Canadian Prime Minister Comes To U.S. For Surgery

1. 59

   Harvey Stelmanposted 14 years ago

   This is what Obamacare will do to the U.S. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/arti … rt-surgery

   replyreport
   1. 91

      Rochelle Frankposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Well, we can always go to Mexico-- though it will be a longer trip for the Canadians.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      Evan G Rogersposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I just got done with a hub discussing just about every argument there is (or at least that I can think of) against universal health care, obamacare, or public-option health care.
      
      I tried to approach it from a 'I'm not trying to be a jerk' perspective, but it's surprisingly hard to NOT get mad at the absurdity of government-provided health care.

      replyreport
      1. 65

         Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         You should try a bit harder.

         replyreport
2. 60

   mikelongposted 14 years ago

   Harvey, they stated that the procedure could have been done in Canada...I didn't see anything here as a knock against them...
   
   Some of our private hospitals are the best money can buy....and we'll have to see what this guy paid...note that they said that this information was unknown...
   
   The article also used quotes from American pundits, but why would they be relevant at all?  Who cares what they think...
   
   They said that the procedure could have been done in Canada if he wanted to stay there.....but when you have millions of dollars, you may not like to wait in line like everyone else..
   
   Kind've like when I was in the military waiting to get into the chow hall......while the officers and senior enlisted go first....

   replyreport
   1. 91

      Rochelle Frankposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Well, you make some good points for him.
      Kind of reminds me of the people in the "speedy check" line who have a cartful of groceries.. I guess it's OK if you are important.

      replyreport
3. 0

   sneakorocksolidposted 14 years ago

   Stop! Don't let him in he'll just hit us with a hockey stick and turn us into communists! OH what a world!

   replyreport
   1. 71

      wyanjenposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      

      replyreport
4. 66

   Pearldiverposted 14 years ago

   Well Good On Him!!!
   
   Our PM (NZ) came to the US to appear on the David Letterman Show
   Perhaps in the hope that he would qualify for a Greencard.

   replyreport
5. 60

   Niteriterposted 14 years ago

   Danny Williams is not the Prime Minister of Canada, Harvey. He is the Premier of a province which is the same as the Governor of a state.
   
   Also, Mr. Williams is a multi-millionaire; he is filling the office of Premier for no pay. That's right, he is governing his province without burdening the taxpayers with a salary for himself which he clearly states he does not need. Do you think it's possible he went down to a US private facility so as not to unnecessarily burden the Canadian taxpayers?
   
   Facts are bothersome things which take up a lot of prating time to uncover.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Other than the fact he is not the Prime Minister of Canada and receives no pay, what fact did you provide?

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Niteriterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Sorry Tex. Not interested.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Not interested in what? Providing facts? I didn't think so.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Niteriterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               I am not interested in you. I would be happy to provide facts to someone who is a reasonable person; I don't hink you're a reasonable person. I'm really not very concerned about what you think; I believe your thoughts don't go very deep, based on what you have to say at HubPages.
               
               Have a good night.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  You sure sound interested to me.

                  replyreport
               2. 0

                  A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  By the way is Hubpages the place deep thinkers go?

                  replyreport
6. 55

   (Q)posted 14 years ago

   I thought Stephen Harper was the Prime Minister of Canada?

   replyreport
   1. 63

      Greek Oneposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      The person in question is a Premier of one of our provinces (kinda like a Governor), not the Prime Minister.
      
      That being said, I've never had to travel to the US for healthcare (I have, upon many occasions, had to wait a long time for 'free' services (I say free because we do pay for healthcare through taxes, obviously)). 
      
      If it was up to me, I would take the longer line ups rather than not going to a hospital at all because I can't afford it.  I think most Canadians would chose keeping, but improving, their system), as flawed as it may be.
      
      On the other hand, on many occasions, I have had to drive to buffalo for some authentic chicken wings.

      replyreport
      1. 55

         (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this

         I heard talk the Canadian system may become two-tiered, is that true?
         
         
         
         I had to drive to Guelph to see stove top hats and horse drawn carriages.

         replyreport
         1. 63

            Greek Oneposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            depending on the province, yes, that is creeping in.
            
            I've been to Guelph once.... too many horses

            replyreport
7. 67

   Flightkeeperposted 14 years ago

   We all know that the real reason the Canadian Prime Minister is coming to Florida for the surgery is so that he can go to the beach afterwards.

   replyreport
8. 73

   Maddie Ruudposted 14 years ago

   All this illustrates is that a public health care system does not, in fact, eliminate competition.

   replyreport
9. 61

   Doug Hughesposted 14 years ago

   Wow!  We seem to have established that the USA is a great place to go for health care if you are a billionare.
   
   What if you have a family and gross 40K and your employer doesn't provide insurance?
   
   What if you had a heart attack 3 years ago, your empoyer laid you off and now no insurer will cover you?
   
   It's the 45 million people without insurance coverage of any kind who are the issue, not foreign billionares. BTW, if you have NO coverage of any kind, you aren't below the poverty level - which means you are working.
   
