Ask Me Help Desk

Ask Me Help Desk (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forum.php)
-   Current Events (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=486)
-   -   Health care legislation update (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=451298)

  • Feb 24, 2010, 04:00 PM
    tomder55
    Health care legislation update
    Robert Gibbs in a recent exchange with the press admitted that passing the public option in Obamacare is a nonstarter.

    “There are some that are supportive of this,”..... “There isn't enough political support in the majority to get this through.”...
    “The President took the Senate bill as the base and looks forward to discussing consensus ideas on Thursday”

    So tomorrow's dog and pony show at Blair House is no more than political cover . The President wants to go into the 2010 campaign using the tired old line that the Republicans are the 'party of no' .

    So even though there is not enough political support within his own party to pass a comprehensive health care bill ;he will blame Republicans for his own inabilty to lead the party.

    This is not sitting well with the President's extreme base. Moonbat Adam Green, spokesman for the 'Progressive Change Campaign Committee' released the following response .
    “The White House obviously has a loser mentality — but America rallies around winners. Polls show that in state after state, voters hate the Senate bill and overwhelmingly want a public option, even if passed with zero Republican votes. More than 50 Senate Democrats and 218 House Democrats were willing to vote for the public option before, and the only way to lose in reconciliation is if losers are leading the fight. That's why Democrats in Congress should ignore the White House and follow those like Chuck Schumer and Robert Menendez who know that the public option is a political and policy winner.”

    It doesn't get any better than that ;pointing out that the Schmuckster Charles Shumer is a party leader. (sorry being one of his constituents is a bitter pill)

    The rank and file in Congress appear to be resigned to the fact that there will be no public option in any health care overhaul.

    At Private Meeting Of House Dems, Barely A Mention Of Public Option | The Plum Line


    The question remains ;will Madame Mimi Pelosi be able to twist enough arms to support legislation that doesn't include it ? I kind of doubt it.
  • Feb 27, 2010, 06:19 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    So even though there is not enough political support within his own party to pass a comprehensive health care bill ;he will blame Republicans for his own inabilty to lead the party.

    Hello tom:

    Not quite. He has a majority of his party, but not the 60 votes he needs. George W. Bush was able to pass massive legislation with no more Republican votes than Obama has... That's because he had some Democratic support, whereas Obama has NO Republican support.

    Tiresome as it is, that means the Republicans are indeed the party of NO. So, if the Dems want it, they're going to have to do it under reconciliation. I'm OK with it, but I assume you abhor it.

    Of course, you only abhor it, because YOU'RE not the ones doing it. I recall, your calling for an up or down vote on Bush's judicial appointments. That's reconciliation, no? When YOU do it it's cool, but when others do, it's the "nuclear option".

    Ain't nothing changed since I been gone.

    excon
  • Feb 27, 2010, 08:32 AM
    tomder55

    There is nothing wrong voting no when the legislation is wrong.

    Quote:

    Of course, you only abhor it, because YOU'RE not the ones doing it. I recall, your calling for an up or down vote on Bush's judicial appointments. That's reconciliation, no? When YOU do it it's cool, but when others do, it's the "nuclear option".
    Of course I could also say the Dems were against reconciliation before they were for it .

    Except there is a difference as big as 'apples and oranges'. The nuclear option was an attempt to change fillibuster rules for judicial appointments . This was deemed necessary because in theory judicial fillibusters violate the Senate constitutional obligation to “advice and consent” the President on appointments made by the president.

    Reconciliation has been around since the Democrat controlled Congress in 1974 changed the law to limit debate on budgetary matters (ie spending and revenue issues).

    For the Dems to use reconciliation on the passing of sweeping social changes brought about by legislation ;as if it was just a budgettary matter is completely dishonest and in fact violates the conditions for it's use. That is why all the people mentioning reconcilitation admit that some fancy tap dancing and rewriting of the language of the bill will be needed to even minimally comply with the conditions for it's use.
  • Feb 27, 2010, 08:50 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    That is why all the people mentioning reconcilitation admit that some fancy tap dancing and rewriting of the language of the bill will be needed to even minimally comply with the conditions for it's use.

