2006 Poll: 51% Dems want Bush to fail! [Archive]

View Full Version : 2006 Poll: 51% Dems want Bush to fail!

Whet

3/9/2009, 03:54 PM

This is SO typical of the Dems and their allies in the MSM!

If a conservative says he want the President to fail, that is just awful, un-American, stupid, evil, he is just a big blowhard, etc. But, if a Dem sayes the same thing, well it is just a fact.

What is the term to use in this situation? Hypocrite sounds right!

Flashback: 2006 Poll Showed Most Democrats Wanted Bush to Fail

An August 2006 poll conducted by FOX News/Opinion Dynamics showed 51 percent of Democrats did not want Bush to succeed.

FOXNews.com
Monday, March 09, 2009

Rush Limbaugh took a lot of heat for saying he wants President Obama to fail -- but a lot of Democrats felt the same way about former President George W. Bush during his second term.

An August 2006 poll conducted by FOX News/Opinion Dynamics showed 51 percent of Democrats did not want Bush to succeed. Thirty-four percent of independents also did not want Bush to succeed.

By comparison, 90 percent of Republicans said at the time that they wanted Bush to succeed, and 40 percent of Democrats said the same.
Conservative radio talk show host Limbaugh says he doesn't want the economy to fail -- just Obama's policies. But his comments last month at the Conservative Political Action Conference drew sharp criticism from the White House.

After CPAC, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told CBS' "Face the Nation" that Limbaugh's stance was the "wrong philosophy for America." http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/09/flashback-poll-showed-democrats-wanted-bush-fail/

XingTheRubicon

3/9/2009, 03:55 PM

that's different though

XingTheRubicon

3/9/2009, 03:57 PM

'cause liberals were unAmerican in the first place

<runs away>

XingTheRubicon

3/9/2009, 03:58 PM

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/7168/imagesize239x110.png (http://img17.imageshack.us/my.php?image=imagesize239x110.png)

XingTheRubicon

3/9/2009, 03:59 PM

http://img48.imageshack.us/img48/8951/0201perfectstorm.jpg (http://img48.imageshack.us/my.php?image=0201perfectstorm.jpg)

KC//CRIMSON

3/9/2009, 03:59 PM

2nd Term > 1 month

Oh, and yay Fox News!

XingTheRubicon

3/9/2009, 04:02 PM

so it's ok to commit treason after four years, got it.

KC//CRIMSON

3/9/2009, 04:04 PM

so it's ok to commit treason after four years, got it.

We can get Rush for treason? Awesome!

JLEW1818

3/9/2009, 04:07 PM

XingTheRubicon

3/9/2009, 04:08 PM

right after you execute half of your party, sure

KC//CRIMSON

3/9/2009, 04:11 PM

right after you execute half of your party, sure

Well, luckily for Rush, stupidity and gluttony are not illegal.

XingTheRubicon

3/9/2009, 04:18 PM

dude obama is the savior, if you disagree with him your going to hell for sure. If you don't like him and your white, your racist. It's very American to give hard earned money to people who were to stupid to realize they could not afford the house they bought. Let's all just make sure that anybody in the wrong always gets the benefit of the doubt. Everybody should have health care, if you believe not you are hurting innocent children. YET IT'S OKAY TO HAVE A DAMN ABORTION. YET ITS OKAY TO LET MURDERS LIVE BUT KILL ****ING BABIES?

I honestly don't believe Obama is happy with what's being shoved down his throat right now. Pelosi and Co. may prove to be the most retarded and dangerous group of people since that Michigan militia that blew up their own hideout back in the '80s.

XingTheRubicon

3/9/2009, 04:22 PM

Well, luckily for Rush, stupidity and gluttony are not illegal.

I'd take a wild guess that he's smarter than you. Now, is he a lard ***, sure but that's what radio is for.

btw, the treason remark came from your idiotic party.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/03/05/lib-talker-maybe-limbaugh-should-be-executed-treason

JLEW1818

3/9/2009, 04:55 PM

KC, can you tell me how my previous post is not what Obama actually stands for?

KC//CRIMSON

3/9/2009, 05:03 PM

dude obama is the savior, if you disagree with him your going to hell for sure. If you don't like him and your white, your racist. It's very American to give hard earned money to people who were to stupid to realize they could not afford the house they bought. Let's all just make sure that anybody in the wrong always gets the benefit of the doubt. Everybody should have health care, if you believe not you are hurting innocent children. YET IT'S OKAY TO HAVE A DAMN ABORTION. YET ITS OKAY TO LET MURDERS LIVE BUT KILL ****ING BABIES?

Do I really need to explain to you how dumb this is?

JLEW1818

3/9/2009, 05:08 PM

Does Obama believe that people should give money to other people for their messed up housing? yes (taxing)

Everybody should have health care.

Abortion is supported but death penalty is not.

How are any of these not Obama facts?

badger

3/9/2009, 05:21 PM

For the 51 percent of Democrats polled - be careful what you wish for.

You are now in control of Congress and the presidency, but is this all you hoped for?

soonerscuba

3/9/2009, 05:31 PM

Vaevictis

3/9/2009, 05:31 PM

JLEW1818

3/9/2009, 05:42 PM

Everybody should have health care?!?!?!? OH NOES!!!!!!!!!!

Govt health care programs do not work. It's not my fault or anybody's fault that some people can't afford certain things. Honestly i hope Obama figures out a way to do this health care project with out pissing everybody else off. Ya its cool that some countries have universal health care, but where do a lot Canadians go to have major surgery's? AMERICA, b/c the other hospitals have 4 year waits.

JLEW1818

3/9/2009, 05:43 PM

The real question is: Do you hope that they fail to implement their policies, or do you hope that they fail to do a good job?

See, the first isn't really a crime. The second is pretty craptacular.

(Of course, this goes for both Bush and Obama haters.)

He is our president so i hope they work, but in the long run i don't see this helping America. Any middle class citizen who does not thing their taxes are going to be raised down the road is really dumb.

Curly Bill

3/9/2009, 06:20 PM

He is our president so i hope they work, but in the long run i don't see this helping America. Any middle class citizen who does not thing their taxes are going to be raised down the road is really dumb.

A lot of middle class citizens voted for Obama, they've already proven they're dumb.

soonerscuba

3/9/2009, 06:29 PM

Govt health care programs do not work. It's not my fault or anybody's fault that some people can't afford certain things. Honestly i hope Obama figures out a way to do this health care project with out pissing everybody else off. Ya its cool that some countries have universal health care, but where do a lot Canadians go to have major surgery's? AMERICA, b/c the other hospitals have 4 year waits.You didn't say gov't healthcare. You said healthcare, and the idea that you think they are mutually exclusive says a lot. Universal health care is so awful that most of the industrialized world offers it, the US spends far to much per capita to shill to pharm companies. I think there is healthy medium to at least offer preventative care for everybody. The idea that people come to the US for surgery is probably more a result of charitable hospitals and gov't research grants for than a godawful exploiting insurance system that Dems and Republicans are hell bent are protecting.