   We have to measure how well the system works for people who are not healthy or wealthy. Right now by that criteria, the USA ranks # 37. Of course that  study looks at more than how you treat fat cats - it looks at the care (or lack of) for the working poor.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I had a Heart Attack 5 years ago, Insurance paid for all of the procedures done including a Pacemaker/Defibrillator. Insurance was never raised and I still have it, fear mongering doesn't help your case!

      replyreport
10. 58

    Dame Scribeposted 14 years ago

    Just think of the $$ thats coming INTO the states from such appointments bringing $$ INTO the country is better than $$ leaving

    replyreport
11. 61

    Doug Hughesposted 14 years ago

    Tex - you got a case of athlete's tongue from that foot in your mouth. You had insurance - heart problems and you are alive.
    
    What if you don't have insurance?
    
    Every year 45,000 Americans die for lack of health care because they don't have insurance. That's from a Harvard Study from last year. If you want to dispute it, cite a better source! Or if you think that people who don't have insurance get the same quality care, why do you have insurance?

    replyreport
    1. 0

       A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       You said
       
       "What if you had a heart attack 3 years ago, your empoyer laid you off and now no insurer will cover you?"
       
       
       Your scenario has the victim with Insurance at the time of the heart attack, right? Then his employer lays him off, right? And then he loses his insurance and can't get anymore because of a preexisting condition, right!
       
       He was always able to take the insurance with him when he was laid off, he could have kept it by paying for it, is it the taxpayers fault he didn't do so?  No Doug, its not!

       replyreport
       1. 65

          Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Tex, you don't know what your're talking about as usual. Many people who try to use their temporary COBRA coverage find that its useless because of exclusions, high co-pays, etc., not to mention those who can't afford to pay the COBRA premiums. The problem with health care goes beyond the 30 million without coverage. Many of those with coverage, when they try to use it, find that their prescribed treatment or drug is arbitrarily excluded or that their policies are cancelled on a technicality--e.g., they forgot to mention they had acne as a teenager on their application. We already have private, faceless "death panels" in the insurance industry. Health insurance companies are parasites. They perform no function that couldn't be better accomplished by a single payer system.

          replyreport
          1. 0

             A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             What exactly am I wrong about? I said that he can take his health insurance with him (COBRA) then you and the other guy start in about how expensive it is. Where did I say it would be cheap? Point is COBRA allows anybody to keep their insurance when they leave a job, don't come whining about how expensive it is, just admit they can keep the insurance!

             replyreport
          2. 61

             Jane@CMposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             We are using COBRA - our benefit package DID NOT CHANGE.

             replyreport
12. 0

    Will Bensonposted 14 years ago

    The Canadian Prime Minister better hope that his American doctor isn't a hockey fan.

    replyreport
    1. 55

       Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       A hockey fan wouldn't hold a grudge over a great game like that.

       replyreport
13. 61

    Doug Hughesposted 14 years ago

    Tex -
    
    You don't know what you are talking about. COBRA is not a lifetime guarantee of coverage. Generally, you are allowed up to 18 months of coverage - which you have to pay for.
    
    When COBRA coverage expires or you get a job, insurance companies CAN & DO deny you coverage, so for some people a change in job situation becomes a death sentence.
    
    This is one of the things Oboamacare will change.  Insurance companies won't be able to pick and choose customers, rejecting clients more likely to cost them money - and dropping coverage when someone gets a serious chronic (expensive) condition.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       COBRA allows you to keep it 18 months, a year and a half, whats the problem? You mean a company doesn't want to pay for a laid off employees health insurance?
       
       In 18 months this person can't find a job? He doesn't need health insurance he needs motivation!

       replyreport
       1. 52

          bptrposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          Yeah RIGHT.   Most jobs don't even pay for Health Insurance because they can't afford to pay the exorbitant rates.   Most people in this country who don;t have health in insurance HAVE JOBS!!!

          replyreport
    2. 0

       sneakorocksolidposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Whats going to hold the cost down? And when it goes up and the working poor can't pay they're share, who pays then? If we we're going to get something in return for our generosity like clean highways and parks. How about our borders protected? Some extra work at our hospitals to hold down the cost?
       
       If we had mandatory national service people could earn they're medical insurance, college tuition and retirement. We have to find real solutions not just throw other peoples money at the problem. If you want change have a plan on how to fund it.

       replyreport
       1. 0

          A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Mandatory National service? You got to be kidding me sneak, how is more government control going to solve any problem. How is mandating something a solution to anything? When has government ever solved a problem?
          
          Never!

          replyreport
       2. 55

          Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          "If we had mandatory national service people could earn they're medical insurance, college tuition and retirement."
          
          
          That would end up costing even more money. Not a good idea.

          replyreport
14. 61

    Doug Hughesposted 14 years ago

    Tex - This is interesting. You tell a lie and get caught and so you tell a different lie. That works if you are Glenn Beck and can contol the oulet but not here.
    
    Regading denial because of a pte-existing condition you said -
    
    "He was always able to take the insurance with him when he was laid off, he could have kept it by paying for it, is it the taxpayers fault he didn't do so?"
    