    Hello again, tom:

    ALL politicing is tap dancing! As long as it complies, even minimally, that'll work.

    It remains to be seen, however, just what they'll put in. Not needing the 55th, or 56th, or 57th, etc. vote from conservative senators means they could actually put a public option in and make it law.

    But, the insurance lobby pays them lots of blood money too...

    excon
  • Feb 27, 2010, 09:09 AM
    tomder55

    Quote:

    Not needing the 55th, or 56th, or 57th, etc. vote from conservative senators means they could actually put a public option in and make it law.
    My closing question is what is really relevant.
    The reason I say this is because their easiest way of getting it done would be to take the Senate version of the bill as is and pass it in the House . But that would require the bare minimum coallition that Pelosi had when the House passed their version.

    As you recall Rep Stupak led a pack of Dems who would not vote for it if gvt. Funded abortions were included;and there were many other Dems who would not vote unless some sort of public option was included.

    Well if they vote on the Senate bill it will not pass in the House. With Murtha's death ; a few retirements ,Stupak's gang ,and the one Republican who voted for it saying he won't vote for it again... it will be difficult for Pelosi to get it done.

    The debate in the Senate came down to the public option. They had to scrap it to get the 60 votes. Now they have 59 at best ;and it is unknown how many other Dems would bail out if the public option was included . Heck ;you may even need Biden's tiebreaker just to get a majority using reconcilliation..

    Get where I'm going with this ? Pelosi doesn't have the votes to pass the Senate bill and the Senate will not pass the House version.

    Will we get a bill passed ? Yes ;but it will be a face saving ;stripped of all contentious issues and contains only provisions that are broadly popular (as it should be) .
    If there is a 'public option' included it will be one that is "triggered" by defined conditions.
  • Feb 27, 2010, 09:21 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    Will we get a bill passed ? Yes ;but it will be a face saving ;stripped of all contentious issues.

    Hello again, tom:

    Yer probably right. They ain't got no balls. But, if I were running things...

    excon
  • Feb 27, 2010, 01:17 PM
    twinkiedooter

    Regardless how they dress this topic up it's not going to pass. Giving it a Dior ball gown with a diamond tiara is not going to change it one iota.

    I think they should just drop the whole health care crap and get on to something else. I, for one, after a year of listening to this garbage would prefer that the "Their Majesties" of the government ensconced in Washington move onto something more worthwhile and urgent such as JOBS JOBS and where the blankity blank have all the jobs gone in America? Who cares about health care anyway? The way this country is going I think the most important topic should be how the blazes are we going to pay for food, clothing, housing when there are NO JOBS??

    Trash the health care baloney for now and concentrate on something more germain such as the economy. Health care contiributes nothing to the overall economy getting stronger. So why are they spending so many untolled hours on a dead horse??
  • Feb 27, 2010, 02:27 PM
    tomder55

    Government doesn't create jobs except government jobs.They have no answer to this because they can't solve the fundamental question about what the government's role should be in the issue of jobs creation.

    Nothing they are doing answers the fundamental problem ;that the government is spending money it doesn't have and has brought us to a point where their system or borrowing and spending is no longer sustainable .
  • Feb 27, 2010, 02:52 PM
    tomder55

    Then again ;Andy mcCarthy at NRO makes Excon's point that the Dems have nothing to lose by pushing through the most radical aspects of their plans ,and may just do that .

    Quote:

