Home » Blog » Mythbusting Canadian Health Care -- Part I
Blog for America
Mythbusting Canadian Health Care -- Part I
Linked to groups: PA Single Payer Healthcare Action Committee
Provided by Paul Roden, Lower Bucks for Democracy:
Mythbusting Canadian Health Care -- Part I
By Sara Robinson
February 4th, 2008 - 4:23pm ET
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008 is shaping up to be the election year that we finally get to have the Great American Healthcare Debate again. Harry and Louise are back with a vengeance. Conservatives are rumbling around the talk show circuit bellowing about the socialist threat to the (literal) American body politic. And, as usual, Canada is once again getting dragged into the fracas, shoved around by both sides as either an exemplar or a warning -- and, along the way, getting coated with the obfuscating dust of so many willful misconceptions that the actual facts about How Canada Does It are completely lost in the melee.
I'm both a health-care-card-carrying Canadian resident and an uninsured American citizen who regularly sees doctors on both sides of the border. As such, I'm in a unique position to address the pros and cons of both systems first-hand. If we're going to have this conversation, it would be great if we could start out (for once) with actual facts, instead of ideological posturing, wishful thinking, hearsay, and random guessing about how things get done up here.
To that end, here's the first of a two-part series aimed at busting the common myths Americans routinely tell each other about Canadian health care. When the right-wing hysterics drag out these hoary old bogeymen, this time, we need to be armed and ready to blast them into straw. Because, mostly, straw is all they're made of.
Click the Read More link to continue debunking the myths...
1. Canada's health care system is "socialized medicine."
False. In socialized medical systems, the doctors work directly for the state. In Canada (and many other countries with universal care), doctors run their own private practices, just like they do in the US. The only difference is that every doctor deals with one insurer, instead of 150. And that insurer is the provincial government, which is accountable to the legislature and the voters if the quality of coverage is allowed to slide.
The proper term for this is "single-payer insurance." In talking to Americans about it, the better phrase is "Medicare for all."
2. Doctors are hurt financially by single-payer health care.
True and False. Doctors in Canada do make less than their US counterparts. But they also have lower overhead, and usually much better working conditions. A few reasons for this:
First, as noted, they don't have to charge higher fees to cover the salary of a full-time staffer to deal with over a hundred different insurers, all of whom are bent on denying care whenever possible. In fact, most Canadian doctors get by quite nicely with just one assistant, who cheerfully handles the phones, mail, scheduling, patient reception, stocking, filing, and billing all by herself in the course of a standard workday.
Second, they don't have to spend several hours every day on the phone cajoling insurance company bean counters into doing the right thing by their patients. My doctor in California worked a 70-hour week: 35 hours seeing patients, and another 35 hours on the phone arguing with insurance companies. My Canadian doctor, on the other hand, works a 35-hour week, period. She files her invoices online, and the vast majority are simply paid -- quietly, quickly, and without hassle. There is no runaround. There are no fights. Appointments aren't interrupted by vexing phone calls. Care is seldom denied (because everybody knows the rules). She gets her checks on time, sees her patients on schedule, takes Thursdays off, and gets home in time for dinner.
One unsurprising side effect of all this is that the doctors I see here are, to a person, more focused, more relaxed, more generous with their time, more up-to-date in their specialties, and overall much less distracted from the real work of doctoring. You don't realize how much stress the American doctor-insurer fights put on the day-to-day quality of care until you see doctors who don't operate under that stress, because they never have to fight those battles at all. Amazingly: they seem to enjoy their jobs.
Third: The average American medical student graduates $140,000 in hock. The average Canadian doctor's debt is roughly half that.
Finally, Canadian doctors pay lower malpractice insurance fees. When paying for health care constitutes a one of a family's major expenses, expectations tend to run very high. A doctor's mistake not only damages the body; it may very well throw a middle-class family permanently into the ranks of the working poor, and render the victim uninsurable for life. With so much at stake, it's no wonder people are quick to rush to court for redress.
Canadians are far less likely to sue in the first place, since they're not having to absorb devastating financial losses in addition to any physical losses when something goes awry. The cost of the damaging treatment will be covered. So will the cost of fixing it. And, no matter what happens, the victim will remain insured for life. When lawsuits do occur, the awards don't have to include coverage for future medical costs, which reduces the insurance company's liability.
