Health Care

[WarrenJ]

Last Wednesday I visited my doctor. Before I left his office I had an appointment to see an orthopedic surgeon Thursday morning. Additionally, I had an appointment for a CT scan and kidney ultrasound Thursday afternoon. DONE.

I have to wonder how that might have been different in a country with socialized medical treatment. Are you sure that's what you want?

Regards,

Warren

[Marika]

Well, I already have a form of modified socialized medicine called HMO.

Here's what I did on my own, without any help from my clueless doctors and the insurance company who fought me every step of the way:

My clueless doctor informs me that my "blood sugars are a bit high". Doesn't tell me what my A1c is in fact, doesn't say much beyond this.

I LIE, CHEAT AND STEAL to get hold of Bayer's A1C meter which was originally sold to doctor's offices only and which I had to fight my insurance company to pay for, and discover that my A1c was 6.9% which is definitely a diagnosis of diabetes. I cut out almost all carbohydrates from my diet and manage to easily shed 77 pounds in about six months. The A1c is now around 5.3%, a reading below 6% is normal. I return to my doctor's office 77 pounds lighter, no diabetes and the doctor removes me from my blood pressure medication since I no longer need it. I monitor my blood sugars daily using the Bayer Contour meter and my A1c weekly using Bayer's A1C meter, all the while battling my insurance company (Aetna) to pay for these tests which are VERY inexpensive when you consider their rapid life saving abilities. I practiced what you could call, cost effective medicine and my insurance company battled me every step of the way. Aetna, burn in hell

[Marika]

Our government is no better. They actually push a diet that's mostly carbohydrates. For those who don't know, carbohydrates is another name for SUGAR. Our government pushes her citizens to eat SUGAR. Here's a list of at least fifty different names for sugar.

Barley malt

Beet sugar

Brown sugar

Buttered syrup

Cane juice crystals

Cane sugar

Caramel

Corn syrup

Corn syrup solids

Confectioner’s sugar

Carob syrup

Castor sugar

Date sugar

Demerara sugar

Dextran

Dextrose

Diastatic malt

Diatase

Ethyl maltol

Fructose

Fruit juice

Fruit juice concentrate

Galactose

Glucose

Glucose solids

Golden sugar

Golden syrup

Grape sugar

High-fructose corn syrup

Honey

Icing sugar

Invert sugar

Lactose

Maltodextrin

Maltose

Malt syrup

Maple syrup

Molasses

Muscovado sugar

Panocha

Raw sugar

Refiner’s syrup

Rice syrup

Sorbitol

Sorghum syrup

Sucrose

Sugar

Treacle

Turbinado sugar

Yellow sugar

I'm sure there are more, feel free to add to the list. Then of course, the sugar substitutes like Splenda, are also killing people and our government through the corrupt FDA gave clearance to this garbage to be served to us. I'm finding Splenda in food products more and more and being forced to stop buying those products. Splenda DOES react with your blood and it DOES raise your blood sugars. Stay away from it if you can.

[Cadillac Jim]

I'm not going to comment on Marika's experience with Aetna. We have an Aetna Senior PPO, which is very similar to the Aetna HMOs except that the PPO doesn't require formal referrals, possibly a Medicare requirement, since their Senior plan leverages Medicare parts A and B. What we have run up against persistently is what Aetna calls "staged therapy" and refusals of coverage of pharmacy and some other claims on medical grounds. They have an M.D. administering these policies and an appeal process. I have my doubts about the legality of all this because this guy is making medical and treatment decisions about people who are not his patients, and because his purpose is clearly to reduce costs, not improve care. But, I said I wasn't going to comment...

