Now that's just hilarious. You don't have to be in favor of Obamacare to get a kick out of this. Oh, Sarah... send me a postcard from the left side of the bell curve when you get a chance.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm unclear as to what irony Palin sees in this. Either she insulted Canadians to their faces and they didn't realize it, or she's calling herself a hypocrite. What other options am I not seeing?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm unclear as to what irony Palin sees in this. Either she insulted Canadians to their faces and they didn't realize it, or she's calling herself a hypocrite. What other options am I not seeing?
Other options: Sarah doesn't understand the meaning of irony.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suppose it's possible that Canadian healthcare just wasn't THAT great, so she became a governor so that she could get their subsidized healthcare plan.
I'm restraining the part of me that wants to scream, "Oh this is rich."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm unclear as to what irony Palin sees in this. Either she insulted Canadians to their faces and they didn't realize it, or she's calling herself a hypocrite. What other options am I not seeing?
Other options: Sarah doesn't understand the meaning of irony.
She probably thinks it's like a black fly in her chardonnay.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm unclear as to what irony Palin sees in this. Either she insulted Canadians to their faces and they didn't realize it, or she's calling herself a hypocrite. What other options am I not seeing?
Other options: Sarah doesn't understand the meaning of irony.
She probably thinks it's like a black fly in her chardonnay.
Or like rain on your wedding day? Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the irony is: I can be a chest-thumping hysteric about health care, what with death panels and everything, yet have specific history myself with that sort of system...and get away with it with my fans.
Which she probably will. And I suppose that's a bit ironic, somehow without being surprising.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't really see that she has to get away with anything. She was six.
I'm not exactly a fan of hers, or her position on this issue, but trying to paint this as some sort of hypocrisy rings hollow to me.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
*Checks todays episode of the Daily Show*
IP: Logged |
posted
Unless she's willing to level the same sort of vitriolic criticism towards her own family for availing themselves of state-managed health care, I think there's definitely some hypocrisy.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If this statement were given by Obama, wouldn't people jump on saying it made him sound like he thought he was the messiah or somesuch?
quote:"If what was good enough for God, scribbling on the palm of his hand, it's good enough for me, for us," Palin said. "In that passage he says, I wrote your name on the palm of my hand to remember you. And I'm like okay, I'm in good company."
posted
If you're that interested in arguing with him, wouldn't sending him a PM be faster, more direct, and less snarky?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
i don't want to argue with him, I just know that there's a 99.99999999999999% chance that he'll post in this thread if he comes by while it's still on the front page! Cannot be stopped. Force of nature.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
And malanthrop, don't forget her.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Unless she's willing to level the same sort of vitriolic criticism towards her own family for availing themselves of state-managed health care, I think there's definitely some hypocrisy.
How much vitriolic criticism has she leveled towards others for using state-funded health care 40 years ago?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't it a timeless issue though? Her argument tends to be that state-funded/state-managed health care is inherently evil. Does having it happen 40 years ago make it better? I don't see how that invalidates the hypocrisy.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:How much vitriolic criticism has she leveled towards others for using state-funded health care 40 years ago?
You may be right, Porter. Disliking her to the extent that I do, I don't follow her closely enough to know if her statements on health care are that nuanced. I'd be surprised, though.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was going to say what mph said. I'll also add that choosing the more convenient option, even though you consider it otherwise inferior is not hypocritical with speaking out against that perceived inferiority. That may not necessarily be what happened, but it is consistent with the facts in the article. There are many good reasons to criticize Palin, especially on healthcare. This really isn't one of them.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:While it is easy to point out the absurdity of somebody who, as a child, was made aware of the shortcomings of the American health care system spending so much energy fighting against the need to change that system, or to mock Palin for seeming to be unaware of just how telling this statement is, it also suggests a few of her political strengths.
From the time she became a national figure slightly more than 30 months ago, Palin has been, political opinions aside, a confounding mix of political positives and negatives. She is clearly an effective communicator who is able to connect with audiences, albeit within a somewhat limited demographic bandwidth. She has been reasonably successful in turning her most glaring political weakness, her seeming lack of knowledge of public policy, into a strength. She has done this by constantly reasserting her identity as an outsider to explain this away. Like former President Bush, Palin is rarely burdened by any doubt or sense of nuance, so is able to appeal to voters seeking clear, concise and accessible explanations, regardless of if they are wrong.