Whet

3/9/2009, 07:26 PM

Just like the MSM did not provide indepth investigative reporting on Barry Soetoro during the campaign, they have continued the non-reporting on government-controlled universal health-care problems, as discussed in the following article:

Media Routinely Ignores Govt.-Controlled Health Care Problems in Other Countries

By Tom Blumer
March 7, 2009 - 20:33 ET

You would think that a proposal for the government to radically extend its involvement in health care would motivate reporters to investigate how it's working out in other countries. You would be wrong.

Mark Levin bought this matter up on his show Thursday. His web site's home page (http://www.marklevinshow.com/) (near the bottom left) points to a post at Liberty-Page.com, where there are compilations of dozens of articles on how socialized medicine is not working out well in Britain (http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/socialized.html#britain), Canada (http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/socialized.html#canada), and elsewhere.
Though it's still early in year, the Liberty-Page site cites no reports from either country during 2009. This leads to the question of how difficult it would be to find more recent examples.

The answer is "very easy," despite the fact that British and Canadian news organizations have traditionally tended to treat their countries' socialized systems as sancrosanct.

Looking at just one country, here are just six relevant results from the past three weeks obtained from a Google News search (http://news.google.com/news?ned=us&hl=en&q=bbc+nhs&um=1&scoring=n) on "NHS BBC" (not in quotes):
March 5 -- "Disgust" over Wheelchair Delays (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/north_west/7927215.stm)"; "One child has been waiting for 20 months and the North Wales NHS Trust says it has cut times and is aiming to ensure no child waits more than a year." That would be an accomplishment?
March 5 -- "NHS charges to rise (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7925167.stm) in England"; "The British Medical Association (BMA) said the current system was not working and was 'iniquitous' for many patients." It wants every single solitary prescription to be free.
March 2 -- "Prime Minister's health records breached in database attack (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/02/nhs_database_breach/); Scottish rich and powerful victimized"; so much for mediard records security.
February 25 -- "Hospital lost patient data disks (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/north_east/7908856.stm)." Ten years' worth.
February 17 -- "Stroke services are 'UK's worst' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7893301.stm?lss)" -- "Dr Tony Rudd, who assessed services in Wales, England and Northern Ireland two years ago, said services in Wales were 'scandalously bad.'"
February 17 -- ''New computer delay costs NHS Trust £500,000 (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23644597-details/New+computer+delay+costs+NHS+trust+500,000/article.do)" -- "THE next London hospital in line to install the problem-hit NHS computer system has had its start date postponed for a second time."This search wasn't difficult. One would think that someone, anyone, would ask how Team Obama plans to avoid allowing what every other socialized health system has imposed on its people: unconscionable delays (accompanied by needless premature deaths), rationing, poor quality treatment, and administrative snafus.

But apparently there's no time for that. Michelle Obama's right to bare arms (http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/02/25/1808531.aspx) is apparently more important.

Vaevictis

3/9/2009, 07:47 PM

Govt health care programs do not work.

I'm pretty sure I'm not hallucinating my Canadian friends and in-laws who really like their health care system. Or my Bahamian in-laws who really like theirs. Or my British in-laws who really like theirs.

Hell, my father in law moved back to Britain (from the USA) in large part because of their health care system -- dollar for dollar, he gets better care than he can get here.

For a system that doesn't work, I sure know a hell of a lot of satisfied customers.

tommieharris91

3/9/2009, 07:49 PM

Republicans rightly called those 51% of Democrats who want Bush to fail un-American. Now, it's their turn. I don't hope he fails, but I don't think what he is doing will work to save the economy. I think the pain needs to be felt before we come out of it. I also think new companies will emerge to take over for the old ones.

JLEW1818

3/9/2009, 08:02 PM

I pray that Obama can find a way that pleases everybody. Now that my friend would be the ideal president. But i don't see any president being able to do that....... and trust me bush did not please everybody, so i'm not saying he was that type of a guy.

Whet

3/9/2009, 08:08 PM

I'm pretty sure I'm not hallucinating my Canadian friends and in-laws who really like their health care system. Or my Bahamian in-laws who really like theirs. Or my British in-laws who really like theirs.

Hell, my father in law moved back to Britain (from the USA) in large part because of their health care system -- dollar for dollar, he gets better care than he can get here.

For a system that doesn't work, I sure know a hell of a lot of satisfied customers.
I guess the following articles are full of bs. The Canadians I spoke with do have issues with their healthcare system. Several had to come to the US for timely treatment.

http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/socialized.html#intro

JLEW1818

3/9/2009, 08:09 PM

Whet your racist !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;)

Vaevictis

3/9/2009, 08:10 PM

See my prior post regarding my preference for the British system where a public system and private system co-exist side-by-side.

Basically, I'm not an idealist here like the Canadians are. There are cases where a public system is more efficient, and there are cases where a private system is more efficient.

The fact of the matter is that medicine has a lot of situations where, left to its own devices, the market is so incredibly distorted that a free market makes no sense. If you've just had a heart attack, you're not going to go shopping around for the best deal, there's not going to be any competition for services -- you're going straight to the nearest medical facility that can handle your condition, irrespective of the price.

Free markets work for lancing a boil. Free markets do not work for heart attacks.

And don't even get me started on patented pharmaceutical products, which are by definition non-free.

Whet

3/9/2009, 08:22 PM

:pop:
http://www.mackinac.org/media/images/2000/v2000-12a.gif

The above is from a 2000 study. To learn more, try this link:
http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=2748

Or, this is an eye-opener:

Why Canadians Purchase Private Health Insurance

by Walter Williams (http://www.capmag.com/author.asp?ID=15) (June 20, 2005)
http://www.capmag.com/images2y346y/people/walter_williams.jpg America's socialists advocate that we adopt a universal healthcare system like our northern neighbor Canada. Before we buy into complete socialization of our healthcare system, we might check out the Canadian Supreme Court's June 9th ruling in Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General). It turns out that in order to prop up government-delivered medical care, Quebec and other Canadian provinces have outlawed private health insurance. By a 4 to 3 decision, Canada's high court struck down Quebec's law that prohibits private medical insurance. With all of the leftist hype extolling the "virtues" of Canada's universal healthcare system, you might wonder why any sane Canadian would want to purchase private insurance.
Plaintiffs Jacques Chaoulli, a physician, and his patient, George Zeliotis, launched their legal challenge to the government's monopolized healthcare system after having had to wait a year for hip-replacement surgery. In finding for the plaintiffs, Canada's high court said, "The evidence in this case shows that delays in the public healthcare system are widespread, and that, in some serious cases, patients die as a result of waiting lists for public healthcare. The evidence also demonstrates that the prohibition against private health insurance and its consequence of denying people vital healthcare result in physical and psychological suffering that meets a threshold test of seriousness." Writing for the majority, Justice Marie Deschamps said, "Many patients on non-urgent waiting lists are in pain and cannot fully enjoy any real quality of life. The right to life and to personal inviolability is therefore affected by the waiting times."

