Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 06:43 pm Post subject: Palin used to get health care in Canada
Isn't that ironic? No sh*t.
Quote:
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin -- who has gone to great lengths to hype the supposed dangers of a big government takeover of American health care -- admitted over the weekend that she used to get her treatment in Canada's single-payer system.
"We used to hustle over the border for health care we received in Canada," Palin said in her first Canadian appearance since stepping down as governor of Alaska. "And I think now, isn't that ironic?"
Joined: 17 May 2004 Posts: 1648 Location: Michigan
Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 03:45 am Post subject:
"Sarah Palin was a child - the article says "up to age six" - that she was making these trips to Canada.
Sarah Palin was born in 1964, so this means "up to 1970".
It wasn't until 1972 that the provinces and territories had come into compliance with the 1966 Medical Care Act, 1977 before a nationalized system had been legislated, and 1984 before the Canada Health Act gave Canada the system it has today.
SO:
1. Sarah Palin never experienced "socialized medicine" as a child, in Canada or anywhere, because it didn't exist in Canada at the time.
2. She would have been ineligible to get it for free anyway - and she is still ineligible. Americans have to cough up the dough when they visit a hospital in Canada, even today.
What else can I do to stop people from asking over and over "why did Sarah Palin use Canada's socialized medicine?" or other iterations thereof?"
Let's keep in mind that Palin was a little girl at the time. It's no blame to her that she got the health care in Canada, and no blame to her father either. Hats off to them for smart shopping. The issue is that this woman has been campaining against my family and your family getting the kind of health care that she and her brother enjoyed as a child. Maybe she did not know the facts, maybe she was confused. But if she is confused, or ignorant, why is she trying to keep my kids from getting cheaper health care?
That said, Olan, if your argument were true it would be pretty good argument, but it is not true. Socialized medicine in the Yukon started on July 1, 1960.
Palin said she used to "hustle over the border." Some hustle. Look at a map. No doctors in Anchorage, which is 46 miles from Wasilla? Hop on a train and go 676 miles to Whitehorse, YT? That does not make any sense at all unless Canada's health care was cheaper (or better) than the care in Alaska. It was cheaper or better even if you had to pay cash for it, otherwise Palin's father was crazy. It was so much cheaper or better that it was worth a day or two on a train with a sick burnt child with an infection, plus the cost of the round trip tickets,
I'm no Wasilla expert, but it appears the train they were on had to go through Anchorage before heading off to Whitehorse.
Quote:
Located on the Alaska Railroad main line that runs between Anchorage and Fairbanks, Wasilla is about 45 miles north of Anchorage.
AP talks to Chuck Heath about his daughter Sarah Palin's memory of traveling to Canada for health care:
"There was no road out of there at that time," said retired teacher Chuck Heath, reached by phone in Wasilla. "The ferry schedule was very erratic. We had no doctor in Skagway. The plane schedule was very erratic. The winds dictated whether the planes could come in or not."
...Palin's father said his family probably boarded the train for the Whitehorse hospital only twice - once when a daughter had rheumatic fever, and once when his son, also named Chuck, severely burned his leg and an infection set in.
"We much preferred to use our facilities because my insurance didn't cover anything in Whitehorse. And even though they have socialized medicine, I still had to pay the bill, being an American citizen," Heath said.
It was not until 1946 that the first Canadian province introduced near universal health coverage. Saskatchewan had long suffered a shortage of doctors, leading to the creation of municipal doctor programs in the early twentieth century in which a town would subsidize a doctor to practice there. Soon after, groups of communities joined to open union hospitals under a similar model. There had thus been a long history of government involvement in Saskatchewan health care, and a significant section of it was already controlled and paid for by the government. In 1946, Tommy Douglas' Co-operative Commonwealth Federation government in Saskatchewan passed the Saskatchewan Hospitalization Act, which guaranteed free hospital care for much of the population. Douglas had hoped to provide universal health care, but the province did not have the money.
