http://www.youtube.com/v/BqMKK8AoLCw..._embedded&fs=1

Very well done with more truth than one wants to admit. Unfortunately you are not going to find all that many gov't health care fans willing to look at it reasonably.



`

by the Obama campaign ads.

btk

Originally Posted by Keedy

http://www.youtube.com/v/BqMKK8AoLCw..._embedded&fs=1

This is ridiculous!

That video is so right on! Every point that was made has been documented. For you doubters... just ask anybody from Canada!

Some of our dearest friends live in Canada. They also have a home in TV. They wouldn't trade the health care system in Canada for the world. All yearly exams are free and when something critical happens, they have been more than well taken care of. Sorry. You're living in the dark ages. We do not come anywhere close to leading the world in health care. Jump into the 21st century!

If we have "the finest healthcare system" in the world, why are our costs the highest, infant mortality among the highest and life expectancy decreasing?
Have you ever talked to the many Canadians who visit The Villages? They brag about freedom of choice, no waiting and excellent, low-cost health insurance.

I know a lot of people from Canada and they say it is fine unless you get sick. I have a friend who is a doctor and is told by the government how many patients he can see per month. By the 20th of the month he has hit his limit and has to not work or get fined etc. Great system where the waiting list to get assigned a family doctor is two to three years. That is to get a doctor if you don't have one.

This is not a good metaphor to make the point against Obama's health care reform plan.
I have made my position clear that i am AGAINST Obama's plan and why in previous posts.

Anyway, getting back to the restaurant video. 37 years ago when I was a freshman in medical school we had a few medical ethics and medical economics classes that also used the restaurant metaphor. Now, follow my thinking here; How many of you came to TV for the first time on the "lifestyle tour package" and were given meal coupons to Katie Belle's and ordered (or were encouraged to order by your waitress) pounds of steak, lobster, veal chops--- you know, the ones on the menu that are priced in the 70 dollar range? This is what happens when you have an open menu and SOMEONE ELSE is picking up the tab. One of the main factors for most middle class Americans when the choose where to go eat and what to order is COST. If everyone had their dining out experiences picked up 100% by a 3rd party (insurance or the gov't) with no oversight human nature is such that the "Katie Belle experience" would abound and costs would explode out of control. This is true on both sides of the examining table. When Doctors are given a blank check to do as many procedures as they can and are compensated per procedure the "Katie Belle experience" again repeats itself.

Thus... "managed care" has entered the picture to tell you that the menu is limited and if you want the 70 dollar veal chop you will have to pay for it. The ethical challenge arises when this question is asked: 'who decides what is going to be on the menu and what is paid for by the 3rd party?"

SO, the video in this example only holds water if/when we pay for our health care the same way we pay for our Ney York strip steak or our Big Mac's... by reaching directly into our wallets and paying for it with our own cash.

it is impossible to speak one way or another. Unless they have a one size fits all...that no matter who one talks to from Canada, they would have no more or less than the next Canadian. But if they have a standard offering with al carte programs, then who knows what they have when the one asked responds positively.

So without knowing whether Canadian apples are being compared to Canadian grapefruits a legitimate answer is not in the works.

As usual details are required to make an appropriate conclusion.

btk

Originally Posted by rshoffer

This is not a good metaphor to make the point against Obama's health care reform plan.
I have made my position clear that i am AGAINST Obama's plan and why in previous posts.

Anyway, getting back to the restaurant video. 37 years ago when I was a freshman in medical school we had a few medical ethics and medical economics classes that also used the restaurant metaphor. Now, follow my thinking here; How many of you came to TV for the first time on the "lifestyle tour package" and were given meal coupons to Katie Belle's and ordered (or were encouraged to order by your waitress) pounds of steak, lobster, veal chops--- you know, the ones on the menu that are priced in the 70 dollar range? This is what happens when you have an open menu and SOMEONE ELSE is picking up the tab. One of the main factors for most middle class Americans when the choose where to go eat and what to order is COST. If everyone had their dining out experiences picked up 100% by a 3rd party (insurance or the gov't) with no oversight human nature is such that the "Katie Belle experience" would abound and costs would explode out of control. This is true on both sides of the examining table. When Doctors are given a blank check to do as many procedures as they can and are compensated per procedure the "Katie Belle experience" again repeats itself.

Thus... "managed care" has entered the picture to tell you that the menu is limited and if you want the 70 dollar veal chop you will have to pay for it. The ethical challenge arises when this question is asked: 'who decides what is going to be on the menu and what is paid for by the 3rd party?"

SO, the video in this example only holds water if/when we pay for our health care the same way we pay for our Ney York strip steak or our Big Mac's... by reaching directly into our wallets and paying for it with our own cash.

The TV analogy is great. Thanks!

Originally Posted by Keedy

I know a lot of people from Canada and they say it is fine unless you get sick. I have a friend who is a doctor and is told by the government how many patients he can see per month. By the 20th of the month he has hit his limit and has to not work or get fined etc. Great system where the waiting list to get assigned a family doctor is two to three years. That is to get a doctor if you don't have one.

First, let me say that I am not in favor of his plan. One thing we already have here that seems to parallel what you say about Canada are the HMO's, though. They are told how many, how much, etc. Our primary physician we had back home had to cut many of his patients because he was making too many referrals to specialists. Of course had he totally "played by their rules", my husband would have died instead of seeing a cardiologist and getting stents.....with 2 major arteries over 90% blocked, he was a heart attack waiting to happen. Same thing with getting him a colonoscopy. Nothing showed up on the office exam, but the more thorough procedure caught already pre-cancerous polyps. I needed an MRI for diagnosis which they denied at first. My physician simply chose to admit me to the hospital in order to do what needed to be done. When asked to approve the hospitalization, they decided that I could go ahead and have the MRI on an out-patient basis instead. Guess what....they found my problem, fixed it, and no more problem.

We just need something that is workable and I'm not smart enough to know what that is. I am smart enough to know what it isn't, however.

Funny how when people in Canada, GB and other countries need serious care they come here. I don't see to many people being rushed to Canada for treatment.

You know one of the bills in congress that's part of his plan would make it illegal for me to purchase private coverage should I loose my job? I'd be forced into government care or pay a fine of $2500 a year.

Obama was asked about it today in a town hall meeting and said he wasn't familiar with the bill. Even he doesn't know what's in the plan.

My God, how could anyone support this disaster? Maybe the same people who signed contracts on homes with out reading the fine print and then got foreclosed on?

If it wasn't so scary, It would be funny.

Here is a good link with some interesting facts:
http://www.heritage.org/2009/07/21/m...th-house-bill/

* Approximately 103 million people would be covered under the new public plan and, as a consequence, about 83.4 million people would lose their private insurance. This would represent a 48.4 percent reduction in the number of people with private coverage.
* About 88.1 million workers would see their current private, employer-sponsored health plan go away and would be shifted to the public plan.
* Yearly premiums for the typical American with private coverage could go up by as much as $460 per privately-insured person, as a result of increased cost-shifting stemming from a public plan modeled on Medicare.

It is truly frightening that the President of the United States is pressuring Congress in an all-out media blitz to pass legislation that he flatly admits he has not read and is not familiar with. President Obama owes it to the American people to stop making promises about what his health plan will or will not do until he has read it, and can properly defend it in public, to his own supporters.

It doesn't matter anymore. If Obama supports it then it must be ok. No need to read anything... just sign here.