"No He [Obama] Can't" by Anne Wortham

[wootsie73 0]

Wootsie everytime I make statements like your post, above, where I am stating things as fact when in actuality, they are my opinion based on my experiences, people raise cain with me. They demand that I cite references and proof that what I am saying is factual.

Well, I'd like for you to produce some facts to back up all your claims about healthcare in Canada. In my experience, I have found that some of what you say is true but it is not as grim a picture as you paint it.

People in the U.S. are so scared of change, so fearful of the unknown, they exaggerate every negative thing they've ever heard about healthcare in England and Canada. Yes, they do have problems. But if you ask people who use the system everyday, there are a lot of happily well-attended citizens.

And the fact that they've experienced problems with the system that they have is one reason why we could do it better. We could learn from their mistakes - if only we would. I do wonder how the heck we can ever come up with a decent healthcare system in this country with so many people so scared to death to make any kind of change. Consider all that and add the millions of dollars spent on lobbying in Washington by the insurance companies, and you mix that in with all the law-making Congress people with their pocketbooks wide open waiting for their share and it sure looks hopeless.

You do know that since the economy is so messed up, people are in the United States of America are being turned away from our hospitals, right?

BJean,

I'm sorry that every time you post something like what I posted you are expected to back it up with facts instead of opinion. Well, obviously someone didn't like my post, because it's not on here anymore, and that makes me very angry to say the least. There was not 1 curse word in my post, nor did I attack anyone on this forum personally. I said things about the president of this country, but lots of others have to. I can't even go back and read what I wrote to try to give you the facts. However, I will tell you that I don't have what you would call facts, I have what nurses I worked with, who were my roommates, and friends told me. They were the ones who had to move down to Texas to get a job instead of living in Canada where they were from. And, I can assure you, I'm not talking about 2 or 3 people. I'm talking about 30 to 50 nurses I worked with at different times. The information I posted was the information they told me. These incidents were what they saw in nursing school, and what their personal families had gone through, And, 1 thing I didn't say yesterday that I should have, is that having a choice on which hospital you go to for testing is not an option there. There may be 10 hospitals in a city, (just an estimate. not fact about any particular city) but only 1 of those 10 hospitals will have an MRI machine, a CAT scan machine, or any of the large expensive equipment. It saves the government money to not have the same equipment at all of the facilities. Here in the medium sized town I live in, we have 2 major hospitals, and all of the equipment is at both, plus at private doctors offices. If they have their way, meaning the governent, we might have to drive 2 to 3 hours to get a major test like that run. Of course, that's just my opinion. Just going off of what Canada does.

I don't think the people in the US are afraid of positive change in the healthcare system at all. I think most people tend to forget that we went through radical changes back in the 90's when all of the HMO's and PPO's took over our healthcare system. When they first started, everything was great and wonderful. People got to choose their doctors, and the doctors got to decide what was best for their patients, and people had low co-pays with great care. That didn't last long though. They, meaning the HMO's and PPO's, decided they weren't going to be able to make ends meet that way, so they started a type of rationed care, which is what we still have today. They started telling the doctors how long a patient could stay in the hospital when they had a specific illness or procedure. They also started setting limits on what doctors would be paid for specific treatments. That's why our kids are not becoming doctors. Doctors don't make the kind of money they used to make. When a woman has a baby in this day and time, she normally leaves the hospital in 24 hours or less. The insurance companies decided women didn't need to stay any longer, which is very dangerous, IMHO. There is still a lot that can go wrong even just having a baby. Another example was me personally. Last year I had my carotid artery operated on. In case you don't know, that's the major artery in your neck that goes up to the brain. I went into surgery at approximately 3 pm, and I went home before noon the next day. Again, very scary for me as a patient and dangerous to. What if I started bleeding? I would die before an ambulance could get to my house. Prior to the HMO's and PPO's taking over, most Americans that had insurance paid a deductible, normally $200 for my insurance, and then the insurance paid 80%. The patient had to pay the other 20%. Now people have co-pays for doctor visits, hospital stays, and prescriptions. Another thing that happened when the HMO"s and PPO's took over our healthcare, was a hiring freeze of nurses. My daughter, who is also a nurse, couldn't find a job when she graduated from nursing school, but we had thousands of Canadian nurses down here working and taking the American jobs.