    I hear Republicans getting giddy over the fact that “reconciliation,” if it comes to that, is a huge political loser. That’s the wrong way to look at it. The Democratic leadership has already internalized the inevitablility of taking its political lumps. That makes reconciliation truly scary. Since the Dems know they will have to ram this monstrosity through, they figure it might as well be as monstrous as they can get wavering Democrats to go along with. Clipping the leadership’s statist ambitions in order to peel off a few Republicans is not going to work. I’m glad Republicans have held firm, but let’s not be under any illusions about what that means. In the Democrat leadership, we are not dealing with conventional politicians for whom the goal of being reelected is paramount and will rein in their radicalism. They want socialized medicine and all it entails about government control even more than they want to win elections. After all, if the party of government transforms the relationship between the citizen and the state, its power over our lives will be vast even in those cycles when it is not in the majority. This is about power, and there is more to power than winning elections, especially if you’ve calculated that your opposition does not have the gumption to dismantle your ballooning welfare state.
    Consequently, the next six weeks, like the next ten months, are going to be worse than we think. We’re wired to think that everyone plays by the ususal rules of politics — i.e. if the tide starts to change, the side against whom it has turned modifies its positions in order to stay viable in the next election. But what will happen here will be the opposite. You have a party with the numbers to do anything it puts its mind to, led by movement Leftitsts who see their window of opportunity is closing. We seem to expect them to moderate because that’s what everybody in their position does. But they won’t. They will put their heads down and go for as much transformation as they can get, figuring that once they get it, it will never be rolled back. The only question is whether there are enough Democrats who are conventional politicians and who care about being reelected, such that they will deny the leadership the numbers it needs. But I don’t think we should take much heart in this possibility. Those Democrats may well come to think they are going to lose anyway — that’s why so many of them are abandoning ship now. If that’s the case, their incentive will be to vote with the leadership.
    Transformation - Andy McCarthy - The Corner on National Review Online

    The question then becomes ;will the majority of the Dems be willing to march with the leadership over the cliff and sacrifice themselves for their ideology ?
  • Feb 27, 2010, 07:25 PM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    The question then becomes ;will the majority of the Dems be willing to march with the leadership over the cliff and sacrifice themselves for their ideology ?

    Hello again, tom:

    In my mind, the libs made it happen for congress in the first place, and if congress doesn't bow to their demands, it's over the cliff anyway. You, like the Wolverine, think it's curtains for them if they actually reform health care. I think it's curtains if they don't.

    There is a belief among conservatives that the country is "center right". I don't subscribe to that belief.

    In terms of sacrificing yourselves (and the Constitution) for an ideology, you did exactly that under Bush and Vice. You certainly don't call it that, however. You call it doing their jobs.

    Interestingly enough, there are some people who think it's the job of congress to actually reform the way health care is delivered in this country. They call it doing their jobs.

    excon
  • Feb 28, 2010, 03:31 AM
    Catsmine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Interestingly enough, there are some people who think it's the job of congress to actually reform the way health care is delivered in this country. They call it doing their jobs.

    excon

    Which clause of which article of the Constitution says that? Does it say they can force you to buy insurance?
  • Feb 28, 2010, 08:03 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Catsmine View Post
    Which clause of which article of the Constitution says that? Does it say they can force you to buy insurance?

    Hello Cats:

    Which article says the NSA can read ALL your email?? In fact, I think I can find an amendment that says exactly the opposite... But, I digress (or you did).

    In any case, I can't find an article in the Constitution that gives the government the power to PREVENT you from buying something, yet they DO... As a dedicated right winger, I suspect you support that power.

    So, wherever they get the power to tell you how NOT to spend your money, is the same place they can find the power to tell you how TO, in fact, spend your money. If they have the power to influence your personal spending habits, then they HAVE the power to influence your personal spending habits.

    excon
  • Feb 28, 2010, 10:19 AM
    excon

    Hello again:

    Cats DOES make an important point. In fact, Republicans won and are still winning the "talking points" debate, and Cats point is the talking point of the day. The Republicans STAY on point. They are VERY disciplined. The best points are simple phrases that are repeated over, and over, and over again. And, then even again. A good example of that is "government takeover", and oh yeah, don't forget "death panels". We have been HAMMERED to death with the phrase "government takeover". It's not true, of course. The bill isn't now, nor was it EVER a "government takeover". But truth isn't the point of the talking point war. Winning the talking point war is the ONLY point.

    The Democrats LOST that war. Their bill is too complicated to be reduced down to understandable, simple talking points. Their leadership didn't even try. All they can say is, try it, you'll like it...