http://www.capmag.com/images2y346y/comics/cf/05.06.14.Queuetop-X.gif
Cartoon by Cox and Forkum (http://www.coxandforkum.com/)
The Vancouver, British Columbia-based Fraser Institute keeps track of Canadian waiting times for various medical procedures. According to the Fraser Institute's 14th annual edition of "Waiting Your Turn: Hospital Waiting Lists in Canada (2004)," total waiting time between referral from a general practitioner and treatment, averaged across all 12 specialties and 10 provinces surveyed, rose from 17.7 weeks in 2003 to 17.9 weeks in 2004.
For example, depending on which Canadian province, an MRI requires a wait between 7 and 33 weeks.
Orthopaedic surgery might require a wait of 14 weeks for a referral from a general practitioner to the specialist and then another 24 weeks from the specialist to treatment. That statistic might help explain why Cleveland, Ohio, has become Canada's hip-replacement center.
As reported in a December 2003 story by Kerri Houston for the Frontiers of Freedom Institute titled "Access Denied: Canada's Healthcare System Turns Patients into Victims," in some instances, patients die on the waiting list because they become too sick to tolerate a procedure. Canada's Prime Minister Paul Martin responded to the court's decision saying, "We're not going to have a two-tier healthcare system in this country. What we want to do is strengthen the public healthcare system." That's the standard callous political response. He's telling Canadians to continue waiting, continue suffering and perhaps dying until the day comes when there's no more waiting. And though Canadian politicians can't give their citizens a date certain when there'll be no more waiting, they're determined to deny them alternatives to waiting for government-provided healthcare. I'd bet you the rent money that Prime Minister Martin and members of the Canadian Parliament don't have to wait months and years for a medical procedure.
I wonder just how many Americans would like to import Canada's healthcare system, which prohibits the purchase of private insurance and private healthcare services. In British Columbia, for example, Bill 82 provides that a physician can be fined up to $20,000 for accepting fees for surgery. In my book, it's medical Naziism for government to prohibit a person who wishes to purchase medical services from doing so. But let's not look down our noses at our northern neighbors, for we too are well along the road toward medical Naziism.

Born in Philadelphia in 1936, Walter E. Williams holds a bachelor's degree in economics from California State University (1965) and a master's degree (1967) and doctorate (1972) in economics from the University of California at Los Angeles.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

3/9/2009, 08:27 PM

I don't really believe many of the dems who took the poll were honest , in that only 51% of them said they wanted Bush to fail-ie lose the war.

Whet

3/9/2009, 08:30 PM

British system is so good?

Sweden's Government Health Care

by Walter Williams (http://www.capmag.com/author.asp?ID=15) (March 4, 2009)

Government health care advocates used to sing the praises of Britain's National Health Service (NHS). That's until its poor delivery of health care services became known. A recent study by David Green and Laura Casper, "Delay, Denial and Dilution," written for the London-based Institute of Economic Affairs, concludes that the NHS health care services are just about the worst in the developed world. The head of the World Health Organization calculated that Britain has as many as 25,000 unnecessary cancer deaths a year because of under-provision of care. Twelve percent of specialists surveyed admitted refusing kidney dialysis to patients suffering from kidney failure because of limits on cash. Waiting lists for medical treatment have become so long that there are now "waiting lists" for the waiting list.

Government health care advocates sing the praises of Canada's single-payer system. Canada's government system isn't that different from Britain's. For example, after a Canadian has been referred to a specialist, the waiting list for gynecological surgery is four to 12 weeks, cataract removal 12 to 18 weeks, tonsillectomy three to 36 weeks and neurosurgery five to 30 weeks. Toronto-area hospitals, concerned about lawsuits, ask patients to sign a legal release accepting that while delays in treatment may jeopardize their health, they nevertheless hold the hospital blameless. Canadians have an option Britainers don't: close proximity of American hospitals. In fact, the Canadian government spends over $1 billion each year for Canadians to receive medical treatment in our country. I wonder how much money the U.S. government spends for Americans to be treated in Canada.

"OK, Williams," you say, "Sweden is the world's socialist wonder." Sven R. Larson tells about some of Sweden's problems in "Lesson from Sweden's Universal Health System: Tales from the Health-care Crypt," published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (Spring 2008). Mr. D., a Gothenburg multiple sclerosis patient, was prescribed a new drug. His doctor's request was denied because the drug was 33 percent more expensive than the older medicine. Mr. D. offered to pay for the medicine himself but was prevented from doing so. The bureaucrats said it would set a bad precedent and lead to unequal access to medicine.

Malmo, with its 280,000 residents, is Sweden's third-largest city. To see a physician, a patient must go to one of two local clinics before they can see a specialist. The clinics have security guards to keep patients from getting unruly as they wait hours to see a doctor. The guards also prevent new patients from entering the clinic when the waiting room is considered full. Uppsala, a city with 200,000 people, has only one specialist in mammography. Sweden's National Cancer Foundation reports that in a few years most Swedish women will not have access to mammography.
Dr. Olle Stendahl, a professor of medicine at Linkoping University, pointed out a side effect of government-run medicine: its impact on innovation. He said, "In our budget-government health care there is no room for curious, young physicians and other professionals to challenge established views. New knowledge is not attractive but typically considered a problem (that brings) increased costs and disturbances in today's slimmed-down health care."

These are just a few of the problems of Sweden's single-payer government-run health care system. I wonder how many Americans would like a system that would, as in the case of Mr. D. of Gothenburg, prohibit private purchase of your own medicine if the government refused paying. We have problems in our health care system but most of them are a result of too much government. Over 50 percent of health care expenditures in our country are made by government. Government health care advocates might say that they will avoid the horrors of other government-run systems. Don't believe them.

The American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, who published Sven Larson's paper, is a group of liberty-oriented doctors and health care practitioners who haven't sold their members down the socialist river as have other medical associations. They deserve our thanks for being a major player in the '90s defeat of "Hillary care."

Curly Bill

3/9/2009, 09:24 PM

Most anything that governments manage they do so very poorly, why do some people think that health care would be different?

JLEW1818

3/9/2009, 09:34 PM

CHANGE!!!!!!!!!!!

Curly Bill

3/9/2009, 09:37 PM

Why do we want poor people getting health care anyways? Just makes 'em live longer so the rest of us have to keep footin the bill for 'em. ;) ;) :D

....although....if the government were to take over health care this might not be so true....hmmmmmmmmm?

[insert evil laugh here]

soonerhubs

3/9/2009, 10:16 PM

I'm pretty sure I'm not hallucinating my Canadian friends and in-laws who really like their health care system. Or my Bahamian in-laws who really like theirs. Or my British in-laws who really like theirs.

Hell, my father in law moved back to Britain (from the USA) in large part because of their health care system -- dollar for dollar, he gets better care than he can get here.

For a system that doesn't work, I sure know a hell of a lot of satisfied customers.