3. Wait times in Canada are horrendous.
True and False again -- it depends on which province you live in, and what's wrong with you. Canada's health care system runs on federal guidelines that ensure uniform standards of care, but each territory and province administers its own program. Some provinces don't plan their facilities well enough; in those, you can have waits. Some do better. As a general rule, the farther north you live, the harder it is to get to care, simply because the doctors and hospitals are concentrated in the south. But that's just as true in any rural county in the U.S.
You can hear the bitching about it no matter where you live, though. The percentage of Canadians who'd consider giving up their beloved system consistently languishes in the single digits. A few years ago, a TV show asked Canadians to name the Greatest Canadian in history; and in a broad national consensus, they gave the honor to Tommy Douglas, the Saskatchewan premier who is considered the father of the country's health care system. (And no, it had nothing to do with the fact that he was also Kiefer Sutherland's grandfather.). In spite of that, though, grousing about health care is still unofficially Canada's third national sport after curling and hockey.
And for the country's newspapers, it's a prime watchdogging opportunity. Any little thing goes sideways at the local hospital, and it's on the front pages the next day. Those kinds of stories sell papers, because everyone is invested in that system and has a personal stake in how well it functions. The American system might benefit from this kind of constant scrutiny, because it's certainly one of the things that keeps the quality high. But it also makes people think it's far worse than it is.
Critics should be reminded that the American system is not exactly instant-on, either. When I lived in California, I had excellent insurance, and got my care through one of the best university-based systems in the nation. Yet I routinely had to wait anywhere from six to twelve weeks to get in to see a specialist. Non-emergency surgical waits could be anywhere from four weeks to four months. After two years in the BC system, I'm finding the experience to be pretty much comparable, and often better. The notable exception is MRIs, which were easy in California, but can take many months to get here. (It's the number one thing people go over the border for.) Other than that, urban Canadians get care about as fast as urban Americans do.
4. You have to wait forever to get a family doctor.
False for the vast majority of Canadians, but True for a few. Again, it all depends on where you live. I live in suburban Vancouver, and there are any number of first-rate GPs in my neighborhood who are taking new patients. If you don't have a working relationship with one, but need to see a doctor now, there are 24-hour urgent care clinics in most neighborhoods that will usually get you in and out on the minor stuff in under an hour.
It is, absolutely, harder to get to a doctor if you live out in a small town, or up in the territories. But that's just as true in the U.S. -- and in America, the government won't cover the airfare for rural folk to come down to the city for needed treatment, which all the provincial plans do.
5. You don't get to choose your own doctor.
Scurrilously False. Somebody, somewhere, is getting paid a lot of money to make this kind of stuff up. The cons love to scare the kids with stories about the government picking your doctor for you, and you don't get a choice. Be afraid! Be very afraid!
For the record: Canadians pick their own doctors, just like Americans do. And not only that: since it all pays the same, poor Canadians have exactly the same access to the country's top specialists that rich ones do.
6. Canada's care plan only covers the basics. You're still on your own for any extras, including prescription drugs. And you still have to pay for it.
True -- but not as big an issue as you might think. The province does charge a small monthly premium (ours is $108/month for a family of four) for the basic coverage. However, most people never even have to write that check: almost all employers pick up the tab for their employees' premiums as part of the standard benefits package; and the province covers it for people on public assistance or disability.
"The basics" covered by this plan include 100% of all doctor's fees, ambulance fares, tests, and everything that happens in a hospital -- in other words, the really big-ticket items that routinely drive American families into bankruptcy. In BC, it doesn't include "extras" like medical equipment, prescriptions, physical therapy or chiropractic care, dental, vision, and so on; and if you want a private or semi-private room with TV and phone, that costs extra (about what you'd pay for a room in a middling hotel). That other stuff does add up; but it's far easier to afford if you're not having to cover the big expenses, too. Furthermore: you can deduct any out-of-pocket health expenses you do have to pay off your income taxes. And, as every American knows by now, drugs aren't nearly as expensive here, either.