As far as people being turned away from American hospitals because of the economy, that's against the law. Hospitals in this country are required to take patients rather they can afford to pay or not. Luckily, as a nurse I have never been involved in the financial aspects of a patients care. I just had to make sure I charted every tiny little thing I did to make sure they were following the time allowance for their illness.

OK, I will tell you something very positive about the Canadian healthcare system. When a patient is in ICU, they normally have 2 patients per nurse. If a patient is on a ventilator and other life support, they will have 1 nurse to that 1 patient. It definitely isn't that way in the hospitals I've worked in. The night I got sick, I had 3 patients on ventilators, plus 2 of them were in isolation. Very dangerous situation for me and the patients. Having 4-5 critical care patients is not uncommon in many American hospitals. The Canadian system has a union for the nurses, so I've been told, that prevents the unsafe practice of caring for more patients than a nurse can reasonably care for. Not all US states are like that, but Texas is.

Now about the Hitler statement, I think you are right. Who are we to decide who is to old or to young to have a procedure done? Who decides when a baby that's premature is to little to save? 20 years ago many of the preemies that are born and thrive today would not have survived. Those are decisions I would rather leave up to God, but that's a whole different thread.

As far as me personally doing without things I need, I don't have to do that so much anymore, but I also live with my parents at the age of 53. After the year and a half was up, I started getting disability. But, get this, I had to be disabled legally for 6 months before I could get Medicare. So, that was 2 years with no healthcare coverage at all.

I hope this post stays on the thread long enough for people to read it before someone pulls it.:wink:

Joan

[plain 12]

Hey Joan, your post is still up.....I just looked at it. It's on page#2 of this thread.

Also, I will totally back you with the Canadian nurse thing. I work in Texarkana, TX, and about 13-14 years ago a large number of Canadian nurses got work visas (as part of some government program) to come down here. There was (heck, still is) a critical shortage of nurses here and way too many up there. A lot of these nurses married Americans and still work here. While they are (for the most part) still very patriotic towards Canada, they don't have much good to say about the healthcare up there.

The whole opinion / fact thing is a running bit between BJean and me. You kinda got blindsided there, lol.

[BJean 16]

Joan I am glad that your post hasn't been pulled. I was getting ready to tear into somebody. I've been posting for years on LBT and I can tell you that things have changed from when a bunch of us used to have a great time and we could say just about anything we wanted without anybody getting their nightie in a knot. We could duke it out over some topic or other and then laugh about it together later. I am glad that it hasn't gotten to the point that they're tossing posts that someone thinks is controversial.

I appreciate what you're saying about Canadian health care. I'm sure that my own experience was unique. I lived in Montreal and it is a little different from some of the other provinces. We did have friends who lived in a small village, far from the big cities and they had the situation that you described where they couldn't get just any test at their little hospital. They had to travel a couple of hours for the big tests. Canada has a very small population in relation to the size of their land mass.

Of course I am not suggesting Canada's system of health care for the United States. But I do think that there are some very good things about their system that we don't enjoy. None of us ever had to wait weeks and sometimes months for a doctor's appointment in Montreal. Here in Texas, we have to wait months to see a decent dermotologist and if a GP is good, you will play hell trying to get them to accept you as a new patient.

You have mapped out some of the reasons that health care in the U.S. needs reform and you explained very well the insurance problem and how it unfolded which has put us in the situation that we're in now.

That experience you had with your artery surgery is frightening. When I had my daughter, she was jaundiced (more than normal) and I had a very painful contusion from the birth. They still sent us home before either of those problems were resolved. And we lived an hour and a half from the hospital.

Thanks for your very interesting and informative follow-up post.

And plain, thanks for making it public that you're insistence on back up data is only directed at people you don't agree with. You're still funny, so I guess we won't boot you off.

[BethFromVA 5]

]And plain, thanks for making it public that you're insistence on back up data is only directed at people you don't agree with. You're still funny, so I guess we won't boot you off.

