Republicans and democrats don't understand each other

[Alan Klein]

A common meme these days. Otherwise known as "dog whistle" politics.

Canada is commonly and incorrectly referred to by Americans as "Socialist".

BTW, Alan, in a doctor's office a few years ago the doc decided I needed a CAT scan.  I was in the machine in less than an hour. This in the Socialist hellhole known as Canada, eh? And rural Canada at that.  Nearly a thousand kilometers from Vancouver.

Why are you telling me?  It was Rob who complained about the Canadian system.  Tell him.  I like Canada and the Canadians.  I think they're good friends of ours. 

[Alan Klein]

Eh.

[faberryman]

Most Democratic presidential candidates are for elimination of private insurance in the US.

I thought only Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris held up their hands when asked that question during the debates, and Kamala Harris later retracted saying that she misunderstood the question.

[Rob C]

Rob, I wish you could visit me here in Florida during the winter and chat with the Canadians who come down so they can go to a doctor, pay, and get what they need: simple things like MRI's. It's not that they can't get the stuff in Canada, but that they may die before their number comes up in the system. If anybody in the United States thinks the government can run something better than the free market can, let them go through the process of mailing a package from their local post office, then ship another similar package with UPS or Fed Ex.

Russ, does that imply that Canadians do not have access to private health insurance in Canada? It's much better sense to have access to both, for those who can afford it, on the understanding that the state system still works for those with no alteratives. I certainly have no desire to deprive anyone with the means their private health insurance. As I mentioned before, we had it too until the cost seemed pointless when we discovered how good the state system was too.

[faberryman]

If anybody in the United States thinks the government can run something better than the free market can, let them go through the process of mailing a package from their local post office, then ship another similar package with UPS or Fed Ex.

I would much rather use USPS than UPS ore FedEx for shipping packages.

[Peter McLennan]

I did not refer to Socialism; I called for a little sense of social responsibility. Those are two entirely separate and different words, concepts and uses.

I'll quote Rob more extensively to provide context.  Rob, like me, disavows the notion that social responsiblity and Socialism are equivalent. Or, more egregiously, that Socialism and Communism are the same.

My comment wasn't aimed at you, Alan.  Rather at those who attempt to equate the two.  Frequently conservative Americans, talking about Canada.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

So in fact precisely the opposite of what Alan claimed ...

You might notice I didn't respond to Alan's reply to the part you quoted. That is because I realized he had a point: ultimately, in spite of state/government efforts to the contrary, the courts sided with a family member. The case was ultimately resolved on the strength of the legal argument who had a stronger power of attorney (I am using this term loosely), not on the moral/ideological issues like right-to-life, etc. Yes, the state (or the government in its narrower meaning) tried to intervene along the moral and ideological lines, but it didn't succeed. The courts ultimately sided with a solution that was the opposite of what the government wanted.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Socialism and Communism are the same...

And yet they are. Just different stages on the same path.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I thought only Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris held up their hands when asked that question during the debates, and Kamala Harris later retracted saying that she misunderstood the question.

If so, I then stand corrected.

[Alan Goldhammer]

I would much rather use USPS than UPS ore FedEx for shipping packages.

I have used USPS priority mail to send packages for years.  I print out the label on my computer and drop the package off at the post office.  I have tracking information the minute its scanned and everything gets delivered within two days.  Pretty good deal and cheaper than UPS and FedEx unless one has a corporate account. 

[Rob C]

Why are you telling me?  It was Rob who complained about the Canadian system.  Tell him.  I like Canada and the Canadians.  I think they're good friends of ours. 

I most certainly did no such thing! I know squat about the Canadian system, and was asking whether Canadians going south for medical aid, privately, implied they did not have access to private medical insurance in Canada.

[RSL]

This from Forbes Magazine, June 11:

"Canada's single-payer healthcare system forced over 1 million patients to wait for necessary medical treatments last year. That's an all-time record.

"Those long wait times were more than just a nuisance; they cost patients $1.9 billion in lost wages, according to a new report by the Fraser Institute, a Vancouver-based think-tank."

[LesPalenik]

I most certainly did no such thing! I know squat about the Canadian system, and was asking whether Canadians going south for medical aid, privately, implied they did not have access to private medical insurance in Canada.

Rich Canadians go occasionally south to US for medical aid, mainly because of significantly shorter waiting times and more specialists.
On the other hand, quite a few Americans travel north to get their elective surgeries done in Canada, mainly hernia. Even with travel costs, these surgeries are still cheaper in Canada.
Both Canadians and Americans travel to central Europe to get pampered in hot thermal spas.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Mere assertion is inadequate, Slobodan. Explain why you have formed that view.

Yes, you are right, I should have elaborated. In my defense, I was waiting for a borscht to arrive and typing on my iPhone, which was no match for your "longest ever post."