    Don't be mislead. Winning the talking point war, has NOTHING whatsoever to do with whether the bill is good or bad. It simply means the people THINK it's bad because they believe the talking points. That's what happens when you lose the talking point war.

    My point here is, the quality of the bill notwithstanding, the Democrats have shown an inability to lead. With a strong majority in BOTH houses, they failed to pass their presidents signature agenda. Republicans with smaller majorities, would NEVER let that happen to their president, and they certainly didn't.

    The Democrats will be punished.

    excon
  • Feb 28, 2010, 12:07 PM
    cdad
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Catsmine View Post
    Which clause of which article of the Constitution says that? Does it say they can force you to buy insurance?

    Its called the commerce clause. You can read about it here.

    Ref:

    Commerce Clause Limitations on State Regulation

    Commerce Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Commerce Clause - Power To Regulate
  • Feb 28, 2010, 12:48 PM
    Catsmine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by califdadof3 View Post

    So how does the power to regulate interstate commerce translate into forcing me to buy health insurance that is prohibited from being sold across state lines?

    I'm so proud to have been promoted in Ex's book to "dedicated right winger," despite having voted Libertarian since Reagan.
  • Feb 28, 2010, 01:00 PM
    NeedKarma
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Catsmine View Post
    I'm so proud to have been promoted in Ex's book to "dedicated right winger," despite having voted Libertarian since Reagan.

    We don't know how you voted, we can only see your posts here so I agree with Ex.
  • Feb 28, 2010, 01:34 PM
    Catsmine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    We don't know how you voted, we can only see your posts here so I agree with Ex.

    True, and the only non-conservative viewpoints I've expressed are on social and religious issues. I'm just so proud to be on the same level as Speechlesstx and Tomder.
  • Feb 28, 2010, 01:57 PM
    NeedKarma
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Catsmine View Post
    True, and the only non-conservative viewpoints I've expressed are on social and religious issues. I'm just so proud to be on the same level as Speechlesstx and Tomder.

    Good luck with that! :)
  • Feb 28, 2010, 01:58 PM
    Catsmine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    Good luck with that! :)

    Thanks.
  • Feb 28, 2010, 02:05 PM
    NeedKarma
    It must be tough to reconcile their "religiousness" with the hatred they show in the political threads. That's the kind of stuff that reminds why I don't get involved with religion or far-right politics.
  • Feb 28, 2010, 02:13 PM
    Catsmine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    It must be tough to reconcile their "religiousness" with the hatred they show in the political threads. That's the kind of stuff that reminds why I don't get involved with religion or far-right politics.

    That's one reason I like this site. The hate filled rants don't show up near as often here as on others. I'd be hard put to think of one on here, but I tend to avoid Religion and Skin Lightening and Teens.
  • Feb 28, 2010, 02:43 PM
    cdad
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Catsmine View Post
    So how does the power to regulate interstate commerce translate into forcing me to buy health insurance that is prohibited from being sold across state lines?

    I'm so proud to have been promoted in Ex's book to "dedicated right winger," despite having voted Libertarian since Reagan.

    Its not prohibited. That is a false clause. It is regulated by the State at the State level. But if the government has its way that may change because they want to move to "single payer" plan. In that case the states would lose the right to regulate and it would be passed to the government. As in Federal Laws and Regulations. Maybe your not old enough to remember but at one time all the states set their own speed limits and then someone in the goobermint decided to change it by arm twisting and we were all made to drive 55. So when it comes to healthcare it too shall pass. And god help us all.
  • Feb 28, 2010, 03:44 PM
    tomder55

    Califdadof3 you are correct about the abuse of the commerce clause. It goes back to Roosevelt statism .

    But ; just because it has been decided one way in the past doesn't mean the issue can't be reopened .Heck even amendments have been reversed ;and some of the most widely quoted SCOTUS decisions are ones that right or wrong reversed previous ones.

    In the chance that this massive takeover of a third of the economy is passed I expect there to be court challenges to it.

    Let's take Excon's position for a second and as a devil's advocate agree... I now equate preventing the allowing of dangerous and life threatening drugs from being sold with forcing people to buy insurance ;especially if the government is the provider.