Actually I've always seen it required of people who say, "It's a fact that..." and then have no proof to back up those "facts." And then later it's found out to be somebody's opinion. Facts can be proven. Opinions are... well, there is a saying for what opinions are. :wink:

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Since this thread has morphed into a healthcare debate I would just like to add a few things. Much of what has been written is anecdotal - I know someone who...there were these Canadian nurses who....This is what happened to me when.....

Overall, those who have health insurance in this country are happy with their plan and care. And under any kind of healthcare change that is being proposed, THEY CAN KEEP THAT PLAN. PERIOD. But if they're not happy with their plan, they will have choices, just like the members of Congress do. Their health care is paid for by taxpayers and they get to choose.

Let's focus on the 47 million uninsured. They have the right to healthcare insurance. The health insurance industry is salivating at the chance to insure 47 million more people if it's on the government's dime. That isn't going to happen. I watched Pres. Obama's speech on healthcare the other day. He said people without insurance or those who don't like their plan would have a choice. One of those choices would be a government plan. That plan would be provided by health insurance companies but the government would be able to negotiate costs, etc.. which is a good thing.

The scare tactics used before, the swiftboating techniques - they aren't going to work anymore. Like a bureaucrat from Washington is going to come between you and your doctor. You mean much like my HMO comes between me and my doctor? Look at how many people post on the pre-op thread about being denied coverage. Or those who can't get insurance due to a pre-existing condition. That won't be allowed under the new plans. The public supports a single payer system or a goverment option. So, Harry & Louise should just retire to Florida.

Everyone should see the movie "Sicko" which compares our healthcare system to other countries (not just Canada). We come up woefully short in many areas. When a boatload of New Yorkers with 9/11 caused health problems whose insurance wouldn't provide care or who were uninsured can go to Cuba and receive first rate care, that is scary. And it is unacceptable.

When an uninsured farmer cuts off two fingers with a table saw and is given the price for attaching each, can only afford to have one attached. This is in the United States. Why should someone here have to live forever without a finger? Yes, these are anecdotal but my point is that the movie does an excellent job of showing the shortcomings of our healthcare industry compared to others.

Our health care insurance industry is motivated by one thing only: profit. And to that end, they are in the business of (1) selling policies (2) collecting premiums and (3) denying as many claims as they can get away with. And to that end they employ as many medical "experts" and lawyers as they can to do just that. That is how they make their money. A public option takes that profit motive out of the equation. Medicare/Medicaid are not profit motivated. I am not saying they are without flaw, they aren't. The system is repeatedly abused. But their administrative costs fall far below the private plans.

Having the uninsured go to the emergency room for basic medical care is driving up the cost of healthcare for the rest of us. Our healthcare premiums would actully go down if everyone were insured. Also, about 18,000 people die a year from lack of insurance. They just can't get the care they need for their chronic illnesses. That is totally unacceptable. And medical bills are the number one reason for personal bankruptcy.

There has to be a better way, and there is. And that is what is being proposed. But the insurance industry has a lot of money and powerful lobbyists to stop this from happening. They will pull out all stops and anything that they perceive as coming between them and their profits.

[BethFromVA 5]

Overall, those who have health insurance in this country are happy with their plan and care. And under any kind of healthcare change that is being proposed, THEY CAN KEEP THAT PLAN. PERIOD.

If I'm understanding what you're saying (that people can choose to keep their own insurance or go with the government-backed one), then I have to disagree with you.

With insurance such a huge financial burden for employers, WHY would any employer continue to offer insurance if the government will be offering it? There will be no reason or incentive for them to continue offering it.

If I didn't understand you correctly, then nevermind -- though this scenario is still likely to occur.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

If I'm understanding what you're saying (that people can choose to keep their own insurance or go with the government-backed one), then I have to disagree with you.

With insurance such a huge financial burden for employers, WHY would any employer continue to offer insurance if the government will be offering it? There will be no reason or incentive for them to continue offering it.

If I didn't understand you correctly, then nevermind -- though this scenario is still likely to occur.