I recently saw an IBD series on the economics of health care by Dr. Thomas Sowell. The series is a chapter "The Economics of Health Care," a chapter from his textbook "Applied Economics -- Thinking Beyond Stage One" ($10.43 from Amazon). The series, which has had two installments to date, is here:

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/SpecialReport.aspx?id=510262

What got me interested was the current (second) installment, "How Quantity Of Medical Care Is Influenced By Price Controls." Direct link to this installment:

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=510590

Browsing around the IBD web site I also found an article based on polling practicing M.D.'s entitled "

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=506988

There are other articles and surveys there too; a page with opening paragraphs and links to several of them is entitled "Condition Critical: What Doctors Think About Health Reform" is here"

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/SpecialReport.aspx?id=506106

What does strike me about browsing through all of this is that

1. The key, obvious, long-known problem driving up medical costs, tort reform, is totally ignored in all of the currently ramrodded health care "solutions." Legal churn and unlimited awards are well known to drive malpractice insurance rates and motivate another big cost driver, defensive medicine. Tort reform has been demonstrated in Texas and elsewhere to reduce health care costs and coverage rates without impacting rights of patients and to reverse the "brain drain" of M.D.'s leaving practice or moving to other areas.
2. Health care cash flow is about one sixth of American's economy. The key provision being pushed by the Democrats is the "public option" which has only one purpose that is not served by obvious reforms such as defining group plans for the uninsured and letting existing health care providers bid to consumers: putting all of it under the Government.

[WarrenJ]

1. The key, obvious, long-known problem driving up medical costs, tort reform, is totally ignored in all of the currently ramrodded health care "solutions." Legal churn and unlimited awards are well known to drive malpractice insurance rates and motivate another big cost driver, defensive medicine. Tort reform has been demonstrated in Texas and elsewhere to reduce health care costs and coverage rates without impacting rights of patients and to reverse the "brain drain" of M.D.'s leaving practice or moving to other areas.

It's interesting, don't you think, that doctors went in droves to Texas after TORT REFORM took place there?

Any thought this might be just a part of citizen concerned health care reform?

Just a "staged" part mind you, NOT a complete blind all-at-once thorough overhaul with cannons be damned. Might we not take it slowly? Can I read the document before my legislator (who has not read the document) votes on it?

--Warren

[Cadillac Jim]

WarrenJ -- anything done by the Texas Legislature is not going to be revolutionary. I don't have a link handy and there are other states that have done something about tort reform with some success, and indeed I think that tort reform probably should be done on the state level. You can do your own research on tort reform. I believe that what Texas did is limit punitive and exemplary damages in malpractice cases, which are usually inherently specious but occasionally get really huge awards with sympathetic juries. I don't think that they did much with compensatory damages.

I just did a dogpile search on "Texas tort reform" and turned up these links:

http://rickperry.org/blog/tort-reform-man-arena?gclid=CKrC7MGU5J0CFYJx5QodSHnTKg

http://www.tortreform.com/

http://docisinblog.com/index.php/2009/07/27/texas-tort-reform/

Etc. Here's the results of the dogpile search:

Click Here

[OynxSTS]

Last Wednesday I visited my doctor. Before I left his office I had an appointment to see an orthopedic surgeon Thursday morning. Additionally, I had an appointment for a CT scan and kidney ultrasound Thursday afternoon. DONE.

I have to wonder how that might have been different in a country with socialized medical treatment. Are you sure that's what you want?

Regards,

Warren

Two things...

First the bill that is presently slowly making its way through Congress is the stupidest thing that I have ever seen... It is a total mess. I would have bet that it would have been impossible to make your current health insurance system worse... If the bill going through congress passes, I will lose that bet. It fines companies and forces people to buy insurance... It will make the insurance companies a FORTUNE. It does nothing to solve any of the issues with your health insurance industry. In fact it makes them worse. If it passes buy stock in health insurance companies... they are going to make money left and right. Profits will be up and service will be down.

