are appropriate, as acts of desperation when all other elements of treatment- all medications, surgical procedures, psychotherapy, spiritual care, and so on- have been tried. Physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia should not be performed simply because a patient is depressed, tired of life, worried about being a burden, or worried about being dependent. All these may be signs that not every effort has yet been made.

By establishing a social policy that keeps physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia illegal but recognizes exceptions, we would adopt the correct moral view: the onus of proving that everything had been tried and that the motivation and rationale were convincing would rest on those who wanted to end a life."
"Whose Right to Die?," The Atlantic, Mar. 1997

“Another key administration figure… is Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a health policy advisor in the Office of Management and Budget and brother of Rahm Emanuel, the president's chief of staff…”is one of those responsible for inserting into the “healthcare bill” the ideas that we no longer should have rights, such as determining what care we can buy, or how long we should live, and doctors should no longer look to the Hippocratic Oath, and the particular patient, but neglect the patient in the interests of ‘social justice,’ and the society as a whole.
CPN - Tools


Dr. Emanuel says that the usual recommendations for cutting costs (often urged by President Obama) are window dressing: "Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records, and improving quality are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change." (Health Affairs, February 27, 2008.)

True change, writes Dr. Emanuel, must include reassessing the promise doctors make when they enter the profession, the Hippocratic Oath. Amazingly, Dr. Emanuel criticizes the Hippocratic Oath as partly to blame for the "overuse" of medical care: "Medical school education and post graduate education emphasize thoroughness," he wrote. Physicians take the "Hippocratic Oath's admonition to 'use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment' as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others." (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008.) Of course that is what patients hope their doctors will do. But Dr. Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their own patient and consider social justice. They should think about whether the money being spent on their patient could be better spent elsewhere. Many doctors are horrified at this notion, and will tell you that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time.
Defend Your Health Care

Dr. Emanuel also blames high U.S. spending on standards Americans take for granted. "Hospital rooms in the United States offer more privacy...physicians' offices are typically more conveniently located and have parking nearby and more attractive waiting rooms." (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008.)
By far, the most dangerous misconception in Washington is that the way to rein in health spending is by slowing the development and use of new technology. Imagine any industry or nation thriving on such a philosophy. Dr. Emanuel criticizes Americans for being "enamored with technology."
Defend Your Health Care

Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96).
Translation: Don't give much care to a grandmother with Parkinson's or a child with cerebral palsy.
He explicitly defends discrimination against older patients: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years" (Lancet, Jan. 31).
Since Medicare was founded in 1965, seniors' lives have been transformed by new medical treatments such as angioplasty, bypass surgery and hip and knee replacements. These innovations allow the elderly to lead active lives. But Emanuel criticizes Americans for being too "enamored with technology" and is determined to reduce access to it.
DEADLY DOCTORS - New York Post

And, to see what American 'healthcare' would look like under these prescriptions:
LONDON, July 31, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a case that is being hailed as a victory for proponents of assisted suicide, Britain's Law Lords have ruled that the public prosecutors must "clarify" current law on the issue. The House of Lords judicial committee ruled yesterday that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) for England and Wales must issue "guidance" on when and in what circumstances the law making it a criminal offense to assist suicide will be prosecuted.
Britain's Law Lords Rule in Favor of Assisted Suicide Seeker

And so we note that once again leftists and their dupes are never able to 'connect the dots' to see where their plans would lead, and are quick with the ubiquitous term 'lies' for any that disagree, or show them to be the dissemblers that they are.

I challenge the dupe who wrote the post to deny any of the material, and therefore to accept that the major 'cost savings' envisioned is in the denial of technology and pharmaceutical aid to the sick and the old.

WOW PC...you continue to post the same GARBAGE that I have debunked...

You really are the most disingenuous person on this board... you post TOTAL lies, promote them as undeniable truths and then spout condescending bluster...

You couldn't POSSIBLY have READ any of the articles written by Dr. Emanuel that your scum bag sources have hacked up with the express purpose of to portraying a twisted and most often OPPOSITE view of the man's beliefs...it really is amazing just how scummy and unscrupulous you right wingers are...TRUTH is not even a consideration in your piles of GARBAGE...