Filling the gap between the basics and the extras is the job of the country's remaining private health insurers. Since they're off the hook for the ruinously expensive big-ticket items that can put their own profits at risk, the insurance companies make a tidy business out of offering inexpensive policies that cover all those smaller, more predictable expenses. Top-quality add-on policies typically run in the ballpark of $75 per person in a family per month -- about $300 for a family of four -- if you're stuck buying an individual plan. Group plans are cheap enough that even small employers can afford to offer them as a routine benefit. An average working Canadian with employer-paid basic care and supplemental insurance gets free coverage equal to the best policies now only offered at a few of America's largest corporations. And that employer is probably only paying a couple hundred dollars a month to provide that benefit.
7. Canadian drugs are not the same.
More preposterious bogosity. They are exactly the same drugs, made by the same pharmaceutical companies, often in the same factories. The Canadian drug distribution system, however, has much tighter oversight; and pharmacies and pharmacists are more closely regulated. If there is a difference in Canadian drugs at all, they're actually likely to be safer.
Also: pharmacists here dispense what the doctors tell them to dispense, the first time, without moralizing. I know. It's amazing.
8. Publicly-funded programs will inevitably lead to rationed health care, particularly for the elderly.
False. And bogglingly so. The papers would have a field day if there was the barest hint that this might be true.
One of the things that constantly amazes me here is how well-cared-for the elderly and disabled you see on the streets here are. No, these people are not being thrown out on the curb. In fact, they live longer, healthier, and more productive lives because they're getting a constant level of care that ensures small things get treated before they become big problems.
The health care system also makes it easier on their caregiving adult children, who have more time to look in on Mom and take her on outings because they aren't working 60-hour weeks trying to hold onto a job that gives them insurance.
9. People won't be responsible for their own health if they're not being forced to pay for the consequences.
False. The philosophical basis of America's privatized health care system might best be characterized as medical Calvinism. It's fascinating to watch well-educated secularists who recoil at the Protestant obsession with personal virtue, prosperity as a cardinal sign of election by God, and total responsibility for one's own salvation turn into fire-eyed, moralizing True Believers when it comes to the subject of Taking Responsibility For One's Own Health.
They'll insist that health, like salvation, is entirely in our own hands. If you just have the character and self-discipline to stick to an abstemious regime of careful diet, clean living, and frequent sweat offerings to the Great Treadmill God, you'll never get sick. (Like all good theologies, there's even an unspoken promise of immortality: f you do it really really right, they imply, you might even live forever.) The virtuous Elect can be discerned by their svelte figures and low cholesterol numbers. From here, it's a short leap to the conviction that those who suffer from chronic conditions are victims of their own weaknesses, and simply getting what they deserve. Part of their punishment is being forced to pay for the expensive, heavily marketed pharmaceuticals needed to alleviate these avoidable illnesses. They can't complain. It was their own damned fault; and it's not our responsibility to pay for their sins. In fact, it's recently been suggested that they be shunned, lest they lead the virtuous into sin.
Of course, this is bad theology whether you're applying it to the state of one's soul or one's arteries. The fact is that bad genes, bad luck, and the ravages of age eventually take their toll on all of us -- even the most careful of us. The economics of the Canadian system reflect this very different philosophy: it's built on the belief that maintaining health is not an individual responsibility, but a collective one. Since none of us controls fate, the least we can do is be there for each other as our numbers come up.
This difference is expressed in a few different ways. First: Canadians tend to think of tending to one's health as one of your duties as a citizen. You do what's right because you don't want to take up space in the system, or put that burden on your fellow taxpayers. Second, "taking care of yourself" has a slightly expanded definition here, which includes a greater emphasis on public health. Canadians are serious about not coming to work if you're contagious, and seeing a doctor ASAP if you need to. Staying healthy includes not only diet and exercise; but also taking care to keep your germs to yourself, avoiding stress, and getting things treated while they're still small and cheap to fix.
Third, there's a somewhat larger awareness that stress leads to big-ticket illnesses -- and a somewhat lower cultural tolerance for employers who put people in high-stress situations. Nobody wants to pick up the tab for their greed. And finally, there's a generally greater acceptance on the part of both the elderly and their families that end-of-life heroics may be drawing resources away from people who might put them to better use. You can have them if you want them; but reasonable and compassionate people should be able to take the larger view.
The bottom line: When it comes to getting people to make healthy choices, appealing to their sense of the common good seems to work at least as well as Calvinist moralizing.
10. This all sounds great -- but the taxes to cover it are just unaffordable. And besides, isn't the system in bad financial shape?