Second, I can say that in Canada where we have a private medical system with socialized medical insurance (the doctors and clinics are all small private business people... and the big insurance companies were socialized... in the 50's). Let me repeat that, only the insurance part is socialized. I have never had to wait more then a day or two for any procedure. The Doctors decide what you will have done not the Government. I had a CT scan when I had my Kidney stone on the same day... My daughter who was breach needed an appointment with an orthopedic surgeon and an Ultra sound on her hip when she was an infant and the scan was booked the same week at our convenience (timed so I could take off work and be there). If we wanted same day service it was available.

I have posted before about the level of service that my dad got with his heart surgery... my grandfather had with his diabetes issues... and my uncle had with his cancer... In my family one grandfather lived to 96, one grandmother lived to 95, the other grandmother lived to 88 and the other grandfather died of lung cancer at 80. None of them had any issues getting services as they aged or when they needed it. All of it at no cost. No-one in Canada goes bankrupt to pay medical bills and you are never asked to make a donation so some one can pay to get a new kidney.

I was with my 96 year old grandfather when he passed, he was very dear to me, he taught me to drive, and he bought me my first new car (a Z28 Camaro that I still own and will never sell) I can tell you that as he passed he was surrounded by every machine and tool imaginable to give him another day or even another hour... the nurses were amazing and the doctors were checking on him every few minutes. They were fighting for his life like he was their Grandfather too.

I can't speak to socialized medicine, cause in Canada all of the doctors are technically private practitioners. (In England the Doctors work directly for the government as government employees, in Canada they don't) ...

But I can speak to socialized health insurance... I like it, and it works.

BTW Canada has some of the lowest federal tax rates among the G8 and less then half the national debt per person as America (closer to 1/3 actually).

[Cadillac Jim]

Nearly all of the Western world gets a free ride on self-defense because the USA picks up the bill and more. Comparing tax rates might be more appropriate if it were pro-rated by costs of defense. The Canadians and others, particularly the British and the Empire, are there with both feet when the chips are down, but when it comes to keeping the peace, the USA picks up the tab worldwide.

The distinction between socialized health insurance (Canada) and socialized medicine (UK, as an example) is interesting and quite relevant. The problem with it is that the notorious hegemony of HMOs would be exacerbated if they were a monopoly, and the "public option" represents a direct path to a monopoly that is also a Government bureaucracy. There are other problems with it too, such as a determination to add tens of millions to coverage without payment and have the rest of us pay for all of it; when looked at as a tax burden, it is $1T over the next 10 years alone -- additional to existing costs. Therefore, one could say that even if enacted it won't happen because no accountant in the real world is ever going to balance those books.

Note that the "private option" has no other purpose other than to replace private insurance at every turn, in which case there will soon be no private insurance because once in, always in, and when you change jobs or move, that's your option.

For those that have no eligibility and no insurance, there are other ways than simply to set up a Government entity; earlier I suggested defining a group plan for them and letting private sector insurers bid -- and compete -- on this. Most employers have their employees in one or more groups that are bid upon, and larger employers let all employees choose ("open enrollment") between competing plans that have been bid. Such a group could be defined for the uninsured. This is how it's done for auto insurance; check out the SR-22 plans in your State (or equivalent plan in your Province?).

And, the final straw is that there is nothing in the 1,900 page bill (so far, as it stands now) to actually address increasing costs of medical care, such as tort reform. This caps a look at the situation that brings us to the imponderable: What are they thinking? And why are they taking a do-or-die approach to the "public option" while ignoring needed reforms to lower costs and other more practical solutions to universal availability of medical care? Why is availability of medical care equivocated to free insurance coverage by the "public option?"

[Ranger]

Tort reform will never happen. There are too many lawyers in this country and that's how they make money. Besides, most politicians where lawyers first. They take care of their own.

[WarrenJ]

[The bill] fines companies and forces people to buy insurance... It will make the insurance companies a FORTUNE. It does nothing to solve any of the issues with your health insurance industry. In fact it makes them worse. If it passes buy stock in health insurance companies... they are going to make money left and right. Profits will be up and service will be down.

I must disagree with you on your first point: The bill is specifically designed to put health insurers out of business. As regards services decreasing . . . yep.