Most people who have insurance have it through their employer. If I am not happy with the plan my employer has, then the only option I have is to get my own plan and pay for it myself. That won't change. Employers will have the chance to switch to and offer a public plan but it won't be free to them. It might be cheaper, but it won't be free. Or they can keep their current plan, also not free. That will just me one more option to employers or individuals. Why would they continue to offer health insurance? - because no plan would be free to those who could afford it. You couldn't just opt out of your employer's (or your own) plan and just expect the government to pay for it. Like I said, the health insurance companies are not going to be able to add 47 million uninsured on the government's dime. But if you are uninsured and can't afford health insurance, the government will provide a subsidy.

I like that employers would have one more choice when looking at health plans for their employees.

[BJean 16]

To be honest, I don't like the proposed plan. I don't dare post what I would propose. I can imagine the backlash that I'd get here. Who needs it? And it isn't going to happen anyway.

The thing that I don't like about the proposed plan is that the insurers are still pretty much in the driver's seat when it comes to my health care. I don't see that changing under this plan. I hope I'm wrong if it passes. The only change I see is that there will be a kind of government oversight and perhaps a cap on how much insurance companies can make by denying decent health care, denying decent hospital care and having such hellacious premiums that millions of people can't afford it.

As an employer, providing health care insurance is a perk that we offer. I don't see that changing under the proposed plan. Unless of course, our employees can get their own insurance for so much less that it is no longer considered a perk.

[BJean 16]

P.S. I do not believe that I have stated anything I've posted as "fact" - I have stated things that I believe to be true, but unless I know something is fact, I do not say that I am posting factual data. In fact, (:-) I am as much irritated as the next guy when people do that. (But usually only if I disagree with them, hee, hee)

And that's what has gone on that has rubbed people the wrong way. People have disagreed with my opinions and so they demand proof. And what is astounding to me is that those who get the most inflamed about my posts are every bit as guilty as I have been about not providing proof to backup my opinions.

Because if someone had the time to research all the political posts, they'd find just as many conservative posts that have been made without citing any documentation to back them up as liberals have posted without proof.

Edited June 18, 2009 by BJean

[BJean 16]

Beth, is there any way we can declare a truce between us? I realize that you do not like the things I post and you feel compelled to insult me because you disagree with me. But the manner in which you accuse me of stuff is wearing thin. If I irritate you so much, why don't you ignore me? When you get so nasty, it really only serves to make you look bad.

Oh wait a minute, I'm sure that you don't really care if you look bad. Well anyway, I would really appreciate it if you could see your way clear to get off my back. By the same token, I will be happy to never post any personal attacks about you. Deal?

[BethFromVA 5]

Beth, is there any way we can declare a truce between us? I realize that you do not like the things I post and you feel compelled to insult me because you disagree with me. But the manner in which you accuse me of stuff is wearing thin. If I irritate you so much, why don't you ignore me? When you get so nasty, it really only serves to make you look bad.

Oh wait a minute, I'm sure that you don't really care if you look bad. Well anyway, I would really appreciate it if you could see your way clear to get off my back. By the same token, I will be happy to never post any personal attacks about you. Deal?

Um... deal... though it's odd that you would offer up a truce and say you would be "happy to never post any personal attacks about me" when you did just that in the paragraph above your offer AND the sentence right before it?

And for the record, you weren't the only one I was talking about. There are a number of people I've met online who tout things as fact when they are only emotionally based. When we're talking about policy or changing the system, I'm sorry, but I want to see data and facts to back up somebody's claim -- especially when it's presented as the gospel truth. If one says it's their opinion, that's a totally different thing and can be handled as such.

I can't speak for Plain, but I'm sure that's why we call you on some of this stuff because it takes multiple posts and lots lf wailing and gnashing of teeth before it is admitted to be opinion instead of truth.

[BJean 16]

I see your point about the remark that comes off as a cheap shot as I re-read it.

On the other hand, regarding proof, neither you or plain cite proof most of the time. You give each other pats on the back instead, reinforcing what each other has said because you two agree with each other. Which is perfectly fine by me. Everyone can read. Everyone can decide for themselves whether they accept what the two of you post.

But then when I make a post that disagrees with you two, you all of a sudden want proof that what I am saying is FACT. In point of fact you demand it and post repeatedly, in heated terms, that I can't prove what I've said.