So you're talking a sample of what... 6-7 people?

One word: Generalizability.

Penguin

3/9/2009, 10:22 PM

Wishing W to fail is like wishing 1+1 to equal 2.

Frozen Sooner

3/9/2009, 10:39 PM

Interesting that the Fox News story fails to link to the poll or disclose what the actual question asked was. The poll itself does not appear to be available on their database of past polls.

KC//CRIMSON

3/9/2009, 10:41 PM

Whet

3/9/2009, 10:52 PM

Interesting that the Fox News story fails to link to the poll or disclose what the actual question asked was. The poll itself
does not appear to be available on their database of past polls.

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/FOX_230_release_web.pdf

10. Regardless of how you voted in the presidential election, would you say you
want President Bush to succeed or not?
SCALE: 1. Yes, want him to succeed 2. No, do not want him to succeed
3. (Don’t know)
Yes No (Don’t know)
8-9 Aug 06 63% 32 5
Democrats 40% 51 9
Republicans 90% 7 2

Frozen Sooner

3/9/2009, 10:52 PM

OK, finally found the poll. The question is phrased slightly differently than implied (the question is whether you want President Bush to succeed, not whether you want him to fail) but the results are as presented with 51% of Democratic respondents saying they did not want him to succeed. The question itself is methodologically flawed, of course, since it does not indicate success in what but overall yeah.

Frozen Sooner

3/9/2009, 10:53 PM

Thanks Whet. That's the link I finally found. Took a little digging.

As noted above, the question is slightly different than as presented in the story.

jkjsooner

3/10/2009, 10:37 AM

I agree with Frozen. Asking answering no to , "Do you want President Bush to succeed," is not the same as simply stating, "I want him to fail." In the first you are only given a yes/no option and must interpret the question yourself. In the latter you are making a statement and can qualify exactly what you mean by that statement.

Those two may or may not mean the same thing depending on your interpretation of the question and/or statement. And, please, don't point out that the opposite of success is failure. That has nothing to do with what I am saying.

The big difference is that Limbaugh wasn't simply asked a question but instead he made a statement. He could have said, "I want Obama to fail to implement his liberal policies," but he chose to state it in a more controversial way to draw attention to himself. Guys, that's what he does. That's why most people do not take him seriously and I would bet anything he does not take himself nearly as seriously as his listeners do.

Had a prominent liberal talk show host had stated simply, "I want Bush to fail," Limbaugh would have gone crazy just as others have on Limbaugh.

And, yes, I'm sure there are plenty of Democrats who, when answering the question, interpreted it in a way that leaves their answer disguisting.

KC//CRIMSON

3/10/2009, 01:38 PM

Chris Wallace Lies to Defend Rush Limbaugh

On Fox News, host Chris Wallace blatantly lied when he falsely claimed that Rush Limbaugh never said he wanted President Obama to fail, but rather he wanted Obama’s “policies” to fail. However, Limbaugh never said “Obama’s policies.”

WALLACE: I do want to point out though just as a point of information, that Rush Limbaugh says, and I think if you read what he says, he wasn’t saying I want the president to fail. He was saying I want his policies, his agenda to fail and that he disagreed with them and thought they were bad for America.

Here are Limbaugh’s exact words, the words “Obama’s policies” do not exist:

Liberalism is what’s gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don’t care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long. I Hope Obama Fails. Somebody’s gotta say it. I hope he fails. And that would be the most outrageous thing anybody in this climate could say.

LosAngelesSooner

3/10/2009, 03:54 PM

Most anything that governments manage they do so very poorly, why do some people think that health care would be different?The post office works pretty damned good. And cheap.

If they got health care to run like the post office, I'd be all for it. :texan:

olevetonahill

3/10/2009, 04:16 PM

The post office works pretty damned good. And cheap.

If they got health care to run like the post office, I'd be all for it. :texan:

Would Dean be a big shot in that to ?:D

LosAngelesSooner

3/10/2009, 04:27 PM

Dr. Dean. Paging Dr. Dean to Gynecology.

JLEW1818

3/10/2009, 05:11 PM

the post office benefits everybody.

LosAngelesSooner

3/10/2009, 05:21 PM

the post office benefits everybody.And yet Doctors and available health care (especially preventative) don't? :rolleyes:

JLEW1818

3/10/2009, 05:45 PM

no, the Medicare & Medicaid programs are basically disasters.....

I'd just kinda like to pay for my health care, and let other people worry about theirs....

LosAngelesSooner

3/10/2009, 05:48 PM

no, the Medicare & Medicaid programs are basically disasters.....Nobody's arguing that.

And that's also not an argument against Universal Health Care.

I'd just kinda like to pay for my health care, and let other people worry about theirs....Ah. Let 'em bleed by the side of the road as long as you get YOUR triage.

Very Christian of you. :rolleyes:

JLEW1818

3/10/2009, 05:55 PM

Just saying I can't really afford to give much more to people. I already give money to my church. Your right the bible does say give to the poor, but there is only so much middle class families can do. I support the bible, but when it comes to my family and some other family, I'm going to support mine. I just hope Obama figures a new system out that will please everybody. I do pray that he can find a way.

LosAngelesSooner

3/10/2009, 07:52 PM

Your taxes pay for the Police to respond to other people, poor people. Your taxes pay for the Fire Department to respond to other people, poor people. Yet you have a problem with your taxes paying for doctors to treat other people, poor people.

Yet you want to pull that money out and "give it to your church" which can do none of the above.

Interesting take on things.

JLEW1818

3/10/2009, 08:19 PM

olevetonahill

3/10/2009, 09:23 PM

Crucifax Autumn

3/10/2009, 09:46 PM

My take on things is this:

By 2006 Bush's approval rating was beginning to set record lows and pretty much everyone thought he was screwing up, conservatives included.

Seems to me they took this poll a little late to actually be relevant in any way when the point was pretty much moot.

That said, I didn't give a crap what people thought on the succeed/fail then and I don't now either...

LosAngelesSooner

3/10/2009, 10:27 PM

actually a % of everyone's check goes to Medicaid and medicare.

AND I WOULD BE DAMN PROUD IF OBAMA RAISED MY TAXES SO THERE COULD BE MORE POLICE AND FIREMAN. Before I give my money to people who have not earned it.

YOU SHOULD NOT BE FORCED TO PAY FOR SOMEBODY'S HEALTH CARE. And don't freaking tell me its gonna only be people making over 250,000 who get hit by this ... wait 2 years and see whose taxes gets increased.

your the one who brought up Christianity partner..... so i assume your a christian?? So is giving to the church not a good thing???
Is it inherently a "Good thing?" I would say "sometimes." Certainly not ALWAYS. Many Churches spend your money on trips, nice cars, mansions, new clothes...it really depends on the church you're giving to.

Do I think donating money to Crossroads Cathedral (and mega churches like that) is a "good thing?" Nope. Eff that guy and his mansion that he needs a golf cart to go down to get his mail while people are poor in America and he calls himself a "Man of God." But are there some good Churches to donate to who spend the money helping those who need it? Yes.