False. On one hand, our annual Canadian tax bite runs about 10% higher than our U.S. taxes did. On the other, we're not paying out the equivalent of two new car payments every month to keep the family insured here. When you balance out the difference, we're actually money ahead. When you factor in the greatly increased social stability that follows when everybody's getting their necessary health care, the impact on our quality of life becomes even more signficant.
And True -- but only because this is a universal truth that we need to make our peace with. Yes, the provincial plans are always struggling. So is every single publicly-funded health care system in the world, including the VA and Medicare. There's always tension between what the users of the system want, and what the taxpayers are willing to pay. The balance of power ebbs and flows between them; but no matter where it lies at any given moment, at least one of the pair is always going to be at least somewhat unhappy.
But, as many of us know all too well, there's also constant tension between what patients want and what private insurers are willing to pay. At least when it's in government hands, we can demand some accountability. And my experience in Canada has convinced me that this accountability is what makes all the difference between the two systems.
It is true that Canada's system is not the same as the U.S. system. It's designed to deliver a somewhat different product, to a population that has somewhat different expectations. But the end result is that the vast majority of Canadians get the vast majority of what they need the vast majority of the time. It'll be a good day when when Americans can hold their heads high and proudly make that same declaration.
Canada is truly light years ahead of the U.S.
re-post from last thread:
Are the Clintons funding their own campaign?
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2...
If the Clintons are pouring millions into their campaign - that is spelling trouble for them.
Thread Topic is right on.
I come at it with a different perspective from Kevin's. We use doctors on both sides of the border too, but pay for their services with Federal Employes Health Benefits (FEHB). As an American resident, I'm not eligible to enrol in the Canadian system, but it works for us when we're living in Ontario.
We simply pay out front for medical services (and Prescription Drugs) in Canada, submit "Overseas Claim Forms" to FEHB, and we get prompt reimbursement.
11:43am
Despite my best instincts, I am looking forward to the upcoming Democratic Party convention this summer with wild anticipation. The drama should be electrifying, and the contrast with 2004, when I recall keeping my eyelids open with tape during the Kerry and Edwards speeches, couldn't be more dramatic.
This is some of Roger Simon's article today in Politico:
"Superdelegates grow in number as the party gets more successful: They include all Democratic members of Congress, members of the Democratic National Committee, Democratic governors.
"They also are the party warhorses and include 'all former Democratic presidents, all former Democratic vice presidents, all former Democratic leaders of the U.S. Senate, all former Democratic speakers of the U.S. House of Representatives and Democratic minority leaders, as applicable, and all former chairs of the Democratic National Committee.'
"This means that not only Bill Clinton, but Terry McAuliffe, Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, are superdelegates.
"And their votes count just as much as the delegates chosen by actual primary voters.
"But what happens if the margin of victory at the convention is the superdelegates. Is that the the way the party really will choose a nominee?
"By letting the big-shots pick the winner?
"Instead, there could be a huge floor flight. The convention can make whatever rules it wants, and I am guessing there would be a fight to bar the superdelegates and accept the votes of only the pledged delegates."
A concise itemization of Obama's proposed environmental agenda, compiled by David Reiter:
-Cap-and-trade system (caps allowable pollutants (measured in credits) from a company and mandates if that cap is surpassed, they must buy the right to pollute more from another company that is under the pollutant cap—monetarily penalizes polluter, rewards non-polluter) that requires all pollution credits to be auctioned.-Proceeds from the cap-and-trade auction program will be invested in job training and transition programs to help workers and industries adapt to clean technology development and production.
-Invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure.
-Double science and research funding for clean energy projects including those that make use of our biomass, solar and wind resources.
-Invest $50Billion to create a Clean Technologies Venture Capital Fund to fill a critical gap in U.S. technology development.
-Establish a 25 percent federal Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to require that 25 percent of electricity consumed in the U.S. is derived from clean, sustainable energy sources.
-Double fuel economy standards within 18 years.
-Re-Engage with the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.
-Reduce oil consumption by at least 35 percent, or 10 million barrels per day, by 2030.
-Invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial-scale renewable energy, invest in low-emissions coal plants, and begin the transition to a new digital electricity grid.
from red state bloggers:
Wow.
I don't know about the rest of y'all, but this guy freakin' scares me to death.
I don't agree with the vast majority of his public-policy positions, and yet I still find myself getting sucked in when he speaks.