I never claimed that what I was posting is FACT. I'm posting my opinions, nothing more, nothing less. And I feel that you all are ganging up on me because you don't like my opinions. I have never understood why you can constantly and consistently post your opinions and you only want me to post FACTS. Like you two are on some fact finding mission. The few times that I decided to give you some facts, you just ignored them. So what's the point?

[BethFromVA 5]

I see your point about the remark that comes off as a cheap shot as I re-read it.

S'okay, we can start over starting over. :thumbup:

On the other hand, regarding proof, neither you or plain cite proof most of the time. You give each other pats on the back instead, reinforcing what each other has said because you two agree with each other.

I don't know about "most of the time," but we have cited proof many times and what I feel we got in response were comments that you didn't want to read the links, or the posted material was too long, or it was attacks asking if it was from FOX. It's frustrating to try to communicate with somebody (as I'm sure you well know, lol) when they seem to not want to even try. Now granted, we'll never change each other's minds on things, but if one side seems to want information and the other side provides it, only to feel rebuffed, it pretty much closes down the conversation at that point.

But then when I make a post that disagrees with you two, you all of a sudden want proof that what I am saying is FACT. In point of fact you demand it and post repeatedly, in heated terms, that I can't prove what I've said.

I'm going on memory here, so forgive me for not being able to cite specifics, but what I took issue with were assertions made by you which came across as anything but opinion. They came across as fact. To be fair, you may not have said they were; so for me, what I'll do to meet you halfway on this is ask you if you are asserting something you can back up with data or if it's your opinion -- and if it's your opinion, why do you feel that way. Does that sound fair?

I never claimed that what I was posting is FACT. I'm posting my opinions, nothing more, nothing less.

But if you ever do have evidence to support a fact/assertion/opinion, I'd be willing to read it. Believe it or not, I HAVE had my mind swayed on some things by people I never saw eye-to-eye on. Hard to believe, I know, but it's true.

And I feel that you all are ganging up on me because you don't like my opinions.

I know I can tend to do that, and I'll work on it. I don't see plain as being that way, but I'll let him speak for himself. I'm pretty much a pit bull sometimes, and I know this about myself. Many things I couldn't care less about and don't really fight for a stance; but other things that I'm passionate about, I get a bit overboard. I can't promise I'll change overnight, but it IS something I recognize in myself and will try to do better.

I have never understood why you can constantly and consistently post your opinions and you only want me to post FACTS. Like you two are on some fact finding mission. The few times that I decided to give you some facts, you just ignored them. So what's the point?

Maybe it's just in the presentation...? The way it is presented, maybe because you are such a staunch believer in a topic, it comes across as if there is some data to back up your assertion. Maybe if you say, "It is my opinion that..." or I/we ask, "Is this your opinion, or have you found data that says 'X'..." it will help us communicate better.

[BethFromVA 5]

By the way, I'm sorry it's so long and I quoted so much of what you said, but I thought it was important to address all of your concerns.

[BJean 16]

No apology necessary. I am very willing to start over!

I do know that I come off as harsh and opinionated. Especially in print. I get in a big hurry when I type and lots of times I don't re-read what I've posted. That's usually when I get into trouble. As for prefacing my posts with "it's my opinion that..." it is a good idea, but I don't try to pass my posts off as anything but my opinion. I've only cited other people's data or rare occasions because I figure we all have the same access to TV, newspapers and the internet.

I've found that most of the stuff that people post links to are simply other people's opinions. Like someone from Fox or some right wing publication, or MSNBC or some liberal publication. I don't want to wade through that stuff. I've usually already been exposed to it in some form. That's how I come up with the opinions I have.

Sometimes people cite those other people's (political pundits usually) opinions as fact. I find that very irritating. So that's why you probably got my reaction in the past.

I too will do my best to mend my ways and be more peaceable and less confrontational. But shucks, you know as well as I do that we won't have nearly as much fun.

I guess I'm just suggesting that we cut each other some slack and stop duking it out because it seems to upset other people. I think you and I could probably have a confrontation everyday and wind up still being civil on a different thread, but this has gone on for so long, I reckon that's not happening.

I will do my best, I promise. I mean, can't we all just get along? :thumbup: