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.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
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?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
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.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
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."
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
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.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
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? Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Who would have thought? It figures.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
Life has a funny way of sneaking up on you.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So does CT!
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Life has a funny way of sneaking up on you.
How ironic.
Hobbes Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
*laughing
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
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.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
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.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
*Checks todays episode of the Daily Show*
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
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.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Nothing about Palin is level.
Hobbes Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
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 by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
I'd say it'd make him sound like a 13 year old.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
palin in thread title beep boop beep
paging ron lambert boop beep boop
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If you're that interested in arguing with him, wouldn't sending him a PM be faster, more direct, and less snarky?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
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.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
And malanthrop, don't forget her.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
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?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
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.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
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.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
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.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
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.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
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?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
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.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
And amusing!
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
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?
Posted by Badenov (Member # 12075) on :
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
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
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.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
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.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Badenov -
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.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
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.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
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.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
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?)
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
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.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
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.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:
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?)
No, it's not stupid to point out that what she said was a mistake. One that has even the right cringing.
[ March 09, 2010, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: Samprimary ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
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.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: [QB]
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. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Samprimary, that wasn't me.
Just saw that, sorry.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
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.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Badenov:
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.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
No worries.
---
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!
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
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.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
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.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: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.
For starters, Boris, thanks for degenerating this to the level of you essentially calling me an arrogant fool / propagandist / whatever.
Please do not accuse me of 'refusing' to actually look for information. if you can't even be willing to see that these are not positions of willing ignorance and that I am making worthwhile queries, then you didn't come here to stand up for your side of the issue as much as you came here just to childishly rant at us.
You wanna change your tune, or continue down this road? Your choice.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: [QB]Yeah. Quote system screwed up on that. Sorry.
No worries! (You are Badenov, yes?) It was kmboots, and I have never been done ill by being mistaken for her.
quote: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 ..
Oh heavens, totally not worth your time. I can do my own work digging if I am curious enough.
quote:(I'm from the South. We do that).
*grin Understood. Also, no worries.
quote: The absolute, stark, *lack* of detail in that article is proof that it was written for no other purpose than as Palin-Bash material. It's garbage.
Agreed in spades.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
p.s.
quote: you're still going to say that what she said was a "mistake"?
Yes. If you don't understand why what she said was a political mistake and actively hurt her cause, you can ask me to explain it to you. I would figure that it could be pretty easy to figure out on your own, though!
and
quote: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 fact that the canadians do not freely subsidize american citizens that do not pay into their public system makes this all completely stupid? That does not make sense.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: 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.
Rural health care issues are due, in greater part, to the *lack* of doctors in those areas. Not so much the cost of coverage. Canada's own system started as a method for getting medical practitioners into the Province of Saskatchewan. But I've had this whole argument with you a million times and I promised myself I wasn't going to waste more time on it. So I'm going to go have lunch on my lunch break rather than continue using Hatrack. (Relurk)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: But I've had this whole argument with you a million times and I promised myself I wasn't going to waste more time on it.
"waste," hmm?
I remember those arguments. I demonstrated pretty conclusively that I was arguing from the factual standpoint, and I exposed your frequent tendency towards mistruth (or as you call it, 'exaggeration,' such as your exaggeration that a yukon hospital won't provide medical care to an american citizen even if they are having a heart attack -- whoops! I guess southerners 'just do that?') that consistently undercut your arguments.
If you want to relurk, it's probably the best option for you; you are WAY too reactionary and accusatory for someone who makes as many ill-advised 'points' as you do.
Bye!
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
*nods
And not just the lack of doctors, but the lack of enough clinical work in sparsely populated areas to keep up their clinical skills. On the Gulf Islands off the coast of Vancouver Island that I was talking about, they can't get a full-time surgeon (even for lots and lots of money) because it would be unethical to take the job -- you wouldn't do enough surgeries to stay good at surgeries. And part-time is also a problem, because of general logistics, but also because the high-volume centers that do provide sufficient skills want people full-time there. There's no good way to split and provide good care.
Complications on top of complications. Hard topics to make sense of, to piece together a full and accurate story.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:And not just the lack of doctors, but the lack of enough clinical work in sparsely populated areas to keep up their clinical skills.
South Dakota partially managed that problem by effectively subsidizing surgeons and specialists. The agreement is effectively that the state will get you through medical school and keep the logistical costs (taking flights between medical centers, etc) under control enough to cover a wide area, as long as you agree to serve the region in return. It kept them from having a massive shortage of high level medical practitioners working there.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
You really have to have government intervention like that, though. A private hospital is not going to be happy about hiring a surgeon who only works one or two days a week in their high-volume site, just in order to subsidize other more rural places. Every hour that OR isn't being used is a huge loss of revenue. From a capitalist perspective, sharing when you could have the full-time person doesn't make sense.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: You really have to have government intervention like that, though.
Well, there IS a free-market option, but that basically involves not having coverage in many areas. They're just 'meeting in the middle,' sort of forcing a kind of social mechanism on the system anyway, and the rural areas get coverage after all, but it does tend to be extremely wasteful. The mechanisms behind that wastefulness are things I don't quite understand, but a lot of the guesses aren't pretty.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Ah, well. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: 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.
Why? As someone who benefited from Canadian health care as a child, this compromises her position on the American system, viz., it contradicts her position that the American system is close to sufficient as it is. That would be possible interesting to me, except almost all the data available from any source shows conclusively that the American system is nowhere near sufficient as it is. Palin is, in my opinion, either a total liar or a complete idiot. Probably she is both. I can understand reasoned opposition to my viewpoint- I just don't think Palin is that reasoned opposition. Nothing about the way she thinks has ever come close to impressing me.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Why? As someone who benefited from Canadian health care as a child, this compromises her position on the American system, viz., it contradicts her position that the American system is close to sufficient as it is.
Because 40 years ago her parents took her to the much closer Canadian health care? I'm having trouble seeing any sort of logical connection there.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I have a hard time seeing it make the point she was trying to make - that Canadian health care has somehow declined since the days that people crossed the border for it.
It strikes me as data that doesn't mean anything any way.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Given what we've been presented about pissed-off Alaskan letters to the editor protesting (assisted access to) that care being cut off, I'd have to agree with you, kmboots.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Given what we've been presented about pissed-off Alaskan letters to the editor protesting (assisted access to) that care being cut off, I'd have to agree with you, kmboots.
Slight correction on a detail I forgot to mention. The letters were about the fact that there is absolutely no way to get to Juneau for medical care for anyone in Southeast Alaska because there are no roads (There has been a long and heated debate in Juneau about building an access road from Juneau to Haines which would thereby connect Juneau to the AlCan highway. The first attempt at this was in the 1960s. They've been arguing the pros and cons ever since). This is important because it reveals an unfortunate problem that has, in the past, resulted in use of Canadian health care as a *necessity* rather than a financial choice. A necessity which resulted in Palin's family traveling to Whitehorse to take care of minor medical issues. I've read she told another, similar story of her family traveling to Juneau by rail for medical care. I don't know details on that one, unfortunately. However, it is important to note that the road from Skagway to Whitehorse wasn't finished until the early 1970s. This is an interesting bit of history for context. Just found that one. That does theoretically put the time of this story into the 70's, where the Canadian system was more in place, but still not what it is today. (Aaaand again, they had to pay for care, as has been established, so they weren't taking advantage of Canada's health care *system of payment* just the health care *resources*)
Stating she used Canadian health care in the past is only politically relevant in developing *gasp* a Straw man argument against her views (didn't you once say you don't use those, Samp?). This is further made completely irrelevant by the fact that Palin has *never* been referred to as a Political genius. Or even Politically *aware*. This is part of what has caused the development of her big following. A lot of people really enjoy listening to someone who doesn't give a crap about the political ramifications of what they say. Of course, that very thing makes her political future a wasteland.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris:
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Given what we've been presented about pissed-off Alaskan letters to the editor protesting (assisted access to) that care being cut off, I'd have to agree with you, kmboots.
Slight correction on a detail I forgot to mention. The letters were about the fact that there is absolutely no way to get to Juneau for medical care for anyone in Southeast Alaska because there are no roads (There has been a long and heated debate in Juneau about building an access road from Juneau to Haines which would thereby connect Juneau to the AlCan highway. The first attempt at this was in the 1960s. They've been arguing the pros and cons ever since). This is important because it reveals an unfortunate problem that has, in the past, resulted in use of Canadian health care as a *necessity* rather than a financial choice.
