A 2007 survey conducted by the American Jewish Committee showed that 53% of American Jews had favorable views of Hillary Clinton, as compared with 38% with such views of Obama. A study carried out by Siena College's Research Institute earlier this year similarly showed that Jews residents in New York prefer Clinton over Obama, 51% to 16%.

One thing that jumped out at me about HR 676 is the fact that long term care will be provided for. As it is now, from what I understand, under the current system, people have to drain away their hard-earned assets to pay for long term care unless they have long term care insurance. This is horrible, causing people to not be able to leave money, or their homes for that matter, to their children upon passing.

This is so wrong in so many places. This started during the Reagan era. Typical Republican philosophy, to help the rich and rip off the poor and middle class.

Only a truely selfish person would be against passage of HR 676 but i guess some americans care only about themself.....

Bush Takes Aim at Medicare, Medicaid

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush took his proposals to slow Medicare and Medicaid spending to a new scale in his proposed 2009 budget even though previous, more modest efforts to trim the entitlement programs went nowhere.

Over the next five years, the president would reduce by $196 billion the two entitlement programs that provide most of the medical care for the nation's elderly and poor. He would achieve most of the savings in the budget blueprint he submitted Monday by freezing the rates Medicare pays for hospital, nursing home and hospice services for the next three years.

The two health programs would continue to grow — just not as quickly.

"The Medicare portion of the budget should be viewed as a stark warning," said Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt. "Medicare, on its current course, is 11 years from going broke."

_ The National Institutes of Health, the primary agency for overseeing medical research, would remain at $29.4 billion next year.

_ Running children and family services support programs for the poor, such as Head Start and the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, would drop from $47.3 billion to $45.5 billion.

_ Improving access to health care among the poor and the rural, would fall from from $6.9 billion to $6.0 billion.

_ The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would drop from $6.2 billion to $5.8 billion.

Whoever said that McCain would beat Obama needs to go back to school.

*Sanschele* You've mentioned your truck in almost every one of your comments. I'm starting to think your truck does define you.

there is no statistical proof that smoking causes cancer, heart disease, or emphysema

I doubt this experience will convince the people bashing Canada.

your point is well taken regarding the seeming contradiction between designing woman's "support" for obama even though he doesn't share her stance on the issue of health care.

We don't need lobbyists in our country. Lobbying and corporate donations should be banned completely. The poor in our nation have no voice because of these rich and powerful special interest groups.

Exactly you make claims about conditions in Cuba I said provide factual peer reviewed evidence you provided nothing.

About the only thing you ever provide is wait times and that lady is not a measure of success or failure. So agian the FACT is you are shown repeatedly to take a misrepresented fact and claim it to be something else hence and opinion. I just point out repeatedly that you are factually bankrupt.

That someone might wait for a procedure is still a success if they recieve that procedure.

However mine are considered worthy of reward because the actually provide value and help.

Again thats not failures of the system, but manipulation by very specific groups mostly based in the US *although they are falsely called multinationals* that are deliberately trying to starve out those systems to increase their profits which are already obsene.

You've used these arguements before and they have been repeatedly shown false for the most part, and the rest of it agian is manipulations as already mentioned for example the drugs issue. As we have danced before the pharmacuticals deny Canada new drugs because Canada allows generics which is why they actually pay less for drugs and now americans are trying to get Canadian drugs.

I could go on but I'll stop there... the point is AG profit has almost never been the incentive of creation, of research, of anything. I'm willing to be investigation into the team the came up with your mentioned drug would show that none of them did it for profit they did it most likely because they wanted to stop the disease the funding just came from the company. We used to call in Patronage and it generally worked better then for profit motives. Everyone benefited.

As for waiting for beds in hospitals ohhh yes we do you just don't see it because you're seeing only a VERY small section of the overall picture.

Again study more shout less.

As for POF TOS I'm not the one constantly trying to personalize the discussions and arguements.

The point is if you are going to argue that single payer will result in wait times (and I have repeatedly argued it would not) that is still an improvement of service over ALL.

. Ohh... and no pretty sure china is single payer and trust me they are infinately larger. They of course are also having problems but thats indemic of their changes lately.

Again ignorance speaks rather then taking the time to learn.

Possibly but I really doubt it

Her doctor said the next surgery date could be 4 months .. but he had a operating room available in another hospital but she choice to go the USA for surgery.

she called the surgery "ELECTIVE" surgery .. but two scheduled surgery day with 12 days is URGERT.