BTW Canada has some of the lowest federal tax rates among the G8 and less then half the national debt per person as America (closer to 1/3 actually).

I hold some significant CAD$ in savings. Now you've gone and scared me. One third of the U.S.? Well, I guess it's

time to look into those Perth Certificates.

--Warren

P.S. I'm pleased to hear of your good health care experiences.

[WarrenJ]

Note that the "private option" has no other purpose other than to replace private insurance at every turn, in which case there will soon be no private insurance because once in, always in, and when you change jobs or move, that's your option.

Am I correct in assuming you meant "public option?"

--Warren

[WarrenJ]

Mark Simone subbed for Mark Levin on the radio today. He asked a question of Democrats: [paraphrasing] "If Medicare works as well as you say it does, why not simply drop the age limit? BINGO! There is your health plan."

Hmnn . . .

OTOH, here is the health plan awaiting us

--Warren

[WarrenJ]

WarrenJ -- anything done by the Texas Legislature is not going to be revolutionary. I don't have a link handy and there are other states that have done something about tort reform with some success, and indeed I think that tort reform probably should be done on the state level. You can do your own research on tort reform. I believe that what Texas did is limit punitive and exemplary damages in malpractice cases, which are usually inherently specious but occasionally get really huge awards with sympathetic juries. I don't think that they did much with compensatory damages.

I disagree. Folk in Texas smelled it coming. The "Galveston Plan" WAS revolutionary. Agreed, it involves S.S., as opposed to health care, but there are parallels.

The Galveston Plan. In 1979, many county workers were concerned about the soundness of Social Security, as many people are today. We could either stay with it - and its inevitable tax increases and higher retirement ages - or find a better way. We sought an "alternative plan" that provided the same or better benefits, required no tax increases and was risk-free. Furthermore, we wanted the benefits to be like a savings account that could be passed on to family members upon death.

Our plan, put together by financial experts, was a "banking model" rather than an "investment model." To eliminate the risks of the up-and-down stock market, workers' contributions were put into conservative fixed-rate guaranteed annuities, rather than fluctuating stocks, bonds or mutual funds. Our results have been impressive: We've averaged an annual rate of return of about 6.5 percent over 24 years. And we've provided substantially better benefits in all three Social Security categories: retirement, survivorship and disability.

Galveston officials held meetings that included debates with Social Security officials and put it to a vote: Galveston County employees passed it by a 3-to-1 margin in 1981 - just in time.

The Galveston Plan was implemented just before the U.S. Congress passed a reform bill in 1983 that closed the door for local governments to opt out of Social Security [Emphasis mine --Warren].

To be sure, our plan wasn't perfect, and we have made some adjustments. For instance, a few of our retired county workers are critical of the plan today because they say they are making less money than they would have on Social Security. This is because our plan allowed workers to make "hardship" withdrawals from the retirement plan during their working years. Some workers withdrew funds for current financial problems and consequently robbed their own future benefits. We closed that option in January 2005.

Galveston vs. Social Security. Upon retirement after 30 years, and assuming a 5 percent rate of return - more conservative than Galveston workers have earned - all workers would do better for the same contribution as Social Security:

• Workers making $17,000 a year are expected to receive about 50 percent more per month on our alternative plan than on Social Security - $1,036 instead of $683. [see the Figure.]
• Workers making $26,000 a year will make almost double Social Security's return - $1,500 instead of $853.
• Workers making $51,000 a year will get $3,103 instead of $1,368.
• Workers making $75,000 or more will nearly triple Social Security - $4,540 instead of $1,645.
• Galveston County's survivorship benefits pay four times a worker's annual salary - a minimum of $75,000 to a maximum $215,000 - versus Social Security, which forces widows to wait until age 60 to qualify for benefits, or provides 75 percent of a worker's salary for school-age children.