My assertion is based on two things:

1. Your treatment of Alan as a fellow forum member is unnecessarily harsh, abrasive, and condescending. You are not alone in that. Rob and the other Jeremy help a lot too. As I mentioned earlier, it is uncalled for. Alan is one of the most polite and patient contributors, and as such doesn't deserve the insults.

2. Alan didn't question the medical or legal aspects of the case. Therefore, your medical and legal arguments, as much as it comes from your unquestionably laudable expertise in both fields, is irrelevant. Alan raised a higher-level issue of who gets to decide about life and death, and sided with just about half of the world's view on it. You seem to think (correct me if wrong) that medical profession should have the say in life and death decisions, to the point of ultimately deciding it. That the courts ultimately only sided with the experts. I couldn't disagree more with such a view. The role of experts is to give their opinion, not to decide. I, as a parent, should have the final say. If I want my child on life support for the rest of his life, that should be my privilege to decide, not doctors'. If I can afford it, of course. There is a lot of spectrum between parental child abuse and state child protection. I think that in this particular case the pendulum swung way too far toward the state rights. Having said that, if I were in those shoes (father), I would have probably opted to end the life sooner rather the later. However, I was particularly troubled by the court's decision to prevent the parents from moving him to another hospital, willing to provide free care, under the questionable argument of "pain." It is one thing for courts to say, rightly or wrongly, well, that hospital is right, they can pull the plug. But completely different thing to say, no, you can not avoid their decision by moving it to another willing hospital. Such a level of state control over individuals scares the hell out of me.

As I posted earlier:

Both cases are not clear-cut right-or-wrong cases, but deeply traumatic, emotional, damn-if-you-do, damn-if-you-don’t situations.... it is matter of balance between courts and family. Neither should have automatic and exclusive rights. By the same token, people taking a principal position one way or another should not be labeled ignorant either.

[Rob C]

Rich Canadians go occasionally south to US for medical aid, mainly because of significantly shorter waiting times and more specialists.
On the other hand, quite a few Americans travel north to get their elective surgeries done in Canada, mainly hernia. Even with travel costs, these surgeries are still cheaper in Canada.
Both Canadians and Americans travel to central Europe to get pampered in hot thermal spas.

Pampered in hot thermal spas... babies do that everywhere; even the smell's much the same.

[Robert Roaldi]

This from Forbes Magazine, June 11:

"Canada's single-payer healthcare system forced over 1 million patients to wait for necessary medical treatments last year. That's an all-time record.

"Those long wait times were more than just a nuisance; they cost patients $1.9 billion in lost wages, according to a new report by the Fraser Institute, a Vancouver-based think-tank."

Interesting how you're willing to quote data from organizations that agree with your pre-conceived conclusions but disparage those that don't.

And if you're trying to convince me of something, quoting the Fraser Institute or Forbes won't do it. Neither of those organizations speak for Canadian citizens.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... And if you're trying to convince me of something, quoting the Fraser Institute or Forbes won't do it...

You don't like inconvenient facts?

[Jeremy Roussak]

Both of us seem to be dancing on the head of our respective pins.  The model that I described is one of controlling up front costs and eliminating of the profit of the primary underwriter as I already described.  That you seem not to grasp this concept is your problem.  Of course the reinsurer that covers the stop loss has a profit built in and that premium might be readjusted from year to year depending on claims that are filed.  We still have significant savings in this model compared to one that would contract directly with the primary insurer for full coverage.  You are entitled to not like this explanation but the animus is better parked by the side of the road.

Of course you can save money by covering your own costs until your insurance (insurance, not re-insurance) kicks in. I can save money on my house contents policy in the same way. I'm not "self insuring"; I'm just accepting some of the risk myself, exactly as you are.

Shame on you, Jeremy, for not grasping the concept. 

I know. Humbling. Brain the size of a planet, too.

Jeremy

[Jeremy Roussak]

Jeremy, I don't live in GB.  So I'm not familiar with the day-to-day issues regarding this case.   I'm taking the article as telling the truth.  But even if there are untruths in it does not change the fact that government control of our medical care can hurt our rights to make free choices about that care.  Obama lied when he said Obamacare would not cause you to change your doctors.  In the end, a single payer system must make choices since there is not an ever supply of funding to pay for everything.  So government's choices may not comport with the individual's choice so they have lost their freedom to decide.  If you have a disease, and the government says that because of your old age, the government will not fund care, you're screwed.  Unless you're very rich and can pay out of pocket or you can afford to fly to America for the care.  With private insurance, you have more options and more free choices. 