She has NOT submitted an application for getting back part of her money in OVER a year because she knows it will be rejected.

Monday, December 10, 2007
BC woman files wait times lawsuit

Yet another Chaoulli-inspired lawsuit has been launched, this time in British Columbia.

Shirley Healey's legal action, as I reported in January 2007, has been a long time in the making. When I spoke to some of the people involved in her case there was speculation the complaint might be resolved outside the courts, but that obviously hasn't come to pass.

I can still recall a despondent-sounding Kelowna, BC surgeon named Robert Ellett telling me about Ms Healey's mesenteric ischemia case: "Anyone with blocked arteries is not meant to wait six months to a year. I suggested that with the way things are in Canada, I would go to the States as well."

I have a work wife. Her and I are friends at work.

A man much wiser than myself once said, "It doesn't matter where you get your appetite so long as you eat at home."

Shirley Healy lied about what happened to her on the 20/20 john stossel special ... and why should anyone believe her

She has NOT put in a claim to try and get some of her money back since she knows she will get rejected.

2000 vs 275 patients in 2005 PROVES the canadian health care insurance system is BETTER than the american systems

HE HAD KIDNEY cancer and most of the medical treatment his doctor wanted to try were DENIED payment because they were experimental or not medically necessary

Canadians know the true and there is NO factual backup for the above statements.

There was 400 hours of films for sicko and only 2 hours was shown in the theatures.

Under HR 676 there would be NO cases like tracy pierce.

Single-payer is a red-herring put out by libertarian to try and convince people to not support HR 676

I have over 20+ years designing and writing software for public transit and their old system was a MANUAL paper based system and was replaced by a totally computerized system.

That kind of legislation will take YEARS to pass if even and the private health insurance companies will NOT want to go along voluntarily since this is an large expense.

That would require large investment by DOCTORS and HOSPITALS in hardware etc.

IF people actually read the Bill HR 676 then just accept what FOX NOISE broadcasts then even more American would be in favor of HR 676

Leading experts in the field of health care including doctors help write HR 676

The quality of Health Care in is BETTER in Canada than in the USA and many studies have proven that.

The cost of health insurance for the MAJORITY of american will decrease and also they will have MORE access to medical treatment since their doctor and NOT some health insurance company will decide what treatment they should receive.

[Explain the differences in] Life expectancy

Canada: 72
United States: 69.3

Hmmm... the stat from the CIA fact book doesn't publish the US numbers, ...dare to compare?

[E]ven under a system of universal care, and with provision of additional support from nurses and home visitors, there were unique populations of women who were not retained in this prenatal care study. In particular, women who were non-Caucasian, with less than high school education, separated or divorced parents, lower social support, who were single, less than 25 years old, earned less than $40,000 in annual household income, and/or smoked daily prior to pregnancy were less likely to complete the study. Others have noted that characteristics of women least likely to complete studies of prenatal care include: African-American, younger, lower education, lower income, higher parity, and/or foreign born [29,30]. Research suggests that barriers to prenatal care among low income women are both financial (e.g. lack of convenient transportation) and psychosocial (e.g. not feeling comfortable as a single woman in a prenatal class attended largely by couples) [11,31]. Furthermore, in addition to language barriers, non-Caucasian women may have prenatal care traditions that differ from western culture, including more peer and family support, home visitation, as well as midwifery [26,32].

While the accessibility of the Canadian health care system is highly advantageous to the patient, it is somewhat offset by the delays and frustrations that result from a scarcity of physicians and specialists. In the United States, there are a relatively high number of physicians per capita compared with Canada. Consequently, in the United States, perceived care has to be of a high standard or patients will change physicians. In contrast, Canadian physicians tend to be overwhelmed with patients and thus do not need to provide the same level of service to maintain their practices. . . .

Patient rooms in many US hospitals are comparable to first-class hotel rooms, while patient rooms in Canada are more comparable to those found in public hospitals in the United States. In my hospital, for example, some patients are still in 4-bed coed rooms separated by curtains, an arrangement that is rarely found in the United States. . . .

The Canadian government has set quotas on the numbers of specialists and family practitioners that can be trained. More than two thirds of physicians in the United States are specialists, compared with only half of physicians in Canada.10 Theoretically, patients in Canada have adequate access to specialists. However, in practice, they may have long waits for outpatient consultations. Because of these delays, Canadian patients may be more incapacitated before they receive the same high-technology care that they would receive in the United States. However, in an emergency, both Canadian and American patients receive care from specialists in the same amount of time.