In Galveston, if the worker dies before retirement, the survivors receive not only the full survivorship but get generous accidental death benefits, too. Galveston County's disability benefit also pays more: 60 percent of an individual's salary, better than Social Security's.

The Galveston Plan. In 1979, many county workers were concerned about the soundness of Social Security, as many people are today. We could either stay with it - and its inevitable tax increases and higher retirement ages - or find a better way. We sought an "alternative plan" that provided the same or better benefits, required no tax increases and was risk-free. Furthermore, we wanted the benefits to be like a savings account that could be passed on to family members upon death.

Our plan, put together by financial experts, was a "banking model" rather than an "investment model." To eliminate the risks of the up-and-down stock market, workers' contributions were put into conservative fixed-rate guaranteed annuities, rather than fluctuating stocks, bonds or mutual funds. Our results have been impressive: We've averaged an annual rate of return of about 6.5 percent over 24 years. And we've provided substantially better benefits in all three Social Security categories: retirement, survivorship and disability.

Galveston officials held meetings that included debates with Social Security officials and put it to a vote: Galveston County employees passed it by a 3-to-1 margin in 1981 - just in time.

The Galveston Plan was implemented just before the U.S. Congress passed a reform bill in 1983 that closed the door for local governments to opt out of Social Security.

To be sure, our plan wasn't perfect, and we have made some adjustments. For instance, a few of our retired county workers are critical of the plan today because they say they are making less money than they would have on Social Security. This is because our plan allowed workers to make "hardship" withdrawals from the retirement plan during their working years. Some workers withdrew funds for current financial problems and consequently robbed their own future benefits. We closed that option in January 2005.

Galveston vs. Social Security. Upon retirement after 30 years, and assuming a 5 percent rate of return - more conservative than Galveston workers have earned - all workers would do better for the same contribution as Social Security:

• Workers making $17,000 a year are expected to receive about 50 percent more per month on our alternative plan than on Social Security - $1,036 instead of $683. [see the Figure.]
• Workers making $26,000 a year will make almost double Social Security's return - $1,500 instead of $853.
• Workers making $51,000 a year will get $3,103 instead of $1,368.
• Workers making $75,000 or more will nearly triple Social Security - $4,540 instead of $1,645.
• Galveston County's survivorship benefits pay four times a worker's annual salary - a minimum of $75,000 to a maximum $215,000 - versus Social Security, which forces widows to wait until age 60 to qualify for benefits, or provides 75 percent of a worker's salary for school-age children.

In Galveston, if the worker dies before retirement, the survivors receive not only the full survivorship but get generous accidental death benefits, too. Galveston County's disability benefit also pays more: 60 percent of an individual's salary, better than Social Security's.

The Galveston Plan. In 1979, many county workers were concerned about the soundness of Social Security, as many people are today. We could either stay with it - and its inevitable tax increases and higher retirement ages - or find a better way. We sought an "alternative plan" that provided the same or better benefits, required no tax increases and was risk-free. Furthermore, we wanted the benefits to be like a savings account that could be passed on to family members upon death.

Our plan, put together by financial experts, was a "banking model" rather than an "investment model." To eliminate the risks of the up-and-down stock market, workers' contributions were put into conservative fixed-rate guaranteed annuities, rather than fluctuating stocks, bonds or mutual funds. Our results have been impressive: We've averaged an annual rate of return of about 6.5 percent over 24 years. And we've provided substantially better benefits in all three Social Security categories: retirement, survivorship and disability.

Galveston officials held meetings that included debates with Social Security officials and put it to a vote: Galveston County employees passed it by a 3-to-1 margin in 1981 - just in time.

The Galveston Plan was implemented just before the U.S. Congress passed a reform bill in 1983 that closed the door for local governments to opt out of Social Security.

To be sure, our plan wasn't perfect, and we have made some adjustments. For instance, a few of our retired county workers are critical of the plan today because they say they are making less money than they would have on Social Security. This is because our plan allowed workers to make "hardship" withdrawals from the retirement plan during their working years. Some workers withdrew funds for current financial problems and consequently robbed their own future benefits. We closed that option in January 2005.