I understand all of the reasons why Obama shouldn't win the presidency even if he ends up being the dem nominee, but something tells me we should all start praying that the She-Devil pulls this thing out.
Otherwise, I am afraid we're going to be back in the wilderness for another eight years.
------
Pepto Bismol for all if this fight goes to the floor of the convention!!! I've got to work on being an Obama delegate this Saturday for sure.
forgot to mention the comments from the red staters is from a diary over at Daily Kos.
Missouri: Bellwether state. \\
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2...
Hillary was expected to win by 10+ and 20+ two weeks ago. This is a great diary if you're interested.
The Clintons' healthcare insurance plan is again a disaster waiting to happen. The Clintons' requires that folks have to buy it. Not good. It also will not convert into single-payer system which is real universal healthcare for all. Folks are going to figure that out before the general election in November. Let the political Ads wars begin. Nasty stuff. I guess the political operatives won again not the people.
Barack is ahead by 71 votes in NM with 98% reporting. Can you imagine, 71 votes?
If Americans really want health care like Canadas, then we had better get our priorities straight........Canada spends about 1/10 what we do on national defense, if that...............do Americans want bigger and better guns, or better health care..................my guess is a majority will choose the weapons......................
Side note..........perhaps one smart speck at an Obama rally will ask him about his plans to cut the military and instead invest in education, health care and infrastructure............I know this will be hard to do, ask that question, in between all the mesmerized people that more likely resemble Beatlemania.....................I tell ya
America Betrayed: Will Progressives Take the Fall?
Document Actions by Joe Brewer, Scott Parkinson
The story of Iraq will be told as a story of betrayal. But which version of that story prevails – who is cast as the betrayer – will have profound and lasting consequences for the future of our country.
As we enter this crucial election year, progressives need to be wary that our greatest strength – our long-standing opposition to the debacle in Iraq – could become our greatest weakness. A trap has been set to clamp down on progressives when the apparent progress from the 'surge' inevitably unravels into a new round of intense violence.
Are we going to sit idly by while right-wing millionaires and billionaires fund campaigns like Freedom's Watch, with its plans to spend $250 million this year to smear progressive leaders as betrayers? We need to set the terms of the debate before the barrage of deceptions issue forth. At this critical time in our nation's history, the consequences of inaction and complacency could not be more dire.
The truth is that we have been betrayed by an extremist right-wing ideology that currently goes by the name 'conservative.' Its well-funded message machine lulled the public into a false confidence that led to the most devastating abuse of our military for private gain in this country's history. Contrary to the arguments of many critics, this is not simply a botched policy or misguided approach.
An Exceptional Story
A trap has been set for progressives, and it comes in the form of a story. ... http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/resear...
in between all the mesmerized people that more likely resemble Beatlemania
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
that isn't a problem unless it goes to his head and he starts thinking it is about him instead of his vision
13.
Michael Ellis
Wed, 02/06/08
If Americans really want health care like Canadas, then we had better get our priorities straight.......
-----------
It is impractical and unrealistic to get “our priorities straight” for 300 millions people simultaneously.
There is an urgent need, imo, to break this monstrous and grandiose giant of “priorities” on much smaller ones originated locally.
Government can’t run economy, people can.
Quick hello again, then off to do some work. Still excited by last night.
Annilow, I think it was you who talked about AARP and how they benefitted you.
I've been very critical of them because about 20 plus years ago, insurance company people got together with the idea of creating an advocacy group, but it was mostly to sell insurance. Their collusion in the drug plan benefitted the insurance companies, and I decided they were charlatans and dismissed them.
Your example just goes to show that absolutist judgments are invariably wrong. I'm glad you shared that because once more it says we have to bring critical thinking to every issue.
Finally, and someday, someone may study this, why certain candidates appeal to certain groups. I loved and love Howard Dean for many things: his prescience, his courage, his direct talk, his ability to mobilize people, his integrity, and frankly, his anger at the corruption, lies, and injustice as well as his moderate approach to some issues.
John Edwards had little if any personal appeal for me. I can't tell you why. I know his message and policies as articulated in this campaign are good, and I am aware of the real identification people felt with him and their grief that his campaign came to an end.
I've thought about that, and I wonder if it's because I've never felt deprived, a victim of injustice, and have always felt that we can change things, that together with a diversity of viewpoints, experiences, and talents, we American people can solve problems and make a better country.