Palin's ability to turn weaknesses into strengths makes her a potentially formidable politician, but she is weakened by an unwillingness to truly prepare, study or learn. She has been able to hide this by challenging her critics, but one wonders how much more effective she would be if she immersed herself in the study of even a small number of issues.
This latest episode plays very well into Palin's strengths. It is easy to imagine that in the unlikely event that she was challenged for her statement, she would reply that she is not a Washington insider who studies everything her opponents say waiting for a gaffe, but is out there talking to real people. She would avoid the question of how she evolved from a young person who left the country due to the weakness of the American health care system to a middle-aged person who believes that changing that system puts us on the road to Stalinism by asserting her outsider status.
The likely lack of fallout around this issue underscores another of Sarah Palin's surprising political strengths. Although she has been surrounded by bad stories and mini-scandals for about thirty months, including: attacks from former aids to John McCain, reports of spending extraordinary amounts of RNC money on clothes and makeup, an unexpected resignation from her position as Alaska's governor punctuated by an almost surreal resignation speech, various issues regarding her family and her one time son-in-law to be and others, none of it has ever really stuck. Palin is a polarizing figure -- and will likely remain that way as long as she is on the national stage -- but she is also something of an unsinkable one.
A key to Palin's resilience may have been revealed in this latest comment. To Palin it was a throwaway line, good for building a folksy rapport with a Canadian audience. Referring to this as "ironic" is sufficiently cryptic that it is not clear what it even means, but it is clear from her lack of effort to distance herself from this remark that Palin is not really aware of how revealing this admission is. Palin is a complicated political figure, but she may be of less off an ideologue than first thought. Clearly, a true right wing ideologue would probably not have made this revelation. The informality of Palin's revelation, and her seeming lack of understanding of what it meant, suggests that for Palin, the right wing populism, while fun and easy, is not really grounded in anything other than the advancement of Sarah Palin.
It is pretty agreeable! Except for, well, the part about resilience and the idea that Palin can turn this into a 'strength.' I agree with neither, because it is stuff like this and her previously mentioned surreal resignation speech that have turned her into an extraordinary niche market. She's at the point right now where she would even lose straw polls she didn't snub to Ron Paul — a ready sign of being in a political graveyard. She is at the point where she would struggle winning an R +5 to +8 district.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Has anybody mentioned the fact that it appears, from the HuffPo article the OP linked, Palin went across the border because the nearest large city to where she grew up was... across the border?
Or is that less exciting than the idea that her family was enjoying the rainbows and gumdrops available for free at Canadian hospitals?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do I think this incident proves Canadian healthcare is 'rainbows and gumdrops' compared to the American system any more than a canadian coming down to America to get better cosmetics on his surgery proves that the American system is better? No. What's interesting about this is watching Palin casually committing to a statement that is enough of a political gaffe to put Biden to shame, how she will write it off, what it says about her canniness as a political operator (or lack of thereof), and how it's all irrelevant to her and her chosen strategy of acting as a 'political outsider.'
the statement is pretty conclusively a mistake. It gives huffpo something to lol over and it makes conservatives who dislike reform proposals wince and hit their own foreheads. In light of that, dissecting it and the people who will still support palin as a serious candidate is, actually, exciting.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How is this any more surprising than when she claimed to be from the 'real America' while being married to a man who was in a secessionist group?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alright. I hate to interrupt this little Palin bashing session, but seriously, I had to de-lurk because a couple things seriously need to be brought up. First, as a child, Palin lived in Skagway, Alaska. Skagway is about 10 miles from the Canadian border. If you look at that little map I linked, you should notice something. There are no roads leaving Skagway that don't go into Canada. Today, the nearest hospital is in Juneau, Alaska. Bartlett Regional Hospital, to be exact. I had my appendix removed there. I have funny stories about it, but that's beside the point. (Dan_Frank hinted at this, but I thought I'd give a little more detail and show some of the realities of this. For the heck of it.)
In order to get to Juneau from Skagway (or any other place in the modern world, for that matter) you have to either hop on a ferry or catch a plane. In the 1960s, which is, according to the various articles I read about, when this story occurred, flights out were probably quite expensive and with days between. The ferry, I can tell from experience, goes to Skagway exactly 2 times a week. From there, it's about a 12 hour ride to Juneau.
Number 2. The Modern Canadian healthcare system wasn't made into law until 1984. For those who aren't familiar with the way we count time on planet Earth, that's about 10-20 years *after* Palin was going into Canada for healthcare. At the time, the Canadian healthcare system was managed by each province, and the general method was a 50% payment of medical bills. Not a full payment like it is today (which, as I mentioned, didn't start until 1984 after the introduction of the Canadian Health Act).