Look how Brexit is affecting national health care, a government controlled system.   Brits overseas, ex-pats, might lose health care once Brexit goes into effect.  Had there been private health care, individuals would still be able to decide what kind and how much care their insurance policies handles.   They lost their freedom to decide how to live by turning their lives over to the care of bureaucrats in government who care little about them.  I would rather keep important decisions about my life in my hands.  I just don't trust the government.  That extends to making end-of-life decisions.  When you go in for serious surgery in the US, the hospital asks you to sign or not sign a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate).  If you sign it, and you have major failure let's say of breathing or your heart during or after the procedure, the hospital will not take extraordinary measures to keep you alive.  They will let nature takes it's course.  If you don't sign it, they are obligated by law to take all measures to keep you alive even if you have to be put in a induced coma state.  There's no telling what government may decide once they take over fully.  That's what makes the British kid's story so important.  It represents a transfer of power to the state about our personal freedoms to make choices.

I realise you don't live here. I have explained to you that the article on which you base your views of the case is wrong and I have given you links which will, if followed, allow you to understand the facts. I have no idea why you decline to do so.

The story of Alfie Evans demonstrates nothing of the kind, which is why your persistent ignorance is so irritating. What it represents is something which the UK, America, every civilised country understands: that, as I have already put it, children are not the playthings of their parents, parents do not always know what is best for their children and sometimes it is necessary for decisions to be made in the child's best interests, even if that is against the parents' wishes. I know little of the US social care system, but if you have no means by which children may be removed by the State from inadequate parents, I would be astonished.

Misusing the series of events which led, after exhaustive legal argument, to the death of a child from an incurable, catastrophic degenerative disease to promulgate your political views, views which are wholly irrelevant to the issues in that case, is reprehensible.

Jeremy

[Jeremy Roussak]

Yes, you are right, I should have elaborated. In my defense, I was waiting for a borscht to arrive and typing on my iPhone, which was no match for your "longest ever post."

My assertion is based on two things:

1. Your treatment of Alan as a fellow forum member is unnecessarily harsh, abrasive, and condescending. You are not alone in that. Rob and the other Jeremy help a lot too. As I mentioned earlier, it is uncalled for. Alan is one of the most polite and patient contributors, and as such doesn't deserve the insults.

2. Alan didn't question the medical or legal aspects of the case. Therefore, your medical and legal arguments, as much as it comes from your unquestionably laudable expertise in both fields, is irrelevant. Alan raised a higher-level issue of who gets to decide about life and death, and sided with just about half of the world's view on it. You seem to think (correct me if wrong) that medical profession should have the say in life and death decisions, to the point of ultimately deciding it. That the courts ultimately only sided with the experts. I couldn't disagree more with such a view. The role of experts is to give their opinion, not to decide. I, as a parent, should have the final say. If I want my child on life support for the rest of his life, that should be my privilege to decide, not doctors'. If I can afford it, of course. There is a lot of spectrum between parental child abuse and state child protection. I think that in this particular case the pendulum swung way too far toward the state rights. Having said that, if I were in those shoes (father), I would have probably opted to end the life sooner rather the later. However, I was particularly troubled by the court's decision to prevent the parents from moving him to another hospital, willing to provide free care, under the questionable argument of "pain." It is one thing for courts to say, rightly or wrongly, well, that hospital is right, they can pull the plug. But completely different thing to say, no, you can not avoid their decision by moving it to another willing hospital. Such a level of state control over individuals scares the hell out of me.

Can't stand borscht.

Alan's original remark was this:

They can't.  That's what happened in Britain when the government let a child die overriding the parent's decision.  That's what happens with socialization.  Individuals lose their freedom.  It's powerful and uncaring government that decides.

As I have explained, in detail, that is a grotesque misrepresentation of the facts. It is a disgraceful misuse of a tragic case to make a political point. That kind of misrepresentation led, during the currency of the case, to death threats agains the paediatricians, angry mobs besieging the hospital and demands that Alder Hey - a children's hospital, one of the most renowned children's hospitals in the country - should be bombed. The NHS is very far from perfect; it has enormous failings. It is not, however, an uncaring organisation and the doctors at Alder Hey who made the decisions which led to the litigation are not uncaring - quite the reverse. They are independent of the "state", which played no part in their decision-making. They wished to do what they considered was best for the child and, since there was disagreement, some external decision-making was necessary.

I have previously agreed with much of what Alan has written. But that remark, and his persistent adherence to the view that "socialization" or a "powerful and uncaring government" allows death is utterly disgraceful. He found an article which supported the view he wished to promulgate, and used it without any attempt to establish its accuracy.

Your second paragraph raises issues which are more nuanced, and on which there is scope for disagreement. But I could not disagree more strongly with your view that parents are the sole arbiter of what is best for a child's welfare, for the reasons set out in my previous post. It is absolutely not the case, here or in any other country with a functioning legal system. A child is a separate person, entitled to decisions made in his best interests, and in this case, as usual, with the benefit of separate representation in the proceedings.

It would of course have been much easier for Alder Hey to allow Alfie Evans to be moved to a different hospital, in a different country. But it would have been wrong - morally wrong - in the prevailing circumstances. That is the decision which it fell to the Courts to make; and that was the decision made by the High Court and the Court of Appeal in England, with which the European Court of Human Rights declined to interfere.

Jeremy