Back on topic:

To restate: you have no problem with your tax money going to Firemen to come rescue and save the lives other/poor people, put out fires for and save the lives of other/poor people, drive other/poor people to the hospital, emergency respond for other/poor people, Police to defend, protect and save the lives other/poor people, but you are COMPLETELY AGAINST your tax money going to doctors TREATING and HEALING and SAVING THE LIVES of other/poor people.

Gotcha. It makes absolutely no sense and is a position that is unable to be defended from a logic standpoint, but I gotcha...that's what you believe.

Wow.

KC//CRIMSON

3/10/2009, 10:30 PM

You tell 'em, partner!

Curly Bill

3/10/2009, 10:38 PM

I want my tax money to support poor people's right to fine food, a nice car, designer clothes, a nice home in a nice neighborhood, etc...

After all, just because someone's poor doesn't mean they shouldn't have the very same things that people of means are able to acquire.

LosAngelesSooner

3/10/2009, 10:53 PM

Riiiiiight. Because that makes total sense.

"Save a poor person's life" = "buy them designer clothes, fine food, a nice car and a house in a nice neighborhood"

in other news:

"Apples" = "Oranges"

Curly Bill

3/10/2009, 10:55 PM

Riiiiiight. Because that makes total sense.

"Save a poor person's life" = "buy them designer clothes, fine food, a nice car and a house in a nice neighborhood"

in other news:

"Apples" = "Oranges"

Nah really, poor people should have all of the same things as the rest of us. I mean -- that's fair right?

JLEW1818

3/10/2009, 11:11 PM

Is it inherently a "Good thing?" I would say "sometimes." Certainly not ALWAYS. Many Churches spend your money on trips, nice cars, mansions, new clothes...it really depends on the church you're giving to.

Do I think donating money to Crossroads Cathedral (and mega churches like that) is a "good thing?" Nope. Eff that guy and his mansion that he needs a golf cart to go down to get his mail while people are poor in America and he calls himself a "Man of God." But are there some good Churches to donate to who spend the money helping those who need it? Yes.

Back on topic:

To restate: you have no problem with your tax money going to Firemen to come rescue and save the lives other/poor people, put out fires for and save the lives of other/poor people, drive other/poor people to the hospital, emergency respond for other/poor people, Police to defend, protect and save the lives other/poor people, but you are COMPLETELY AGAINST your tax money going to doctors TREATING and HEALING and SAVING THE LIVES of other/poor people.

Gotcha. It makes absolutely no sense and is a position that is unable to be defended from a logic standpoint, but I gotcha...that's what you believe.

Wow.

Police and fireman benefit everybody, so therefore everybody pays for them. For people to pay for other peoples health care does not benefit everybody. Why should people be forced to pay for other peoples things??? Answer that please... On the church thing i agree with you, some churches try to make a church a business. As for my church I know where my money goes.

Vaevictis

3/10/2009, 11:20 PM

Curly Bill

3/10/2009, 11:20 PM

Police and fireman benefit everybody, so therefore everybody pays for them. For people to pay for other peoples health care does not benefit everybody. Why should people be forced to pay for other peoples things??? Answer that please... On the church thing i agree with you, some churches try to make a church a business. As for my church I know where my money goes.

It's the typical bleeding heart idea of wanting to help people they feel deserve to be helped. Of course the bleeding hearts want to provide that help with other peoples money, and here's where it gets tricky: when people protest they don't want the bleeding hearts of the world dipping into their wallets to help these poor unfortunate souls, the bleeding hearts can then slap the "mean" label on them, as in: "How can you be so mean as to not want to help save peoples lives?"

There, see how that works? ;)

JLEW1818

3/10/2009, 11:24 PM

How does a fireman going to your house and putting out a fire destroying your property benefit me?

b/c what if he goes to your house after to put the fire out at your house? Are you ****ing trying to tell me fireman are not needed in America?

So that's all fireman do, is put out fires at other peoples houses?

Vaevictis

3/10/2009, 11:27 PM

b/c what if he goes to your house after to put the fire out at your house? Are you ****ing trying to tell me fireman are not needed in America?

So that's all fireman do, is put out fires at other peoples houses?

Oh, so paying for firemen to put out fires at everyone's house is okay, because it benefits everyone.

But paying for doctors to give health care to everyone isn't, because it doesn't benefit everyone.

Yeah. That makes sense.

Curly Bill

3/10/2009, 11:30 PM

Oh, so paying for firemen to put out fires at everyone's house is okay, because it benefits everyone.

But paying for doctors to give health care to everyone isn't, because it doesn't benefit everyone.

Yeah. That makes sense.

Some poor person's house catches on fire it might spread to my house and other people's houses. Some poor person dies from lack of health insurance his dying probably won't spread to me. ;)

...and even if I catch his sickness, well...I have health insurance because I made sure to get an education, and try to keep a job that provides insurance. Novel concept huh?

Vaevictis

3/10/2009, 11:31 PM

And no, I'm not saying we shouldn't have firemen. I'm saying that your argument in favor of government funded firemen also supports government funded medicine.

The government paying a fireman to go to your house and put out a fire destroying your property isn't really all that different than a government paying a doctor to fix some disease you've contracted.

JLEW1818

3/10/2009, 11:33 PM

Fireman do more than put out fires you know?? Why we are at it, lets go ahead and get rid of police too. Then it can be truly Obama world, b/c people can do what ever they want to do!!!

Vaevictis

3/10/2009, 11:33 PM

Some poor person's house catches on fire it might spread to my house and other people's houses. Some poor person dies from lack of health insurance his dying probably won't spread to me. ;)

It might, but the firemen could just prevent the fire from spreading. And if there's no danger of it spreading, they could just say, "Nah, no danger to the public here, moving on..."

Or if there's a car on the highway from an accident with the motorist inside injured, they could just move the car to the side of the highway to let traffic by. No danger to the public anymore, right?

And as far as a poor person dying from lack of health insurance, some health concerns are contagious, you know. ;)

Vaevictis

3/10/2009, 11:35 PM

Fireman do more than put out fires you know?? Why we are at it, lets go ahead and get rid of police too. Then it can be truly Obama world, b/c people can do what ever they want to do!!!

I'm completely aware that firemen do more than put out fires. I'm just saying that a lot of what they get paid to do isn't stuff that necessarily involves public safety.

There's no public safety reason to do more than prevent the fire at your house from spreading. There's no public safety reason to remove an injured person from a car; moving the car to the side of the road to let people get by is sufficient.

And no, I'm not advocating getting rid of firemen.

I'm saying your argument is garbage.

Firemen benefit everyone? Yeah, so do doctors.

JLEW1818

3/10/2009, 11:36 PM

do fireman save lives??? yes!!!! Do people who don't have health care save lives??? NOOOOOO

so i'll pay for the service that could save me.