Galveston vs. Social Security. Upon retirement after 30 years, and assuming a 5 percent rate of return - more conservative than Galveston workers have earned - all workers would do better for the same contribution as Social Security:

• Workers making $17,000 a year are expected to receive about 50 percent more per month on our alternative plan than on Social Security - $1,036 instead of $683. [see the Figure.]
• Workers making $26,000 a year will make almost double Social Security's return - $1,500 instead of $853.
• Workers making $51,000 a year will get $3,103 instead of $1,368.
• Workers making $75,000 or more will nearly triple Social Security - $4,540 instead of $1,645.
• Galveston County's survivorship benefits pay four times a worker's annual salary - a minimum of $75,000 to a maximum $215,000 - versus Social Security, which forces widows to wait until age 60 to qualify for benefits, or provides 75 percent of a worker's salary for school-age children.

In Galveston, if the worker dies before retirement, the survivors receive not only the full survivorship but get generous accidental death benefits, too. Galveston County's disability benefit also pays more: 60 percent of an individual's salary, better than Social Security's.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba514/

--Warren

P.S. It's no wonder the feral federal government closed the door to this opportunity in just two years. By government timetables, that's lightning speed. It's a safe bet they saw great danger.

[OynxSTS]

[The bill] fines companies and forces people to buy insurance... It will make the insurance companies a FORTUNE. It does nothing to solve any of the issues with your health insurance industry. In fact it makes them worse. If it passes buy stock in health insurance companies... they are going to make money left and right. Profits will be up and service will be down.

I must disagree with you on your first point: The bill is specifically designed to put health insurers out of business. As regards services decreasing . . . yep.

BTW Canada has some of the lowest federal tax rates among the G8 and less then half the national debt per person as America (closer to 1/3 actually).

I hold some significant CAD$ in savings. Now you've gone and scared me. One third of the U.S.? Well, I guess it's

time to look into those Perth Certificates.

--Warren

P.S. I'm pleased to hear of your good health care experiences.

Unless the bill has changed since I read parts of it earlier this week, it provides "government insurance" to almost no one... on the other hand everyone will be REQUIRED to buy private insurance... including ALL business over a certain size. Most of this money will go directly to current insurance companies. I can't see how it will put any insurance company out of business. And I would ask, if government run insurance will put private insurance out of business is that not by definition because the product will be more efficient or at a lower cost point? If the private firms can compete, and the government run system is so inefficient the private firms should have nothing to fear...

BTW your private insurance system costs about $2.26 trillion, or $7,439 per person per year. The Canadian insurance system costs $160 billion or $4900 (US Dollars) per person per year. And those numbers are base on total population numbers... if you take out the people in America without insurance your number looks even worse. You should be marching on Washington demanding that they fix this... Even if you have insurance this is costing you'all a fortune. Everywhere you look you find inefficiency... did you know it costs your hospitals over 4Xs what it costs a Canadian hospital to get reimbursed for services... 4Xs just for billing?

Oh and I was wrong on the Canadian debt its not 1/3 it is much closer to 1/2... that is PER PERSON BTW... The TOTAL Canadian debt is less then 1/20th of the total American Debt. And Canadians are notoriously cheap and are huge "savers" ... unlike America, almost all of the Canadian debt is held by Canadians.

If it helps with your investment decisions:

US debt per person is $38,700 (US Dollars)

Canadian debt per person is $13,600 (US Dollars)

Aussi debt per person is $5,000 (US Dollars)

As I posted before and as every Canadian who vacations in California, Hawaii or Florida knows... the value of the Canadian dollar has almost nothing to do with Canadian debt... it has everything to do with how much Canadian Gas and Oil Americans buy... Buying Canadian Dollars is a bet on your economy, if your economy collapses ours is right behind.