Last night, I saw the best of Americans, the we-can-do-it and we-will-do-it attitude. Articulate, intelligent, cordial, respectful people who cared enough about their country to come out in below zero weather, some for a first time. I felt such pride.
Not everyone is a political junkie, but we can all contribute in some way, whether it's being a good neighbor, through our careers and our integrity, or volunteering or a dozen other ways. What I think is essential for all of is is the knowledge of what's really going on and the continuing dialogue. Politics concerns us directly, our children, and grandchildren, to the seventh generation. Again, I love that Hopi saying, We are the people we have been waiting for.
Off now.
Remember when Bill Nelson lost his lawsuit against Howard Dean? He sued on the basis of civil rights. He lost. Now Hillary is using the civil rights issue against the DNC to force the seating of FL and MI delegates. It infuriates me.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1813
And I don't see a single person giving any credit for the huge turnout to the 50 state plan. It's amazing.
10.
Susan Rowe
Wed, 02/06/08
The Clintons' healthcare insurance plan is again a disaster waiting to happen. The Clintons' requires that folks have to buy it. Not good. .... I guess the political operatives won again not the people.
-----------
Who are (what is) "political operatives"?
It is a Government (Obama/Clinton/McCain - does not matter).
Government today encapsulates corporate power.
Unless we are talking about gradual Governmental self-dissolving, there are too little prospects for the real progress.
It seems to me only Ron Paul understands it well enough.
floridagal
vigilance will be required
Howard was the reason for 06. and yes for the turnout yesterday in part, for sure in those red states
Obama puts then all in play.
Boo Man's meta analysis of Obama's upper hand.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=... Loose Change Final Cut
If Clinton wins Wisconsin,Ohio, and Texas she willl be the nominee. Obama's mo doesn't extend that far yet.
he should be in the lead going into those contests though
19.
former
Wed, 02/06/08
political operatives
http://www.politicalmachine.com/game.asp...
International political operatives http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2008...
McCain defends hiring of political operative http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/25/mcca...
political operatives = D.C. insiders
U.S. Senate is on C-SPAN. The FISA bill is up today. I hope you're watching. I also hope Obama and Clinton show up to vote.
Susan wrote: The Clintons' healthcare insurance plan is again a disaster waiting to happen. The Clintons' requires that folks have to buy it. Not good.
Right-wing individualistic approach. IF healthcare is a right and we make a commitment to it, it should not be "optional". We should fund it to make it affordable. If you make it optional, it will make it more expensive for those who opt in, and it will make it less likely it will funded adequately since people have "choice".
"Choice" to have health insurance is a false choice. Noone can afford to not have it, and we should make it truly affordable. Clinton's plan is nearly identical to Edwards and there is a gov't. insurance option that would compete with private insurance.
do away with super delegates. do we have a monarchy or what?
clinton equals dlc. and mcawful is a super delegate. how did that happen?
If Obama wins the nomination, we should pressure him and Congress to adequately fund it, and make sure those who are wealthy, healthy or risk-takers can't force the costs on the rest of us.
Poverty is BIG Business in Amercia. There is a lot of money made off the poor. Just like there is a lot of money made off the sick and the elderly.
Charity is Big business.
30. It really is a matter of self-importance. Many people resent paying taxes because then they don't get credit for their contribution to society. Charitable enterprise allows them to be in charge and get plaudits for their efforts. That's why I think we should hold a contest to see who pays the most in taxes and give out awards.
24.
Susan Rowe
Wed, 02/06/08
political operatives...
------------
Yes, Susan, I understand the literal meaning of this word.
The main goal however of all of those “operatives” (including media pundits) is to create illusion of free elections and free “choices”..., while real differences between those “choices” are non-existent.
Power to the people is going to be yielded exactly as much as they going to be able to fight off..., no more and no voluntarily.
Since Hillary has not released the money she raised in January, I Googled and this is what I found...
Clinton's January: $13.5 million
http://www.politico.com/blogs/ be...35_million.html
No wonder she's kept quiet, ya think!?!
Interesting blog on DailyKos re: Democrats outpolling Republicans.
http://www.dailykos.com/hotlist/add/2008/2/6/111943/8665/main//
I haven't seen much of what the wags are saying today, but I'm quite impressed with what Obama accomplished yesterday. It was supposed to be coronation day for Queen Hillary, but insead it may have been a fatal stab to her royal heart.