To control costs, the Canadian government indirectly controls the availability of tests and procedures by limiting the number of specialists and by centralizing the availability of high technology. These limitations often result in delays in the provision of treatment. I received the following e-mail message several years ago from one of our former cardiology fellows who was practicing in the United States:

Things are really different out here. For example, in Montreal, you would see an outpatient and think they need a nuclear scan. . . . 3 months later, you get the results and arrange for a cath. . . . you put them on the cath waiting list and eventually get them cathed, then need to wait again to bring them back for the angioplasty. Here, I see the patient at 9:00 AM, get the pictures and read them by 11:00 AM, arrange for the cath at 3:00 PM, do the angioplasty and send them home the next day.

Canadian studies looking at waiting lists have reported mixed findings with respect to morbidity and mortality. However, the psychological morbidity of Canadian patients who are on a waiting list for an important procedure can be significant. Although most high-technology procedures are available in Canada, in practice it is often much more difficult to obtain them there than in the United States. For physicians who work in high-technology areas, practicing within the Canadian system can sometimes be frustrating.

[T]here are frequent misperceptions on the part of Americans about the functioning of the Canadian health care system. For Americans who are advocating the Canadian system as a model for a future single-payer American system, the delays in service delivery, the limited numbers of physicians and specialists, and the lower-quality hospital accommodations in Canada must be recognized. These disadvantages must be weighed against a more equitable socialized health care system. Having practiced on both sides of the border, I think that there are advantages and disadvantages to both systems. An optimal system would provide the best of both worlds.

Could you please cite a peer reviewed article that states that the US has a better per capita health care standard than Canada, ...at more than twice the price?

Not surprising—given the absence of universal coverage—people in the U.S. go without needed health care because of cost more often than people do in the other countries. Americans were the most likely to say they had access problems related to cost, but if insured, patients in the U.S. have rapid access to specialized health care services. In other countries, like the U.K and Canada, patients have little to no financial burden, but experience long wait times for such specialized services. The U.S. and Canada rank lowest on the prompt accessibility of appointments with physicians, with patients more likely to report waiting six or more days for an appointment when needing care. Germany scores well on patients’ perceptions of access to care on nights and weekends and on the ability of primary care practices to make arrangements for patients to receive care when the office is closed. Overall Germany ranks first on access.

Here in Canada, you go to the ER, and unless there's people with more urgent care needs, ...you get it treated right away.

...no charge.

Urgency being tied to the severity of the problem, not the size of one's bank account.

Also, if your health concern is a chronic one, perhaps palliative, ....you get the same care, ...no private insurance company to decide when, what, and how you'll be treated.

Some may feel that even though people with more urgent needs may exist, ....ME FIRST!

Our problem in Canada isn't the system, ...it's the lack of will in properly funding it, ...mostly because of the "ME FIRST" bunch.

I could never accept a system that would treat the "haves" with stubbed toes, before the "have nots" with more urgent needs.

....uhhm AG?....ever seen the movie "pretty woman"?....y'know...julia roberts.....richard gere....and that guy from sienfeld?

I've read so many posts were people have said that health insurance should be linked to your job, as I've said before, rethink that position. If you become chronicaly ill and cann't work, or lose your job for some reason you lose your health insurance. Don't even say the word Cobra to me. It's ridiculously expensive and it's only temporary coverage.

Believe me when I say it dosen't take long to run up $2,500 in drug costs. It will take me less than 2 months. I have no idea were I'll come up with $4,050 to pay for my meds. It makes me angry because as I've said in a previous post I may have to dip into my ira which I will be penalized and taxed for doing or I may have to sell my home sometime in the future since the "doughnut" will get higher each year.

What I'm saying to all those people who have presently have good health insurance and don't want the government stepping in is that I can understand your concern in not wanting to have your health plan changed or taken away from you but remember in a blink of an eye circumstances can change and you can find yourself one of the uninsured.

A rich guy with a stubbed toe should not have more priority than a poor guy with a heart attack.

AG, I am not being judgemental. I just think what I wrote rubs you the wrong way. It's reality, my dear. Rich people get special breaks while the poor get the short end of the stick.

It is WRONG of a rich person to demand care when there are others with worse problems who need care sooner at the same time. Rich people are no better or worse than poor people and should not get better treatment just because they are rich. Enough of that garbage already!!! We need to dump the private health care system altogether. It is worthless, and it's the rich special interest groups that is keeping this bad health "care" system alive.

People whose only reason for being against HR 676 is possible increased waiting time are missing the point.