Wow, looks like I hit a nerve.

Exactly my intention.

That's what happens when one calls a 'dupe' a 'dupe.'

I note that, aside from the vitupertion, you were not able to deny any of the documented quotes form your champion, Dr. Emanuel.

Should it be necessary, I can do the same for Dr. Blumenthal, another of those involved in the administrations 'healthcare' proposals.

Your spinning out of control must be one of the side effects of the public turning on the proposals.

But, I'm sure the good Dr. Emanuel has some 'special' pills to calm you down.

So, let's review:

1. Dr. Emanuel criticizes the Hippocratic Oath as partly to blame for the "overuse" of medical care.

2. [Doctors] should think about whether the money being spent on their patient could be better spent elsewhere.

3. Dr. Emanuel also blames high U.S. spending on standards Americans take for granted.

4. Dr. Emanuel criticizes Americans for being "enamored with technology."

5. Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens...

6. ...not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.

7. He explicitly defends discrimination against older patients: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years"

8. ...rights need to be seen in a more balanced framework, and that the U.S. would benefit by a temporary moratorium on the manufacture of new rights.
While a few communitarians have developed refined institutional analyses to match their critiques—one thinks of liberal-communitarian Ezekiel Emanuel's very interesting proposals on health care…”

It is my fondest hope that those on the left will recover from the dementia that requires them to spout talking points that, actually, work to their own detriment.

But, you are right in line with other libs who know better what is good for the rest of us, kind of like this:

[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/A2a2momdss8&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/A2a2momdss8&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

 

[WillowTree]

“Another key administration figure… is Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a health policy advisor in the Office of Management and Budget and brother of Rahm Emanuel, the president's chief of staff…”is one of those responsible for inserting into the “healthcare bill” the ideas that we no longer should have rights, such as determining what care we can buy, or how long we should live, and doctors should no longer look to the Hippocratic Oath, and the particular patient, but neglect the patient in the interests of ‘social justice,’ and the society as a whole.
CPN - Tools


Dr. Emanuel says that the usual recommendations for cutting costs (often urged by President Obama) are window dressing: "Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records, and improving quality are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change." (Health Affairs, February 27, 2008.)

True change, writes Dr. Emanuel, must include reassessing the promise doctors make when they enter the profession, the Hippocratic Oath. Amazingly, Dr. Emanuel criticizes the Hippocratic Oath as partly to blame for the "overuse" of medical care: "Medical school education and post graduate education emphasize thoroughness," he wrote. Physicians take the "Hippocratic Oath's admonition to 'use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment' as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others." (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008.) Of course that is what patients hope their doctors will do. But Dr. Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their own patient and consider social justice. They should think about whether the money being spent on their patient could be better spent elsewhere. Many doctors are horrified at this notion, and will tell you that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time.
Defend Your Health Care

Dr. Emanuel also blames high U.S. spending on standards Americans take for granted. "Hospital rooms in the United States offer more privacy...physicians' offices are typically more conveniently located and have parking nearby and more attractive waiting rooms." (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008.)
By far, the most dangerous misconception in Washington is that the way to rein in health spending is by slowing the development and use of new technology. Imagine any industry or nation thriving on such a philosophy. Dr. Emanuel criticizes Americans for being "enamored with technology."
Defend Your Health Care

Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96).
Translation: Don't give much care to a grandmother with Parkinson's or a child with cerebral palsy.
He explicitly defends discrimination against older patients: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years" (Lancet, Jan. 31).
Since Medicare was founded in 1965, seniors' lives have been transformed by new medical treatments such as angioplasty, bypass surgery and hip and knee replacements. These innovations allow the elderly to lead active lives. But Emanuel criticizes Americans for being too "enamored with technology" and is determined to reduce access to it.
DEADLY DOCTORS - New York Post

And, to see what American 'healthcare' would look like under these prescriptions:
LONDON, July 31, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a case that is being hailed as a victory for proponents of assisted suicide, Britain's Law Lords have ruled that the public prosecutors must "clarify" current law on the issue. The House of Lords judicial committee ruled yesterday that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) for England and Wales must issue "guidance" on when and in what circumstances the law making it a criminal offense to assist suicide will be prosecuted.
Britain's Law Lords Rule in Favor of Assisted Suicide Seeker

And so we note that once again leftists and their dupes are never able to 'connect the dots' to see where their plans would lead, and are quick with the ubiquitous term 'lies' for any that disagree, or show them to be the dissemblers that they are.