In 1950, Alberta created a program similar to Saskatchewan's. Alberta, however, created Medical Services (Alberta) Incorporated (MS(A)I) in 1948 to provide prepaid health services. This scheme eventually provided medical coverage to over 90% of the population.[30]
In 1957, the federal government passed the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act to fund 50% of the cost of such programs for any provincial government that adopted them. The HIDS Act outlined five conditions: public administration, comprehensiveness, universality, portability, and accessibility. These remain the pillars of the Canada Health Act.
By 1961, all ten provinces had agreed to start HIDS Act programs. In Saskatchewan, the act meant that half of their current program would now be paid for by the federal government. Premier Woodrow Lloyd decided to use this freed money to extend the health coverage to also include physicians. Despite the sharp disagreement of the Saskatchewan College of Physicians and Surgeons, Lloyd introduced the law in 1962 after defeating the Saskatchewan Doctors' Strike in July.
[edit] Medical Care Act
The Saskatchewan program proved a success and the federal government of Lester B. Pearson, pressured by the New Democratic Party (NDP) who held the balance of power, introduced the Medical Care Act in 1966 that extended the HIDS Act cost-sharing to allow each province to establish a universal health care plan. It also set up the Medicare system. In 1984, the Canada Health Act was passed, which prohibited user fees and extra billing by doctors. In 1999, the prime minister and most premiers reaffirmed in the Social Union Framework Agreement that they are committed to health care that has "comprehensiveness, universality, portability, public administration and accessibility."
BTW I believe I have had a tad bit more experience dealing with insurance companies than you (about half a million of them saying yes) - at least on a personal level - again a bit of an inside comment. About health care - unlucky to have been a IP 3X last year so I have more first hand experience than I would like.
Joined: 13 May 2004 Posts: 964 Location: Federal Hill, Baltimore, MD
Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 02:03 pm Post subject:
Never has been any doubt about the quality of US health care for those with excellent insurance and/or abundant bank accounts. The issues have to do with horrendous inefficiency and outrageous expense.
Never has been any doubt about the quality of US health care for those with excellent insurance and/or abundant bank accounts. The issues have to do with horrendous inefficiency and outrageous expense.
I disagree. Even the rich and insured are at risk in the United States. The AMA lets anybody out of medical school with a degree that gets in. The only substantial limits on malpractice come from lawyers and courts (not the medical establishment). So, the brakes go on after the car hits the barn.
As a result, American doctors drill holes in the wrong side of people's heads, cut off the wrong parts, kill people with the wrong medications, give people the wrong gas, tell them they have six months to live when with proper treatment they can live at least six years, and give lethal infections in hospitals that are not clean, and so on. That's why we do not want malpractice reform. Attorneys and courts are the only people currently keeping the medical profession from pushing you off a cliff.
BTW I believe I have had a tad bit more experience dealing with insurance companies than you (about half a million of them saying yes) - at least on a personal level - again a bit of an inside comment. About health care - unlucky to have been a IP 3X last year so I have more first hand experience than I would like.
I suspect that if you had not had health insurance that you took with you when you left your last job you would not be with us today. Would you agree?
If that is true, then isn't your continued (and very welcomed) well being a simple twist of fate? Others have passed while you remain, simply because of a negotiated union contract?
Should we leave the lives of our neighbors and friends up to such twists of fate, or should we take care to ensure that all of us have the same life sustaining services that you enjoy? _________________ David Traver
Attorney
Traver & Traver, S.C.
P.O. Box 459
Eagle, WI 53119
262-594-2096 (work)
403[at]traverlaw.com
You can post new topics in this forum You can reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Traverlaw, Traver Law, Traver Law Offices, S.C., Traver & Traver, S.C.,
Traverlaw.com, SSAConnect,
Attorneys for the disabled and disadvantaged in all areas of Social Security
disability law, http://traverlaw.com,
http://ssaconnect.com, Connect, SSA Connect, Think Bigger,
Social Security Advice Connect, Social Security Disability Advice Connect,
"Social Security Disability Advocacy, Debate, and Professional News,"
the yellow and orange swoosh image, and the square favicon.ico image,
are trademarks and service marks of Attorney David F. Traver.
For information the about use of our copyrighted and trademarked material please call
262-594-2096.
CONNECT
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