Hmmm. 2 things:
1. I still think those letters to the editor stand as counterexamples to the point Palin was making; i.e, that her childhood example was ironic because things have changed so much for the Canadian system now (and so US folk don't want to use it). It's the "changed" part that, well, doesn't seem to have actually changed.
2. I'm not sure I myself would feel right about expecting another country to provide for me. I mean, if there weren't sufficient services for me somewhere, I wouldn't live there. [Or if I did, I'd take the consequences that came with those choices.] I don't quite get why it's the responsibility of Canadian medical centers to bail out US citizens who have decided they want to live in a way which, essentially, they cannot afford.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Stating she used Canadian health care in the past is only politically relevant in developing *gasp* a Straw man argument against her views (didn't you once say you don't use those, Samp?).
Again, Mrs. Palin is the person who is making a point of this.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Has anyone actually been able to find the full text of her speech?
There we go. *Much* better article. According to that, I think the irony is that she once had to get medical care in Canada and that she is now speaking against the Canadian system (BTW, many of the BC and AB residents I've spoken to on a regular basis have often referred to the Canadian health system in those Provinces as a steaming pile of horse manure or something similar, mostly due to week long waits to see doctors. Apparently this is a big deal to the conservative base in the area and she use the opportunity to call for reform of the Canadian health system).
It also mentions that she's told the burned foot story twice, with different locations for medical care. I did a little research to get more background, here's what I've found. The White-Pass railroad goes from Skagway to Whitehorse. There is no rail between Skagway and Juneau (never has been, from what I can tell). According to the Skagway history link above, the Alaska Marine Highway (The ferries) system wasn't up and running to Skagway until 1963-1966. What all this means is that part of her life (1964-1966 I'm guessing), her family would have been forced to travel to Whitehorse by rail (road not built yet) for medical care. And part she *could* have traveled by Ferry. For major emergencies like, say, a third degree burn, they still probably would have gone to Whitehorse because, well, the Ferry system in Alaska sucks(Personal experience speaking here) and it's probably a lot faster to go 112 miles by rail than 70 miles by 15MPH boat (not exaggerating, those ferries are slow as crap). According to the article, she would have been about 5 or 6 when they left. I don't know about you guys, but I have trouble remembering details from that age.
But the real issue, is that she charged a cancer research benefit group 200,000 dollars to speak. Okay, now, can I ask you guys how her having been to Canada for medical treatment is more noteworthy than the fact that she charged that much to speak at a *fund raiser*?
[ March 09, 2010, 08:24 PM: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Stating she used Canadian health care in the past is only politically relevant in developing *gasp* a Straw man argument against her views (didn't you once say you don't use those, Samp?)
So wait, if I repeat or otherwise acknowledge what she, herself, is acknowledging for us, it's only politically relevant in developing a strawman argument against her views? Since she's the one stating that fact, then she's strawmanning herself according to your tortured logic.
It also seems to not make any sense on my end, since I certainly haven't crafted a strawman argument or otherwise asserted much of a motive or personal interpretation of what she said.
I'm happy to engage with you buuuuuuut you need to make more sense.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Yeah. Straw man in response to a straw man, that may or may not have been made by her. You got the actual speech with ya? I'd love to see it. Cause you can't really say she's made up a straw man argument until you read the whole thing.
The straw man argument that I'm talking about is this, "She's against socialized medicine, but she used to use it herself instead of paying for it like everyone else in America" which is the argument making the rounds on every left wing blog and newspaper on the Internet right now. That is a straw man because, guess what, her family actually had to pay for care and it was the *only option available at the time*. Your willingness to agree with this straw man is right here:
quote: 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.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Yeah. Straw man in response to a straw man, that may or may not have been made by her. You got the actual speech with ya? I'd love to see it. Cause you can't really say she's made up a straw man argument until you read the whole thing.
What? ... but I'm not saying she's made up a straw man argument. How can I claim that what someone actually said was them strawmanning themselves?
You are making NO sense.
quote:The straw man argument that I'm talking about is this, "She's against socialized medicine, but she used to use it herself instead of paying for it like everyone else in America"
Cool. I'm not saying that. And if you're asserting that I agree with that statement when I actually don't, and haven't made that argument, what exactly do we call that, again?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: ... BTW, many of the BC and AB residents I've spoken to on a regular basis have often referred to the Canadian health system in those Provinces as a steaming pile of horse manure or something similar, mostly due to week long waits to see doctors. Apparently this is a big deal to the conservative base in the area and she use the opportunity to call for reform of the Canadian health system.