I challenge the dupe who wrote the post to deny any of the material, and therefore to accept that the major 'cost savings' envisioned is in the denial of technology and pharmaceutical aid to the sick and the old.

WOW PC...you continue to post the same GARBAGE that I have debunked...

You really are the most disingenuous person on this board... you post TOTAL lies, promote them as undeniable truths and then spout condescending bluster...

You couldn't POSSIBLY have READ any of the articles written by Dr. Emanuel that your scum bag sources have hacked up with the express purpose of to portraying a twisted and most often OPPOSITE view of the man's beliefs...it really is amazing just how scummy and unscrupulous you right wingers are...TRUTH is not even a consideration in your piles of GARBAGE...

Wow, looks like I hit a nerve.

Exactly my intention.

That's what happens when one calls a 'dupe' a 'dupe.'

I note that, aside from the vitupertion, you were not able to deny any of the documented quotes form your champion, Dr. Emanuel.

Should it be necessary, I can do the same for Dr. Blumenthal, another of those involved in the administrations 'healthcare' proposals.

Your spinning out of control must be one of the side effects of the public turning on the proposals.

But, I'm sure the good Dr. Emanuel has some 'special' pills to calm you down.

So, let's review:

1. Dr. Emanuel criticizes the Hippocratic Oath as partly to blame for the "overuse" of medical care.

2. [Doctors] should think about whether the money being spent on their patient could be better spent elsewhere.

3. Dr. Emanuel also blames high U.S. spending on standards Americans take for granted.

4. Dr. Emanuel criticizes Americans for being "enamored with technology."

5. Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens...

6. ...not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.

7. He explicitly defends discrimination against older patients: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years"

8. ...rights need to be seen in a more balanced framework, and that the U.S. would benefit by a temporary moratorium on the manufacture of new rights.
While a few communitarians have developed refined institutional analyses to match their critiques—one thinks of liberal-communitarian Ezekiel Emanuel's very interesting proposals on health care…”

It is my fondest hope that those on the left will recover from the dementia that requires them to spout talking points that, actually, work to their own detriment.

But, you are right in line with other libs who know better what is good for the rest of us, kind of like this:

[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/A2a2momdss8&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/A2a2momdss8&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

I saw that,, and the right headed pundit said.. " that's elitism at it's finest."

 

[Jay Canuck]

Almost all polls in the US are with 1,000 people. The polls before the 2008 Presidential election were very accurate.

You are ok with polls conducted on 1,000 people and then being presented as the opinion of all of the U.S.A and I am not.
Maybe the polls got close in the election but that doesn't lead me to the conclusion that they are to be trusted - even a broken watch is right twice a day.

I know how polls are constructed, the statistical analysis and the testing methodologies used to create a scientific sample for polling data. Most polls are a fairly accurate assessment of the opinions at a given time.

Almost always, at least in my experience, the people who question the accuracy of the polls are the ones who disagree with the conclusions.

Most polls are fairly accurate? - neato!..... and that's good enough for you but for me I don't have the proof that media polls are conducted using scientific methodologies . Oh and at least in my experience the people who agree with the accuracy of the media polls are the ones who agree with the conclusions.

 

[GWV5903]

This is the government that gave us the $450 hammer and you want this same government to have your health care or your loved ones life decisions in their hands???

You would have a better chance of receiving quality health care in a county charity hospital than you will under the US Federal Government system.......

 

[Vast LWC]

Any aspect of America is a target for such boors. Do you count yourself among them?

You people seriously believe that the entire rest of the world is out to get us, don't you?

Wow. Is everyone on the right a paranoid schizophrenic, or just you?

you are not able to avow that the WHO does collect its own data

Who cares if they collect their own data? Why would any country try to manufacture false health care data?

You seriously think that the entire world is conspiring to make the United States look bad, in the health care industry? What could possibly be gained from such a far-fetched plot?

