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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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)
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ]
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
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!
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