People gripe, it happens. But I would warn against reading too much into personal anecdotes.
If you look at the actual statistics, Alberta and British Columbia residents actually poll above average in saying that the Canadian health-care system is better than the American one at 84% and 90% versus an overall stat of 82%. Additionally, even the Conservatives (big-C on purpose) poll at 76% agreement with this.
If you look at appetite for going more public versus more private, 55% want more public versus 12% more private with variation between provinces echoing the previous. Additionally, 53% of Conservatives want the system to become more public with only 16% wanting it to become more private. http://www.harrisdecima.com/sites/default/files/releases/071009E.pdf
For sure, there is room to get better. Lots of room, but I would caution against reading dissatisfaction as some sort of binary support for what Palin is calling for.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Why? As someone who benefited from Canadian health care as a child, this compromises her position on the American system, viz., it contradicts her position that the American system is close to sufficient as it is.
It does not, because as I said, she was six, or younger. We know nothing about her experiences with the system, or her parents' experiences, which would be of more use. Secondly, there are many scenarios in which the American health system could be sufficient (though I don't believe it is) and it would STILL be a good choice for her parents to make use of the Canadian system. We have a very plausible explanation on our hands involving geographic proximity. This is as hollow as when people were jumping on Obama for having written an essay in kindergarten about wanting to be President.
quote:I have a hard time seeing it make the point she was trying to make - that Canadian health care has somehow declined since the days that people crossed the border for it.
I haven't seen that she made that point. Did I just miss it?
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
I've got to get to bed and I will not have time to follow up on this tomorrow. By the time I get back this thread will be waaaaay out of my reach. But Mucus, would you please look at that data again, cause what you're deriving from it is not completely in accordance with the data. Particularly on page 1 (covering that last).
First, about the Canada vs. America thing. Now, I've worked with a lot of Canadians in my time, and I've observed that they are a particularly patriotic bunch. They're proud of their country. And if you ask the Canadians that I've know a loaded question like "Would you say that Canada's health system is superior to the US health system, or is the US system superior to the Canadian one?" You can be damn sure they're gonna snap out a "Canada" right off the bat. In fact, I'm surprised that anyone actually answered in favor of the US system (except for Quebec, they're known for hating Canada and the US. Then there's the obvious question...How many of the people polled have actual *first hand* experience with American health care (Probably very few, cause they don't have insurance and probably can't afford it)?
Second, looking at the question for the Public/private balance section, it's clear that private hospital rooms, massage therapy, and (more importantly, I think) dental care are not covered by the Canadian Medical act. I think people in Canada want the government to pay for their teeth, too. That might be pushing the results a bit. Then there's the fact that the question seemed to lead a little bit by explaining all that wasn't covered publicly and is therefore a suspect in its usefulness as a neutral polling question.
Third, the important data is on that first page (I noticed you left that out. Why?). In response to the question, "Overall, would you say that Canada's health care system is performing very well, fairly well, not very well or not well at all?" The data is very interesting. Those "very well" numbers are really really low. And if you compare the "Not that well" and "Not well at all" answers with the US vs Canada system question, the results don't quite mesh.
After looking at that, I decided to look up the polling info on the subject in the US. All I could find was a Rasmussen Poll from November (More recent than the one you linked) I tried to find a poll that used similar standards (Very well, fairly well, not very well, not well at all) but came up empty. Rasmussen apparently uses Excellent, Good, Fair, and Poor.
Sadly, the results can't correlate well because of the way the mind functions when choosing between descriptors. A person who doesn't like something is unlikely to choose "fair" as a description of their feelings, for example. But using that understanding, it's arguable, then, that Canadians' approval of the Canadian system and Americans' approval of the American system lines up pretty close to one another with 28% of Canadians showing negative feelings for their system, compared to 27% of Americans. Yes, I know, that's a major assumption, but there it is. And that's why I hate polls.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
This is such a non-issue it's incredible.
Palin is bat-sh*t crazy, but you are all looking bat-sh*t crazy and frankly a little bit obsessed for thinking that the fact that she was taken to Canada as a child as a matter of convenience completely invalidates her position that American health care is better.
She's wrong, you guys are wrong, everybody's wrong!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)