As an addendum, did you guys know that a couple years ago, the Yukon province signed a law that stated no medical services could be provided to residents of Alaska? Yeah. Now any time someone in Skagway has a heart attack, they have to get airlifted to Juneau or wait a week for the boat to come by (in the winter the ferries only go by about once or twice a *month*).
Just thought I'd bring that up. I honestly don't expect things like geography, history, and the realities of living in rural Alaska get in the way of Leftist propaganda and a good old fashioned Palin bashing.
*edited for distance correction
Posts: 38 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's surprising because she's miss "Death Panels" herself and has played a pivotal role in seeding doubt and outrage over the proposals for health care reform.
But it's also not very surprising because she's Palin.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As an aside: When I went to Skagway on my Alaskan cruise, we rented a car and drove into the Yukon a couple hours. We were actually pretty close to Whitehorse, the town mentioned, but stopped at Emerald Lake. Really great drive I'd recommend to anyone doing an Alaskan cruise.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
I actually found that quite illuminating, and I don't think a claim of hypocrisy is particularly fair.
I don't bash Palin because I have a pathological hatred of her attached to my liberalism. I bash here when I think it's warranted, when she earns it. This appeared to be one of those situations, but having been presented with some compelling evidence, I don't think it's far to bash her.
And for that matter, the only people in this thread leveling any sort of criticism at Palin were myself, Rakeesh and Samp, and they're both rational individuals who I've seen change their minds in the past when presented with new, correct information. I also don't consider the three of us, or our comments, any sort of bash fest.
Thanks for delurking to spread that information.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure the history of the Canadian healthcare system as outlined about is entirely accurate. (Or maybe I am misreading parts.) For example, health plans are still administered province-by-province, the 50% payment coverage referred to the federal portion (i.e., some provinces covered much of the other 50% for individuals well before the Canada Health Act of '84), etc.
I'd like to have the annotated timeline together in one place for my own reasons. I'll try to do that later today.
---
Edited to add: Actually, Badenov, could you provide references for the information above? I'm interested in reading through other sites that I don't know about and seeing how things add up, and I'm also interested in what sites other people find most reliable or informative.
I'm particularly curious about the Yukon-Alaska connection (or lack thereof) that you mention. I was under the impression that EDs still were required to stabilize anyone arriving in critical condition, regardless of nationality or ability to pay. If that has changed, I'd like to know for sure by reading original sources. Thanks.
Of course, if you're too busy with life, no big deal. I'll still plod along with my own timeline and such.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Left is not making a point of Mrs. Palin going to Canada. Mrs. Palin is making that point. The Left is pointing out that it is a stupid point.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
CT: This might help. Although, I'm not sure about the difference between 50-50 sharing for hospital insurance plans in 1958 versus 50-50 sharing for medical insurance plans in 1966.
quote: I'm particularly curious about the Yukon-Alaska connection (or lack thereof) that you mention. I was under the impression that EDs still were required to stabilize anyone arriving in critical condition ...
Saw this earlier if it helps
quote:KD Braden, a spokesperson at Whitehorse General Hospital, said it wasn't and isn't uncommon for Americans to seek treatment in Whitehorse. There was and is a fee. The difference is that, back in the 1960s, "they paid it quite happily, because it was very, very reasonable," whereas today the fees are such that "they're not always happy to pay."
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: I'm not sure the history of the Canadian healthcare system as outlined about is entirely accurate. (Or maybe I am misreading parts.) For example, health plans are still administered province-by-province, the 50% payment coverage referred to the federal portion (i.e., some provinces covered much of the other 50% for individuals well before the Canada Health Act of '84), etc.
I'd like to have the annotated timeline together in one place for my own reasons. I'll try to do that later today.
---
Edited to add: Actually, Badenov, could you provide references for the information above? I'm interested in reading through other sites that I don't know about and seeing how things add up, and I'm also interested in what sites other people find most reliable or informative.
I'm particularly curious about the Yukon-Alaska connection (or lack thereof) that you mention. I was under the impression that EDs still were required to stabilize anyone arriving in critical condition, regardless of nationality or ability to pay. If that has changed, I'd like to know for sure by reading original sources. Thanks.
Of course, if you're too busy with life, no big deal. I'll still plod along with my own timeline and such.