    I say lets dismantle the FDA as it is a needless agency intruding on our rights to purchase and abuse any drug we want. It unncessarily impedes the business of big Pharma .Just think of the opportunities for profits if there was no restrictions on what they could sell?

    Nahhh... this is a nation that gets worked up to a lather over ecoli in spinach and wants the government to ensure the products on the market are safe and effective. They think it is the proper role of the government under the commerce clause to regulate drugs.

    Conversely I have yet to hear the American people demand the government force them to purchase a product .

    But what about car insurance ? Sorry ,that doesn't apply either . The mandated parts of auto insurance is protecting the other driver ;and is a state requirement ;not federal.
  • Feb 28, 2010, 04:02 PM
    cdad

    Ok. Lets look at car insurance for a minute. Since you brought it up. Companies CAn cross state lines. Just so long as they meet state regulations. And why should states force people to have auto insurance? If they did in its purest form then it would be no fault insurance. Not a fault based one. Wouldn't that make more sense? So now we make the leap to health insurance. That is where no fault doesn't apply because the tell us how bad we ( fill in the blank ). And somewhere there will be lines drawn. Now that the goobermint wants to step in we may all be limited in our choices. They don't want to see a 2 tier system. They want complete control. And they are frothing at the mouth for it. I agree its out of hand and things need to be done. But with this much at stake we all have to be responsible.
  • Feb 28, 2010, 04:46 PM
    NeedKarma
    a) you can drive a car in the US without insurance? I did not know that.

    b) all the countries that offer universal health are doing something wrong?
  • Feb 28, 2010, 06:14 PM
    Catsmine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    a) you can drive a car in the US without insurance? I did not know that.

    b) all the countries that offer universal health are doing something wrong?

    a) depends on the state. Tennessee passed it in the 90's.

    b) going broke. Today it's Greece. My bet is that Italy's next.
  • Feb 28, 2010, 07:00 PM
    tomder55

    My point about the auto insurance was that the mandatory aspect of it is for protection for the other driver or person .It is not mandatory to insure yourself... never has been... hopefully never will.

    Quote:

    And why should states force people to have auto insurance?
    I did not make an opinion on that . My point was that it is up to the states to determine that . The Federal government doesn't have the authority in my opinion.
  • Feb 28, 2010, 07:30 PM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    The Federal government doesn't have the authority in my opinion.

    Hello tom:

    If you LIKE the result, you think they have the authority. If you DON'T, you don't think they have the authority...

    That's the problem with rightwingers... They LOVE taking away OTHER peoples rights. They don't realize that when they do that, THEIRS are in jeopardy too.

    excon
  • Feb 28, 2010, 09:27 PM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    all the countries that offer universal health are doing something wrong?

    Really, how do you figure that? Some people form opinions from biased information and I expect this is what you have done. Some of the countries that offer universal health care do so out of concern for the individual and a recognition that basic health care is a universal human right that might otherwise be denied because of financial problems.

    The US might do well to emulate the level of concern for basic human rights among their own rather than criticizing others
  • Mar 1, 2010, 03:07 AM
    NeedKarma
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    really, how do you figure that? Some people form opinions from biased information and I expect this is what you have done.

    Uh no. I live in a country that has UHC and love it. I was challenging them.
  • Mar 1, 2010, 03:44 AM
    tomder55
    Quote:

    If you LIKE the result, you think they have the authority. If you DON'T, you don't think they have the authority...
    Ex ;you seem to think there is a right to obtain any drug you want on the open market... OK ;would you disban the FDA and all related regulatory agencies and leave it caveat emptor... or do you think it's within the government's authority to regulate and control drugs ?

    Your position on this appears to be inconsistent .You would for instance put all types of regulatory controls on banking and finance so the public isn't exposed . So your argument right back at you .

    But there is a huge difference between allowing safe products or not allowing dangerous products on the market and forcing people to purchase them . It's apples and oranges.
  • Mar 1, 2010, 07:21 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    Your position on this appears to be inconsistent .You would for instance put all types of regulatory controls on banking and finance so the public isn't exposed . So your argument right back at you .