Wait, now I understand, you're still locked in Cold-War propaganda thinking. This is not the USA vs the USSR anymore. If this is truly what you believe, and you are not just playing Devil's advocate, than there is something seriously wrong with you. Have you smoked a lot of pot or something to make you this paranoid?

embarrassed is the 'lol' deflection.

Now that's funny, because the lol was a laugh at your utter lack of understanding of human nature.

A bit of self-aggrandizement

Look who's talking:

imitation is the sincerest of flattery. Complements on your good taste.

self-aggrandizement at it's finest. But again, you did warn us in point 1. of your original bit of projection that you would be accusing others of what you are guilty of.

 

[Vast LWC]

This is the government that gave us the $450 hammer and you want this same government to have your health care or your loved ones life decisions in their hands???

It's also the government that won World War 2, fixed Europe afterwards, and built the Hoover Dam.

 

[Vast LWC]

Quote:
This is the government that gave us the $450 hammer and you want this same government to have your health care or your loved ones life decisions in their hands???
It's also the government that won World War 2, fixed Europe afterwards, and built the Hoover Dam.

Not to mention the government that built the US highway system, put a man on the moon, made the first atomic bomb... The list goes on, and on.

It is only recently that Republicans have been able to convince people that government cannot do anything right, and, that is true... When Republicans are in the majority anyway.

 

[Coyote]

[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Fexz8Ij-OBQ&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Fexz8Ij-OBQ&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

This is a 33 second blip.

How can this be in anyway meaningful?

 

[Jay Canuck]

it's meanigful in the sense that you really get the full context of what Krugman is saying.

 

[Coyote]

it's meanigful in the sense that you really get the full context of what Krugman is saying.

Maybe I'm missing something but...I'm not seeing any context

 

[Vast LWC]

I'm not seeing any context

I think Jay might have been indulging in a bit of sarcasm there.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

it's meanigful in the sense that you really get the full context of what Krugman is saying.

Krugman was trying to say that canadians like their healthcare. However when he identfied the canadians in that specific crowd of people they all said they didn't really like it.

Thats the context of what people are making fun of.

It was like when biden told the guy in the wheelchair to stand up and take a bow

 

[GWV5903]

This is the government that gave us the $450 hammer and you want this same government to have your health care or your loved ones life decisions in their hands???

It's also the government that won World War 2, fixed Europe afterwards, and built the Hoover Dam.

Funny you would use WW II as an example, if you think Europe is fixed your really drinking too much of the Obama Kool Aid, and finally, building the Hoover Dam, constructing highways (oh don't forget THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary For Immediate Release February 6, 2009 EXECUTIVE ORDER to pay back the Unions) are a far cry from who decides my health care choices, you forget all to easily what freedoms we have enjoyed as a nation, wake up before it is too late......

 

[Coyote]

it's meanigful in the sense that you really get the full context of what Krugman is saying.

Krugman was trying to say that canadians like their healthcare. However when he identfied the canadians in that specific crowd of people they all said they didn't really like it.

Thats the context of what people are making fun of.

It was like when biden told the guy in the wheelchair to stand up and take a bow

Except - 33 seconds isn't enough...for instance, what if he asked the question: "...but would you trade it for the U.S. system"? I wonder what the answer would be - thus far, I haven't heard of many Canadians who would give up their system for ours.

 

[Jay Canuck]

I'm not seeing any context

I think Jay might have been indulging in a bit of sarcasm there.

you caught that.

 

[Jay Canuck]

do the elderly in the USA want to give up Medicare because that is Gov. run?.....how about vets?

of course I 'm not going to ask if those in congress dislike their coverage.

 

[Jay Canuck]

 

[Vast LWC]

Funny you would use WW II as an example

Why is that "funny"? It was a "socialist" Democrat (Roosevelt) who won it for us.

if you think Europe is fixed your really drinking too much of the Obama Kool Aid

It WAS fixed by the US Government after WW2. What they did with it afterwards was not up to us.

Hoover Dam, constructing highways.. are a far cry from who decides my health care choices

You're absolutely right. Doing those things was much more difficult than running a public health insurance option would be.