Curly Bill

3/10/2009, 11:36 PM

It might, but the firemen could just prevent the fire from spreading. And if there's no danger of it spreading, they could just say, "Nah, no danger to the public here, moving on..."

Or if there's a car on the highway from an accident with the motorist inside injured, they could just move the car to the side of the highway to let traffic by. No danger to the public anymore, right?

And as far as a poor person dying from lack of health insurance, some health concerns are contagious, you know. ;)

If you're asking me, then yeah we can get rid of firemen, policemen, etc...and we can all fend for ourselves.

JLEW1818

3/10/2009, 11:38 PM

If you're asking me, then yeah we can get rid of firemen, policemen, etc...and we can all fend for ourselves.

:)

Vaevictis

3/10/2009, 11:39 PM

do fireman save lives??? yes!!!! Do people who don't have health care save lives??? NOOOOOO

so i'll pay for the service that could save me.

...

Wow.

Vaevictis

3/10/2009, 11:40 PM

If you're asking me, then yeah we can get rid of firemen, policemen, etc...and we can all fend for ourselves.

Yeah, that's about as sustainable as Marx's idea of communism.

JLEW1818

3/10/2009, 11:41 PM

I'm still going to pay my taxes regardless of what they are. I'm just going to bitch about it... i voted i can do it!! I'm sure you voted too.

Curly Bill

3/10/2009, 11:41 PM

Yeah, that's about as sustainable as Marx's idea of communism.

It seems some of you are pretty familiar with Marx's idea of communism. Hell, it seems a number of you are fond of it.

olevetonahill

3/10/2009, 11:42 PM

You ****in people are weird :eek:

Curly Bill

3/10/2009, 11:43 PM

I'm still going to pay my taxes regardless of what they are. I'm just going to bitch about it... i voted i can do it!! I'm sure you voted too.

Don't just vote and pay taxes, start bitching about what you are entitled to.

Hell, I want a Ferrari and I want my government to give me one, cause you know I've seen other people driving them and if they can have one then I should have one too. :D

JLEW1818

3/10/2009, 11:43 PM

**** this I'm heading to the hideout!!!!!

Curly Bill

3/10/2009, 11:45 PM

You ****in people are weird :eek:

Don't be skeered, come on in here and raise some hell with us. :D

Curly Bill

3/10/2009, 11:46 PM

**** this I'm heading to the hideout!!!!!

Pretty soon we'll have to let everyone in -- you know, if we can get in, then so should everyone be able to...it's only fair. :D

JLEW1818

3/10/2009, 11:48 PM

hahahaha.

Curly Bill

3/10/2009, 11:49 PM

Curly Bill is retiring for the evening, you bleeding hearts stay the hell outta my wallet while I'm asleep. :D

Vaevictis

3/10/2009, 11:50 PM

I'm still going to pay my taxes regardless of what they are. I'm just going to bitch about it... i voted i can do it!! I'm sure you voted too.

Hey, I don't have a problem with people complaining about taxes. It's a pretty normal thing to do. And I don't have a problem with people advocating what they believe in.

I don't even have a problem with people saying, "I think we should pay for firemen because I think that's a service the community should provide for; I don't think we should have the community pay for medicine because I just don't think that's a service the community should pay for."

But when you make an argument to support one position that clearly supports the other also? Yeah, I'm going to point that out.

JLEW1818

3/10/2009, 11:59 PM

olevetonahill

3/10/2009, 11:59 PM

Hey, I don't have a problem with people complaining about taxes. It's a pretty normal thing to do. And I don't have a problem with people advocating what they believe in.

I don't even have a problem with people saying, "I think we should pay for firemen because I think that's a service the community should provide for; I don't think we should have the community pay for medicine because I just don't think that's a service the community should pay for."

But when you make an argument to support one position that clearly supports the other also? Yeah, I'm going to point that out.

Dude are you really this dense ?
We have a jillion different types of Tax is this Country
Property Taxes, sales taxes Fund the PoPos and Fire department .
The Fed IRS income Tax will fund the Poor folk dont die tax .:P

Vaevictis

3/11/2009, 12:04 AM

So you're talking a sample of what... 6-7 people?

One word: Generalizability.

Actually, the number of people I've talked to is sufficiently large to be statistically sound.

What you should be hitting me on is the high likelihood of sample bias. ;)

Which isn't really any different than the stuff Whet is drudging up, since he goes out and grabs links that are specifically criticizing the Canadian system.

But that said, if you want a good gauge of what the Canadian people think about their health care system, it's as easy as looking at the fact that they consistently vote in favor of it. If they wanted an American style system, they could easily have one.

JLEW1818

3/11/2009, 12:28 AM

I'd take our health care system over theirs....

def_lazer_fc

3/11/2009, 12:34 AM

...and even if I catch his sickness, well...I have health insurance because I made sure to get an education, and try to keep a job that provides insurance. Novel concept huh?

jeez, i made sure to get an education too. oh, and i made sure to get a really good high paying job. oh, and i performed very well in my job in order to succeed and climb the ladder, which i did. but oh, then the economy tanked, i got laid off, have been looking for work for 2 1/2 months, and have gotten lucky to land even a 40 hr/week job. woo! but alas, its contract. no health care. i guess i shouldn't have been busy being a drain on this society for so long. :rolleyes:

LosAngelesSooner

3/11/2009, 12:36 AM

Hey, I don't have a problem with people complaining about taxes. It's a pretty normal thing to do. And I don't have a problem with people advocating what they believe in.

I don't even have a problem with people saying, "I think we should pay for firemen because I think that's a service the community should provide for; I don't think we should have the community pay for medicine because I just don't think that's a service the community should pay for."

But when you make an argument to support one position that clearly supports the other also? Yeah, I'm going to point that out.
That's exactly what I've been trying to point out using the smallest words possible, but it doesn't seem to be getting through...

LosAngelesSooner

3/11/2009, 12:38 AM

jeez, i made sure to get an education too. oh, and i made sure to get a really good high paying job. oh, and i performed very well in my job in order to succeed and climb the ladder, which i did. but oh, then the economy tanked, i got laid off, have been looking for work for 2 1/2 months, and have gotten lucky to land even a 40 hr/week job. woo! but alas, its contract. no health care. i guess i shouldn't have been busy being a drain on this society for so long. :rolleyes:

:les:PULL YOURSELF UP BY YOUR BOOTSTRAPS!!!!!!

def_lazer_fc

3/11/2009, 12:44 AM

:les:PULL YOURSELF UP BY YOUR BOOTSTRAPS!!!!!!

i dont have any, and am kinda strapped for cash at the moment to get some. gov't funded bootstraps maybe.... ;) :D

JLEW1818

3/11/2009, 12:49 AM

I'm glad you found a job, but for people who cant find jobs, its not people who have jobs fault....

tommieharris91

3/11/2009, 12:49 AM

It seems some of you are pretty familiar with Marx's idea of communism. Hell, it seems a number of you are fond of it.

You do realize that V was knocking Marxist communism...?