    Hello again, tom:

    I'm not arguing that the government SHOULD or SHOULDN'T have these powers. I'm just pointing out that they DO have these powers.

    excon
  • Mar 10, 2010, 07:42 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    Uh no. I live in a country that has UHC and love it. I was challenging them.

    I wonder how much this guy likes it. Here is your Canadian health care success story of the day:

    Quote:

    Sick man faces bankruptcy — or death

    Cancer patient must pay for drug needed to keep him alive

    By MARK BONOKOSKI, Toronto Sun

    No sense mincing words.

    Suffering from brain cancer, Kent Pankow was literally forced to go to the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. For lifesaving surgery — at a cost to family and friends of $106,000 — after the health-care system in Alberta left him hanging in bureaucratic limbo for 16 crucial days, his tumour meanwhile migrating to an unreachable part of the brain, while it dithered over his case file, ultimately deciding he was not surgery worthy.

    Now, with the Mayo Clinic having done what the Alberta Cancer Board wouldn’t authorize or even explain, but with the tumour unable to be totally removed, the province will now not fund the expensive drug, Avastin, that the Mayo prescribed to keep him alive and keep the remaining tumour from increasing in size — despite the costs of the drug being totally funded by the province for other forms of cancer.

    Kent Pankow, as it turns out, has the right disease but he has it in the wrong place.

    Had he lung cancer, breast cancer, or colon cancer, then the cost of the drug — $4,555 per treatment, two times a month — would be totally covered by Alberta’s version of OHIP.

    But he doesn’t.

    And so he is not only a victim of brain cancer, he is also a victim of arbitrary discrimination.

    Full disclosure. Kent Pankow, a 40-year-old Red Seal sous chef, is a son of the man who married the spouse of my late brother. And it was while vacationing with them at their winter home in Los Cabos, Mexico, recently that this story began to unfold back in their home province of Alberta.

    But do not think, even for a moment, that this could never happen in Toronto or other parts of Ontario.

    Our supposedly universal federal health care system, the pride of most Canadians and the political struggle of America, is only as good as the length of the waiting line and whether you have the right disease at the right time.

    After writing more than 150 letters to everyone from the prime minister to virtually all health authorities both federal and provincial, and being ignored in return, Kent Pankow’s wife, Deborah Hurford, decided to finally go public.

    CTV Edmonton did a major feature on the family’s plight on the 6 o’clock news and, almost before the program ended, Alberta’s health and wellness minister, Gene Zwozdesky, was on the phone to their home — ensuring himself some positive press in the follow-up that aired later that night.

    Then, when he heard the Pankows had filed a human rights complaint against the province, justifiably citing medicare-based discrimination, Zwozdesky suddenly went mute — stating he could no longer discuss the matter publicly.

    Ten years ago, when first diagnosed with a glioblastoma multiforme brain tumour (GBM), Kent Pankow was given five years to live.

    After beating it down once, however, with his first surgery having been performed in Alberta, he spent nearly seven years in remission until the cancer’s return in 2008.

    And he is not prepared to give up.

    “He’s a fighter,” says his wife, admitting, however, that the cost of the drug has been a significant drain on friends and family who have not only donated large sums of their own money, but have also organized fundraisers to keep hope alive, including school penny drives.

    “When Kent goes for his Avastin IV injection, he sits next to patients who receive the same drug for free because they have another type of cancer — like colon cancer,” Hurford says.

    “Brain tumour patients deserve the same rights as other cancer patients, including access to the same lifesaving treatments — and without additional costs.

    “I can’t begin to tell you how frustrated, angry, disgusted and appalled I am with both the Alberta health system and the individuals within the system who continue to perpetuate such an archaic and inhumane approach to the treatment of patients.” she says. “It seems like they are doing everything in their power to ensure that Kent succumbs to an early and unnecessary death.”

    “The Avastin is working. The size of the remaining tumour has remained static since October,” she says.