I was pulling my history of Canadian health from Wiki, cause that was a fast reference point. From what I read, Sasketchewan was the first to have a province managed health system, and the remainder started doing the same in the early to mid 60s. Regardless, the Canadian medical system is very different now than it was when Palin was a child.
As for the hospitals in Canada, with the changes in Border Crossing implemented 2 or 3 years ago and the added expense of paying for healthcare for those who do not pay Canadian taxes (which, considering the limited population of Yukon to begin with, is likely a heavy burden), Ambulances do not run between Whitehorse and Skagway any longer, and a life flight will not be issued from a Canadian Hospital. 911 calls are forwarded directly to Juneau's emergency personnel for response. Individuals requiring periodic aid (pregnancy for example) have to pay upwards of 500 dollars a flight to get to Juneau or wait for the 100 dollar ferry ride that, as I said, comes around very rarely. This is one of the more common arguments for building an actual road into Juneau, Alaska, so people in Haines, Skagway, and the surrounding communities can obtain Hospital and specialized care (from Doctors who, more often than not, commute between Juneau and Anchorage).
quote: The Left is pointing out that it is a stupid point.
And I'm pointing out that pointing this out as a stupid point is stupid (does that make sense?)
Posts: 38 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Although, I'm not sure about the difference between 50-50 sharing for hospital insurance plans in 1958 versus 50-50 sharing for medical insurance plans in 1966.
Yeah, I think the terminology can get quite confusing, especially if you don't know where some assumptions might be made (e.g., hospital vs clinic payments). I'm absurdly excited about parsing through the details now.
That part about how "it wasn't and isn't uncommon for Americans to seek treatment in Whitehorse. There was and is a fee [emphasis added]" suggests to me that the initial characterization in the thread may not reflect the situation entirely accurately. (Whitehorse is in the Yukon Territory, IIRC.) But again, it's a complicated issue.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Edited to add: Actually, Badenov, could you provide references for the information above? I'm interested in reading through other sites that I don't know about and seeing how things add up, and I'm also interested in what sites other people find most reliable or informative.
I'm particularly curious about the Yukon-Alaska connection (or lack thereof) that you mention. I was under the impression that EDs still were required to stabilize anyone arriving in critical condition, regardless of nationality or ability to pay. If that has changed, I'd like to know for sure by reading original sources. Thanks.
This. I would actually be very surprised if, as Badenov claims, a Yukon Territory hospital will not admit someone having a heart attack.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: This. I would actually be very surprised if, as Badenov claims, a Yukon Territory hospital will not admit someone having a heart attack.
It's odd because as far as I know -- and I kinda know in this area -- EDs throughout Canada are required to stabilize people who show up at the door in unstable condition regardless of whether they are carrying the provincial healthcare card identifying them as someone who is covered. So, for example, illegal alien will still be stabilized.
The bigger issue (I think) is in payment. I wonder if billing has changed. But, for example, it would seem quite odd to the extreme for the federal or provincial government to turn around and sue a hospital for abiding by federal and provincial regulatory requirements.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Badenov: [QUOTE]Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
The Left is pointing out that it is a stupid point.
And I'm pointing out that pointing this out as a stupid point is stupid (does that make sense?)
Samprimary, that wasn't me.
---
Badenov, I must have misread your initial post, or maybe the edit has changed it more now than I realized. I thought you were claiming that it was now illegal for [Yukon] hospitals to treat US citizens from Alaska, not that they had established a policy of not going out from Canada, crossing the border into the US, and getting them by ambulance or airlift from US soil, transporting them across the border in Canadian service vehicles, and then treating them.
I wouldn't expect US hospitals to send out airlifts to Mexican citizens in trouble who were still in Mexican towns, either, even if there were not local Mexican resources available. That seems kinda beyond the pale as a criticism of country to me.
Whether or not someone who arrives on the doorstop in critical condition should be taken care of seems to be a different issue. That is what I thought you were making claims about. Sorry for the misread.
Thanks for the response. I'd still love to see links, if you don't mind, because there are multiple Wikipedia (is that the "Wiki" you mean?) pages on the topic, and some are better than others. But again, I too am very busy with life, and if it's too much hassle to reconstruct, no biggie. Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Badenov, I must have misread your initial post, or maybe the edit has changed it more now than I realized.
this is the most relevant quote.
quote:did you guys know that a couple years ago, the Yukon province signed a law that stated no medical services could be provided to residents of Alaska? Yeah.