Just makin' sure...http://www.northsidebaseball.com/Forum/images/smilies/eusa_whistle.gif

JLEW1818

3/11/2009, 12:51 AM

I think CB is passed out.... lol

def_lazer_fc

3/11/2009, 01:00 AM

I'm glad you found a job, but for people who cant find jobs, its not people who have jobs fault....

who said it was? i was just addressing CB's post that said people who couldn't afford or people who didn't have health care have no one but themselves to blame and should have just tried harder like all the fortunate ones.

JLEW1818

3/11/2009, 01:07 AM

true to an extent

Crucifax Autumn

3/11/2009, 01:11 AM

Them thar pickled okras is some good ****!

Curly Bill

3/11/2009, 05:26 PM

You do realize that V was knocking Marxist communism...?

Just makin' sure...http://www.northsidebaseball.com/Forum/images/smilies/eusa_whistle.gif

Maybe I was talkin to the rest of you libs.

Curly Bill

3/11/2009, 05:29 PM

Them thar pickled okras is some good ****!

Yuck...

...and I don't feel like I should have to buy pickled okras for people either. :D

Curly Bill

3/11/2009, 05:32 PM

jkjsooner

3/11/2009, 08:14 PM

ya, i just think that police and fireman benefit America more than people paying for other peoples health care.... As i said earlier, I hope Obama finds a way to please everyone. good luck on it tho, lol.

Your comparison is logically flawed. It's like me saying, "I think doctors benefit America more than people paying other people's fire protection."

The comparison is one of the two but don't mix these up:

- Whether firemen benefit more than doctors
- Whether having universal fire protection benefits more than universal healthcare

What if we had an option to buy roadside emergency service? If you want it you buy it. If you don't or can't afford it or don't want to pay for it then don't get it. In the latter case, the firemen will simply move your car off the road and leave you be.

I think Vaevictis is correct in stating that the two are not that different. It's just that you've grown up with one and have come to expect it and consider it normal. The other is a new concept to you.

I'm not even for universal healthcare but you're making a ridiculous argument.

I am for some major healthcare reform though because our current system is fundamentally broken. We will find that out soon enough when most employers abandon health insurance coverage to be more "globally competitive." We need to stop paying for the world'd healthcare R&D.

LosAngelesSooner

3/11/2009, 08:26 PM

I already tried to explain that to him. His logic is flawed.

Remember, "public school" is a relatively new concept. Many people protested the government funding and coordinating schooling in America, but now it's considered par and parcel. (though some people still protest it)

Just because you grew up with something broken, doesn't mean it doesn't need to be fixed.

Whet

3/11/2009, 08:48 PM

Actually, the number of people I've talked to is sufficiently large to be statistically sound.

What you should be hitting me on is the high likelihood of sample bias. ;)

Which isn't really any different than the stuff Whet is drudging up, since he goes out and grabs links that are specifically criticizing the Canadian system.

But that said, if you want a good gauge of what the Canadian people think about their health care system, it's as easy as looking at the fact that they consistently vote in favor of it. If they wanted an American style system, they could easily have one.

Well, it is difficult to find real stories about the inadequacies of those socialized healthcare countries - especially now that it has been deemed a great need by the Obama group and his minions in the MSM.

Also, that is a real laugher about if the Canadian's didn't like it, they would vote against it! Their press is as left, if not more so, than our propagandists. It was just recently that the leftist have been the dominant power in the government. Yes, the socialists have been in charge of the government and the media, so what are the chances anything that would be counter to the socialist's healthcare dream, would come before the citizens of Canada? It took a Canadian Supreme Court decision to declare citizens could actually purchase private healthcare insurance!

For quite some time, I have worked with the Canadian and Provencial governments. You would be suprised how many of the regular government workers are critical of the socialists that were in power. This included several experiences with their healthcare system. These experiences compare favorably with the discussions in the articles I referenced. If you live in Canada, have an immediate healthcare issue, you would be more likely to cross the border to get treatment in the States.

I notice you did not mention anything about the doctor earning limits and the shortage of doctors in Canada because of these caps. Here is a good article about the myths of Canadian socialized healthcare:

Socialized Medicine in Canada's Healthcare System
Uploaded by SMILEE2325 on Nov 11, 2006
Socialized Medicine in Canada's Healthcare System

Canada’s healthcare system has been the envy of many western industrialized countries for years. England’s Prime Minister Winston Churchill inspired it in 1948 when he said:

“The discoveries of healing science must be the inheritance of all […] Disease must be attacked whether it occurs in the poorest or the richest man or woman, simply on the ground that it is the enemy […] Our policy is to create a national health service in order to secure that everybody in the country, irrespective of means, age, sex, or occupation, shall have equal opportunities to benefit from the best and most up-to-date medical and allied services available” (Wollstein 23).

Completed in 1970, this socialized health plan provides free public healthcare. Every Canadian receives free doctors’ visits, free hospital care, free surgery, and free medicine while in the hospital. So well known and regarded, Canada’s healthcare system has long been looked to as a shining example of what socialized medicine could be and even won an international award for excellence in 1993.

Even though Canada’s Healthcare plan has had such a positive history it is now plagued with problems. Some of these problems include lack of doctors, lack of beds and supplies, and very long waiting periods for medical attention. Because of these problems arising in Canada’s healthcare there has been quite a debate going on in Canada over socialized medicine. Many people argue that these problems are due to the fallacies of socialized medicine claiming,

“Socialized medicine, like all other forms of socialism, is a world-wide failure. As people throughout the world from the Soviet Union to South America are learning, socialism cannot work. Socialized medicine results in skyrocketing demand for nominally “free” health care, doctors being over-burdened, medical services steadily deteriorating, and endless waiting periods for health services”(Wollstein 24).

Others, who are for socialized medicine in Canada feel the problem is not with the system but with the people themselves. They argue that people are exploiting the system and, “not taking enough responsibility for themselves”(Pierson 26). In any case both sides agree that the main cause of these problems is lack of money, but instead of arguing how they intend to secure more money for healthcare, they argue whether socialized medicine is good or not. This question of good and bad is a philosophical issue best discussed over time. Instead both of these sides should be joining together to fight for funds. Funds that their government owes them.

In 1970 at the dawn of Canada’s healthcare the federal government promised to provide 50% of all healthcare costs in Canada. The other 50% was supposed to be provided by local provinces. Since then the government has yet to pay 50% of healthcare costs and, to add insult to injury, has steadily decreased the amount of funding they once promised. From 1970 to 1983 the Canadian government paid only 37% of all health care costs leaving the local provinces to pay the other 63%. At this rate local provinces could fit the bill but in 1984, when the Canadian government amended the National Health Care Act, they cut their funding of health care costs down to a mere 29%. Then in 1990 after another budget cut the Canadian government paid only 25%. Since then there has been so many cuts in healthcare funding that ever since 1990 the Canadian government, with a population of 21 million, has spent less on healthcare than Washington D.C. who has a population of only 4 million (Frampton).