    “But how can anyone afford almost $10,000 a month for a drug — even if it is saving a loved one’s life?”

    When Alberta health minister Gene Zwozdesky called the Pankow home on the night CTV Edmonton aired its story, he purportedly blamed the feds, namely Health Canada, for deciding what drugs are covered, and for what.

    Federal Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq, however, in a letter to Deborah Hurford, wrote that “while Health Canada is responsible for the market authorization of drug products, the province and territorial governments are responsible for managing the list of drugs for which public reimbursement from government drug plans is available.”

    This, too, is passing the buck.

    What Aglukkaq would not explain to Hurford — citing confidentiality — was why Avastin received a notice of compliance from Health Canada for other forms of cancer, but not yet for brain cancer as in the United States.

    Nor would she offer any information regarding any application before her department for the use of Avastin in the treatment of brain tumours.

    “Based on Kent’s MRI’s and radiology reports, and analysis by his surgeon at the Mayo Clinic, Avastin is playing a key role in stabilizing Kent’s tumour,” says Hurford.

    “Without it, Kent’s tumour will grow and he will die.

    “So why then,” asks Hurford, “is (everyone) choosing not to help Kent and other brain tumour patients who are forced to go public with their private health issues and fundraise for their lifesaving medical treatments?

    “Where is the dignity in that?”
    It took 16 days for government bureaucrats to decide Pankow wasn’t worthy of surgery. Then after saving them the expense of the surgery by paying to have it in the US at a hospital that wasted no time in deciding his surgery worthiness, Canada’s marvelous system won’t pay for his lifesaving meds because it’s the wrong kind of cancer.

    Gosh I can’t wait for my government to help me with my health care ‘choices.’
  • Mar 10, 2010, 07:48 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    Gosh I can't wait for my government to help me with my health care 'choices.'

    Hello again, Steve:

    You always bring up the oddball case as if to prove that the overarching policy is bunk. Because individual bureaucrats are jerks doesn't convince me of anything.

    Do I think THIS plan is good, or will work? No. I think that because the policy IS bunk. It has nothing to do with how some bureaucrat is going to act.

    excon
  • Mar 10, 2010, 08:20 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello again, Steve:

    You always bring up the oddball case as it to prove that the overarching policy is bunk. Because individual bureaucrats are jerks doesn't convince me of anything.

    Btw, welcome back. I don't ALWAYS do anything here like you and NK seem to think. He ALWAYS loves his health care and that's great, but a lot of Canadians don't love their health care or there wouldn't be so many coming to the US for treatment, and there wouldn't be such a booming business in private clinics. Them's just the facts.
  • Mar 10, 2010, 08:37 AM
    NeedKarma
    It's always a system being tweaked, like any system. We don't have to deal with any of the paperwork that you guys seem to deal with. Here's another fact: who are all these americans frequenting the health and wellness boards here for issues that should be dealt with by a doctor? It's overwhelming! The fact is that while you may have great facilities a great many do not have access to them.
  • Mar 10, 2010, 08:42 AM
    tomder55

    I believe the majority of the American health tourists are taking advantage of the perscriptions there and the price controls rather than seeking the services .
  • Mar 10, 2010, 08:50 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    I believe the majority of the American health tourists are taking advantage of the perscriptions there and the price controls rather than seeking the services .

    Hello tom:

    I don't know about that... Sarah Palin said that her family trekked down to White Horse for free treatment of her brother's burnt foot.

    Besides, going to Canada to buy meds cheaper than you can at your local store, is what? Bad?? You're not saying, are you, that oldsters should throw themselves on their sword, for the good of the politicians?? Nahhh, you're not saying that. You live in NY. Are you saying that if it was cost effective, that you wouldn't do it??

    excon
  • Mar 10, 2010, 09:00 AM
    tomder55

    I don't take an opinion against medical tourism at all ;although I trust my local pharmacist more than some desk jockey broker working on a worldwide basis.
  • Mar 10, 2010, 09:51 AM
    speechlesstx

    So all those folks asking questions here don't have access to health care? I think that's a stretch.

  • All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:13 PM.