    Which is dead wrong - Cobra covers you for a max 18 months. When I pointed that out you said -
    
    "In 18 months this person can't find a job? He doesn't need health insurance he needs motivation!"
    
    He needs medical insurance (and a job). But he will die if his heart problem flairs up. It's a real issue and conservatives expect he should go die quietly. Voters need to look at the conservative 'answers' and see they are as compassionate as Auschwitz. But hidden as the Nazi death camps - you tell a lie and then a different one - to evade the true result of the position you have.

    replyreport
15. 64

    I am DB Cooperposted 14 years ago

    This topic came up on Digg a few weeks ago, and it's really just a distraction and a straw man argument. I don't hear anybody on either side of the debate saying the United States doesn't have great health care for those who can afford it. Foreign heads of state come to our Mayo Clinic when they have cancer. When Magic Johnson was diagnosed with HIV, he went on the best antiviral regimen available, and now the virus is undetectable in his body. The argument has never been that the best care isn't available to those who can pay for it, it's that adequate care isn't available for those who can't pay for it.
    
    It's really easy to say "why should the U.S. taxpayer pay for health care for people who can't afford it?" There's a major problem with that, beside the fact that it seems cold and heartless: it doesn't make economic sense. Americans are paying far too much for health care right now, and the results are devastating. Not only do we suffer by paying more for insurance than we would under a public option scenario (yes, there would be government waste, but don't ignore that where there isn't government waste now there is corporate profits), but we also suffer secondary harm by our peers paying too much for health care. When my neighbor has to declare bankruptcy because of mounting debt due to an illness, that hurts us all. It means the creditors don't get paid, which means those businesses are hurt, which means layoffs, which means those former employees have less money to spend at my business, etc. When we don't take care of the underclass it can create a vicious cycle that devours the middle class and will even hurt the upper class in the long run.
    
    The majority of my economics professors in college were strongly in favor of an Obama-style health care system. In general, government intervention is beneficial in markets where demand is inelastic. Health care is one of the best examples of a market with inelastic demand. When you have a heart attack, chances are you aren't going to shop around at hospitals looking for the best price.

    replyreport
16. 0

    JeanMeriamposted 14 years ago

    Glad it was clarified that this is not the Prime Minister.
    
    Probably he is going to the US because it is not an emergency. Our system deals with the the more urgent needs first and those without urgent needs for surgery wait. He probably didn't want to wait. And if he could afford to go elsewhere and pay then why not. One less on the waiting list.
    
    I have never had any issue with our public health care system. Most times it works quite well. Our wait times etc. have more to do with a shortage of doctors.

    replyreport
17. 63

    Greek Oneposted 14 years ago

    To clarify, although our Prime Minister did not recently travel to the US for medical reasons, he did have an operation there a few years ago.
    
    By all accounts, the lobotomy was a complete success

    replyreport
    1. 79

       Uninvited Writerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       

       replyreport
       1. 65

          Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Somebody must have had a sale on lobotomies recently in the red states.

          replyreport
18. 61

    Doug Hughesposted 14 years ago

    No, FOX was giving out home labotomy kits with the Sarah Palin book.

    replyreport
19. 52

    bptrposted 10 years ago

    Why are you "conservative" reactionaries so blind to the facts???
    We have a scammer HealthDON'Tcare (MONEYcare) system that only the rich or people with good jobs can afford to have.   40% of our citizens can't even see a doctor and people are dying in the street from Cancer and other diseases because they have no access to Healthcare!!!
    
    The way all you people always react and vote is that if it doesn't directly affect YOU, then there exists no problem
    
    You all are also completely brainwashed by the propaganda sources that simply make up numbers and facts.   Don't you think that huge industries like Big Pharma and the Oil Industry that make BILLIONS in profit would have a vested interest in keeping the general gullible public deluded and brainwashed??    Fox News and millionaire AM radio cult leaders (who simply block all callers who don't blindly follow) serve the industries.  I am certain that they also hire writers to write books and articles with nothing but fake statistics and utter lies.
    
    If the Prime Minister of Canada came here for a procedure, it is because he could afford this scammer system that serves only the well-off and rich.

    replyreport
    1. 96

       wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       I must confess that the only corpses I've seen in the streets are from car accidents or other  violence.  Never cancer.
       
       If the rest of the post is of the same caliber of exaggeration, it isn't worth the time to read.  Is it?

       replyreport
    2. 79

       Uninvited Writerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       The Prime Minister of Canada never did go to the US for treatment. It was the former Premier of Newfoundland, who is very rich.
       
       But, yes, most of us are quite happy with our national health care and would never want to give it up.

       replyreport
    3. 60

       SomewayOuttaHereposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       this is a really old thread revived....some Canadians do venture south for procedures and they are not necessarily rich....sometimes they get a scare and the system doesn't move quick enough for them...like now....so they decide to head south and waste their money on a procedure they can get here...i figure we live in a world where we expect instant responses...my silly sister comes to mind..........and yes, the PM would never, ever venture outside of Canada for any medical treatment....politics...optics....

       replyreport