With ever increasing demand and cost for healthcare, local provinces, which now must pay over 75% of all healthcare services for their citizens, are forced to make cuts. Since service is one major cost for medical care many local provinces choose to cap doctors’ salaries. These caps range from each province but the average ceiling for doctors is 150,000(CD) for general practitioners and 175,000(CD) for specialists. These caps, besides making most doctors unhappy, has had some negative effects. The first and most noticeable effect is Canadian doctors leaving Canada for the United States. Dr. Warren Molberg, an emergency ward physician at Edmonton’s Royal Alexandra Hospital, says he and his colleagues regularly receive letters from United States healthcare companies. These companies apparently promise them guaranteed salaries that are much higher than what they receive in Canada and “the benefits, incentives and tax rates are also very attractive, as is the chance to work in sophisticated healthcare facilities equipped with the latest medical technologies”(Sillars 59). These packages are appealing to doctors whose work places are deteriorating and many are willing to go says Dr. Eldon Smith, dean of the University of Calgary medical school, “A lot of people are unhappy and a lot are talking about [moving to the U.S.]” Many people do not find this a problem and feel that there are too many doctors in Canada already but Dr. Smith believes that there is a risk of losing highly specialized physicians and teachers and says, “if we lose those, that’s a very serious issue.”

The second negative effect of these salary caps has to do with physicians’ distribution. Because of the cap on doctors’ salaries most doctors are choosing to work in major cities. In fact, over 85% off all doctors in Canada practice in the city. This has left a serious shortage of doctors in rural areas. The reason for this is rural doctors have much more work to do then city doctors do.

In the countryside there are at most two doctors for an entire area. These doctors must see everyone and are usually on call 24 hours a day. This was not a problem for most rural doctors because due to the increase in work they had a direct increase in pay. In fact, until the salary caps, most rural doctors were averaging 10% higher incomes than city doctors were. After the salary caps these rural doctors still had the same amount of work but could no longer make higher incomes. In the city physicians now made just as much money and with much less work. This created doctor shortages in rural areas and has had some very negative effects such as this story taken out of a local newspaper:

“Dennis Goodswimmer was driving eastward on highway 34 as fast as he dared to the Valleyview General Hospital. Beside him in the van’s passenger seat lay his son Joey, unconscious and bleeding after being hit by a car. Fortunately the hospital was no more than a 10 minute trip. But as the desperate dad neared town, paramedics in an ambulance intercepted him. Their news was grim indeed: due to an unexpected shortage of doctors, the Valleyview hospital was closed for the weekend Aug 21-22.

The hospital rebuilt just two years ago, cost $15 million. Virtually on its doorstep, Joey and his father waited for an air ambulance. The boy was flown from Valleyview to Grand Prairie and then to Edmonton, delaying his medical care for nearly an hour. The next morning, doctors at the University of Alberta Hospital declared the lad dead of head injuries”(C.S. 11).

Joey had the misfortune of living in a rural area. The hospital was closed due to one doctor being on vacation and the other doctor resting from exhaustion. Valleyview General hospital had tried to find a replacement physician but could not. With these caps rural areas cannot find enough doctors and because of this these people are not receiving medical services. This is definitely tragic especially when we look to poor little Joey as an example.

Doctors are not the only ones affected by the Canadian government’s budget cuts. The patients themselves are suffering. Due to lack of money for services and lack of doctors, patients are placed on long waiting lists. These waiting lists are so severe that women, on average, wait 6 months just for a pap smear and depending on the seriousness of your case you can be seen as early as 3.5 weeks for chemotherapy or up to 33 weeks for orthopedic surgery. Either way both of these waits are exceedingly long. In fact, a 1993 study found that Canadian cancer patients were waiting an average of three times longer than patients in the Untied States for treatment and one third longer than what their doctors thought was clinically reasonable. Even the wait that Canadian doctors deemed clinically reasonable was 33% to 50% longer than what United States doctors thought reasonable (Walker 45). Here is a list of average, actual wait periods in weeks versus clinically reasonable waits:

Apparently the Canadian government feels that an extreme waiting list will not kill you. This is not so when headlines like “Lack of beds and long lines killed my hubby, wife claims” appear in their newspapers. But even if the wait does not kill you, data published by Statistics Canada indicate that 45% of all patients waiting for healthcare say they are in pain. Some of these waits can be up to 6 months and according to Mr. Walker of the Fraser Institute, “The physical and psychological pain can be devastating.”

These lists have become so bad that many Canadians are now crossing the border into the United States to receive medical treatment. This phenomenon of border crossing became prevalent in 1987 and has grown larger year by year. In fact by 1994 over 30% of Canadians have crossed the United States border for medical treatment of one type or another. Border hopping to avoid lines has now become a common practice for anyone who can afford to pay for medical services in American hospitals. Unless the Canadian government owns up to its responsibilities this problem is going to continue to grow. In fact people on waiting lists grow each year by 20%.

This is completely unacceptable and unfair to Canadian citizens and this is also why they have had so many debates in this last decade discussing their healthcare. Unfortunately they have looked past the real cause of the problem and instead argued over whether socialized medicine can work or not. Both sides agree there is not enough money for their hospitals but fail to see the true reason why. One side argues that government controlled healthcare becomes too expensive and claims, “The monopoly of basic health insurance has led to a single, homogenous public system of healthcare delivery. In such a public monopoly, bureaucratic uniformity and lack of entrepreneurship add to the costs. The system is slow to adjust to changing demands and new technologies. It is no longer efficient and costs more money”(Lemieux 36).

Because of this reason they believe that socialized medicine should be discarded. But this will never happen in a country where 86% of the citizens still want free healthcare and this argument does not hold true in a country that pays much less for healthcare than the United States does. The other side has even less of an argument. They believe that people themselves are ruining the system. They feel that people abuse the system and expect too many services. But how can someone abuse that which is free?

Both sides recognize the shortages, the long wait periods, and the gaping lack of funds but they do not attribute this to the real culprit, the Canadian government. The Canadian government promised to pay a certain amount of the bill and with increased costs they are now trying to back out. They even passed laws making it impossible to receive private healthcare, which now forces everyone to wait in line for medical care. With their decreasing support Canada’s local provinces cannot bare the burden and healthcare, inevitably, is going down the tubes. Those who would argue whether socialized medicine is good or not should instead focus on making their government own up to its responsibilities.try this link - and read the user comments too: http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourview/health/2007/04/canada_a_training_ground_for_u.html

http://www.reluctantrepublicansformccain.com/blog/?p=60 read the report that is linked in this article.

JLEW1818

3/12/2009, 12:59 AM

God bless America

Crucifax Autumn

3/12/2009, 01:46 AM

Ya know, for those who have times really tough there's medicaid....even men can qualify. The big issueis the poor bastards that aren't poor enough. In this economy should they stay where they are with no hope of a higher paying job or go to the boss and ask for a pay cut/reduction in hours?

Not saying it's right, but it kinda makes me wonder which option takes more from my pocket...