Karen - ABC reported that some of her haul may have been self-financed. That doesn't bode well at this stage after such *big* wins. Also, note that her website is prominently featured and she keeps repeating it as well.
Money problems.
I was listening to a woman who called into Washington Journal this morning. She believes that having Hillary Clinton run for president after her husband was president for two full terms is unconstitutional.
I would agree with her that it ought to be unconstitutional but there is no provision in the constitution that addresses this.
To correct this horrible situation, we do need an amendment that would prevent a spouse, former spouse, child, or brother or sister of a current president or former president, no matter now many terms served, from serving as POTUS.
This, I believe, would prevent the monarchy situations we have seen long ago (Adams), presently (Bushs) and is presently threatened once again.
Whatdaya think?
IMHO some of the future endorsements that will matter will be:
Jim Webb (my choice for a VP)
Carl Levin (MI delegate issues/Levin Amendment)
Russ Feingold (WI and he's my liberal hero)
32.
That's why I think we should hold a contest to see who pays the most in taxes and give out awards.
The idea is in the right ballpark except that these people loved being begged for money and they love their beneficiaries to be forever grateful to them, their lords and masters.
mcawful is a super delegate. how did that happen?
At least one steadfast party apologist on this blog would probably say he has every right and priviledge to represent no one but himself since he's part of the party establishment.
37.
mary
Unfortunately, Feingold has folded on endorsements, saying he likes both candidates. I don't believe him, but that's his defense.
Jim Webb maybe too right-wing for me, though he has a great mind and perhaps would fit right in with Obama. He does have some military credentials Obama lacks.
Driving by to channel Daniel and say I think the world is under cyberattack. In the last 2 weeks my work's Internet was down for 2 days, our DFA was down for 2 days, and this morning Comcast has been up and down since 8 o'clock this morning. And then there were those cable cuts Judy talked about. bbl - need a bubble bath.
seashell :-)
Wed, 02/06/08
Reply to this
puddle, thank you for the link to Edwards' numbers in CA. I'll look later at some of the other states or maybe there's a total somewhere.
************************
Jean, as an Edwards supporter, I agree with everything you posted and I also agree with Krugman. Please keep posting.
**************
Phil, your voice of reason is appreciated and I know how disappointed you are along with many of us.
********************
Linda, that was a great reminder first post and I would think Gore would have a difficult time endorsing BO, altho I think he may have endorsed JE. Neither Richardson nor Edwards endorsed and I've posted before that I think there may be some behind the scenes stuff going on to either have a brokered convention or force the party to the left, where it should be. BO won't do it by himself or w/o substantial pressure. HC is set in tone.
*********************
Judy for Dean mentioned the Hillary bashing. This does not feel good to JE supporters like me, who are trying to like BO. Personal bashing of women here or anywhere does not sit right, especially if the vitriol comes from other women.
Finally, congrats to the people who caucused first time and whose family members voted for the first time (mary?) A high turn out is good for democracy, even tho I think the turnout was not for the best candidate the party had to offer originally.
I also feel homeless and disenfranchised.
Joan* In*Florida
Wed, 02/06/08
THAT would be unconstitutional. A relative is their own person and has every right to run for any office. I wish people would stop saying Hillary Clinton is subservient to her husband. So sexist.
New thread.
I've had years when I paid 200% of my income in taxes (bad years when property taxes still had to be paid) do I win Monica
"It is true that Canada's system is not the same as the U.S. system. It's designed to deliver a somewhat different product, to a population that has somewhat different expectations. But the end result is that It is true that Canada's system is not the same as the U.S. system. It's designed to deliver a somewhat different product, to a population that has somewhat different expectations. But the end result is that the vast majority of Canadians get the vast majority of what they need the vast majority of the time. It'll be a good day when when Americans can hold their heads high and proudly make that same declaration"
Yes, we could proclaim that we are as good as the Canadians and getting our healthcare the "majority of time" with lowered expectations as a good thing in the USA?????? Listen to the sound of that paragraph. Drug down to the lowest common denominator. That's the plan. deliver a "different product"???? That is a good day?? can you say dead on arrival.