It's very clearly stating that it's illegal to provide medical services to the americans in alaska.
It's also something that I am absolutely not going to believe without a link to the law in question. the Bureau of Consular Affairs has absolutely no health services advisory for any part of Canada that states that there is any province that will not provide medical care for foreigners, and I find it highly unlikely that the US travel advisory / country specific services informational system would have missed this two years running.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: The Left is pointing out that it is a stupid point.
And I'm pointing out that pointing this out as a stupid point is stupid (does that make sense?)
It only makes sense if you can explain why the fact that she used to go to Canada for healthcare and doesn't anymore is an argument against healthcare reform in the US.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Living remotely comes with pros and cons anywhere. One of those cons is the lack of access to some services. This happens within Canada, as well -- there are some small islands off the coast of Vancouver island with very limited medical service requiring ferry transport, as the population isn't enough to support its own hospital (or, at least, its own surgery department).
I'm actually okay with people who chose to live in remote or rural, limited-access areas having, well, limited access. I figure people can make their own choices, and weighing those sorts of pros and cons is something adults do when chosing where to live. Of course, I'd like to see as much support provided as feasible, but I don't even think the Canadian provincial and federal governments are wrong for not providing equivalent access in all Canada's remote or rural areas. Much less so for not providing airlifts and ambulences and airlifts to people who aren't Canadian citizens and aren't even living in Canada!
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Samprimary, that wasn't me.
Just saw that, sorry.
Yeah. Quote system screwed up on that. Sorry.
I'm having to work on details spread from numerous "Letters to the editor" found in the Juneau Empire (the only major newspaper in that area) over 2 years ago, and since they don't keep those for more than a couple weeks or so anymore, the actual details have been relegated to the Juneau City Library. My own memory of the exact issues people stated are sketchy. I remember several people stating they were turned away from medical service in Whitehorse shortly after the borders clamped down. Things may have changed in that period. I don't live in Juneau anymore and haven't since January 08. The heart-attack example was my own typical exageration (I'm from the South. We do that).
Still, the fact that Canada's medical system charges Americans for medical care *now* and in the past kinda makes this whole hypocrisy argument completely stupid. The only reason people in Skagway (and the rest of Southeast Alaska) have *ever* gone to Whitehorse for medical attention is because it's *there* and doesn't require a flight or ferry ride (plus the requisite cost of hotel fees in Juneau, which are upwards of 200 dollars a night in the summer and 150 in the Winter for the worst hotel in town. Did I mention that Bartlett is the *only* actual hospital in SE AK?). *Not* because Canada's health system is better/worse as the Huffington article implies. The absolute, stark, *lack* of detail in that article is proof, to me, that it was written for no other purpose than as Palin-Bash material. It's garbage. A completely amateur attempt at hack journalism. One need only google the subject to find better information out there.
quote: No, it's not stupid to point out that what she said was a mistake
With all the information you can get, knowing the layout of the city she lived in as I've *shown*, and realizing that she's speaking from the point of view of a person who actually *lived* in SE Alaska (as have I), you're still going to say that what she said was a "mistake"? It's only a mistake if you're an arrogant fool who refuses to actually look for information before devolving into "OMG! Palin is soooo stupid!" mode.
Palin's political career is basically over. She quit being a Governer (in addition to numerous other posts that she outlined in her book, so I'm told) and that is enough to give anyone who runs against her in the primary ammo for crushing her. She's not stating whether she's going to run or not because saying yes will crush the dream pretty quick and throw her out of the public eye and saying no will result in all of her supporters casting her aside, thus reducing her value as a public figure to absolute 0. If you want her to go away, ignore her. You're just giving her publicity.
Edit to add: Claudia, there's a fascinating article on Wikipedia about the history of Canada's medical system. I don't have a direct link, but a search for "canada medical system history" should bring it up.
Also, medical costs in the US were really pretty darn cheap in the 1960's, weren't they? So wouldn't that kinda also go against this hypocrisy thing? I mean, seriously. Start studying history.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's interesting to note that especially in light of the fact that rural health coverage issues are actually one of the major strikes against the sustainability of a private health care system. It's not really profitable (and in many cases not even remotely sustainable) to provide for the overhead of medical facilities covering a wide, sparsely populated area, so the system has to be propped up with public monies anyway (discreetly, of course — it can't be seen as 'socialist' even if it is) in order to avoid collapse of rural care networks and leaving huge swaths of land without effective coverage.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