Stat Man
Wed, 02/06/08
Reply to this
TOTAL VOTES CAST
Clinton: 50.2% (7,347,971)
Obama: 49.8% (7,294,851
I don't think this is correct as Edwards ended up with at least 1% nationally from early voting, which is a terrible idea whose time has passed.
Matt wrote "can you say dead on arrival."
I'm convinced that you don't believe that a more equitable distribution of health care services in this country would inure to the benefit of you and society as a whole. Republicans are small time thinkers.
31.
former
Wed, 02/06/08
The main goal of any political operative is to make a lot of money. And they got quite good at it during the Clintons' first Adminstration. They trained a lot of young people and created an interesting political machine. You've got to pay the line of them off these days just to get into see your own congress critter.
Pat, your question about why people who love Dean split off to other dems is a good one. In my case, I simply voted on issues, what he was saying very succinctly now and whether or not he was addresseding my primary issues; poverty and health care, the war and the Consitution (which he didn't address enuf for me) I did not consider my personal life , but what I thought was good for the country. Frankly, BO is better for my personal pocketbook.
You wrote: "Again, I love that Hopi saying, We are the people we have been waiting for."
I love that quote too, Pat, and it annoyed me to hear BO use it last night w/o giving credit to the Hopi. He does the same thing with, Si, se puede. I've listened to many great speakers and they always quote other famous men and women and give them the credit for the quote. Always! BO doesn't do that. Plus he still maintains that he's the anti-war candidate which is a half truth.
These half truths and omissions are troubling.
He really needs to start giving credit where credit is due.
The Cap and Trade is too little to late and IMO is crazy. We need to end pollution, not trade it off.
As Michael says, end the wars and occupation and bloated defense budget and we'd have plenty of money.
I continue to watch and wait. I hope BO accepts the invitation to debate on Monday night.
Monica Smith
Wed, 02/06/08
Reply to this
30. It really is a matter of self-importance. Many people resent paying taxes because then they don't get credit for their contribution to society. Charitable enterprise allows them to be in charge and get plaudits for their efforts. That's why I think we should hold a contest to see who pays the most in taxes and give out awards.
My problem with the system is that when you pay in an incredible amount into the system, not only do you never, ever, hear a thank you, you actually hear disgust and charges that you are some how cheating the system. In fact everyone on here would call for me to pay more!! How I am cheating the system working 50-60 hours a week for 22 years in the same field is beyond me, but that is the prevailing Democratic activist attitude. It is like they want an apology for success. Sorry. How is that. I really don't want a thank you but I just could do without the constant barrage of criticism. I am a "working american" too. And trust me I am paying my "fair share" I suffer from depression from April 15 through late summer every year. Is that enough pentance for you??
Gone for the day. Be kind to one another and to us homeless ones, please.
Senator Feinstein is now speaking on FISA. She offering another amendment.
No objections.
Add your comment
(to reply directly to a comment, click the reply icon for that comment)Post closed to commenting
Videos of some of the 64 House Healthcare Heroes standing strong for a public health insurance option
Congressman Emanuel Cleaver
Congressman Lloyd Dogget
Congressman Keith Ellison
Congressman Bob Filner
Congressman Phil Hare
Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey
Congresswoman Maxine Waters
Blog for America
-
1 Turncoat Senator vs. 410,649 Americans
By Mary R on Nov 19, 2009 3:06 PM EST -
Send a message they can't miss
By Mary R on Nov 17, 2009 12:00 PM EST -
Will the real Democrat please stand up?
By Mary R on Nov 11, 2009 2:03 PM EST -
3 Million and Counting
By Mary R on Nov 6, 2009 12:47 PM EST -
Is Sen. Nelson listening to Nebraska?
By Mary R on Nov 6, 2009 12:31 PM EST
Recent Blog Posts
-
Sunday items
By Gerry Lykins on Nov 22, 2009 8:25 AM EST -
Friday finds
By Gerry Lykins on Nov 20, 2009 7:48 AM EST -
1 Turncoat Senator vs. 410,649 Americans
By Mary R on Nov 19, 2009 3:06 PM EST -
Nationalize all Health Insurance companies
By Carl B on Nov 19, 2009 3:05 PM EST -
Hanover Township 2010 Primary Election Candidates
By Trudy Zaja on Nov 19, 2009 2:26 AM EST
-
By Susan Rowe on Feb 6, 2008 11:14 AM ESTDean is first!