[WarrenJ]

If it helps with your investment decisions:

US debt per person is $38,700 (US Dollars)

Canadian debt per person is $13,600 (US Dollars)

Aussi debt per person is $5,000 (US Dollars)

As I posted before and as every Canadian who vacations in California, Hawaii or Florida knows... the value of the Canadian dollar has almost nothing to do with Canadian debt... it has everything to do with how much Canadian Gas and Oil Americans buy... Buying Canadian Dollars is a bet on your economy, if your economy collapses ours is right behind.

With respect, your figure for U.S. per citizen indebtedness is woefully out of date. I'd like to hope your Canadian figure is more accurate, but alas, I think not.

True, most U.S. citizens have no clue regarding the amount of commodities we import from Canada. It's staggering. It's important to note Mexican oil will be in short supply only two years hence. Perhaps even unavailable. Venezeulan oil suffers from the same lack of maintenance and developement. That will only make Canadian oil more valuable.

I don't expect any amount of jaw jabbering will result in Iran stopping its plan to acquire an atomic weapon. That will leave it up to that country in Iran's crosshairs: Isreal. It will be messy. Tankers will be sunk in the Straights of Hormuz where 40% of the world's oil traverses. Oil may reach $700/barrel.

That said, I expect the collapse of the U.S. dollar will leave the CAD$ in good stead for a period of time. Enough time, if necessary, to flee elsewhere.

--Warren

P.S. BTW, Everbank.com has some less pricey alternatives to Perth Certificates.

[OynxSTS]

If it helps with your investment decisions:

US debt per person is $38,700 (US Dollars)

Canadian debt per person is $13,600 (US Dollars)

Aussi debt per person is $5,000 (US Dollars)

As I posted before and as every Canadian who vacations in California, Hawaii or Florida knows... the value of the Canadian dollar has almost nothing to do with Canadian debt... it has everything to do with how much Canadian Gas and Oil Americans buy... Buying Canadian Dollars is a bet on your economy, if your economy collapses ours is right behind.

With respect, your figure for U.S. per citizen indebtedness is woefully out of date. I'd like to hope your Canadian figure is more accurate, but alas, I think not.

True, most U.S. citizens have no clue regarding the amount of commodities we import from Canada. It's staggering. It's important to note Mexican oil will be in short supply only two years hence. Perhaps even unavailable. Venezeulan oil suffers from the same lack of maintenance and developement. That will only make Canadian oil more valuable.

I don't expect any amount of jaw jabbering will result in Iran stopping its plan to acquire an atomic weapon. That will leave it up to that country in Iran's crosshairs: Isreal. It will be messy. Tankers will be sunk in the Straights of Hormuz where 40% of the world's oil traverses. Oil may reach $700/barrel.

That said, I expect the collapse of the U.S. dollar will leave the CAD$ in good stead for a period of time. Enough time, if necessary, to flee elsewhere.

--Warren

P.S. BTW, Everbank.com has some less pricey alternatives to Perth Certificates.

It is direct from the US Debt Clock... It is actually real time accurate... The $340,000 per person (or 102 Trillion total) amount that Glenn Beck throws around is, as far as I can tell, made up.

12 trillion seems to be the number that everyone else throws around.

Here is the link

Link to total debt and real time debt per person

Every link that I can find supports this number...

Here is the link to the real time Canadian debt clock.

Same thing for Canucks

To do apples to apples comparisons I converted the Canadian Debt to American Dollars using todays exchange rate. All of the numbers are real time accurate... unless I made a mistake while I cut and pasted.

[WarrenJ]

I'm no particular fan of Beck, but his figure is far more accurate than the one supplied by the "debt clock." The debt clock figure is not even the tip of our iceberg.

"As shown by the latest GAAP-statements, the United States already had no prospects of ever honoring the obligations that were in place before the current crisis, which will push this year’s cash-based deficit possibly to $2 trillion (perhaps $8 trillion GAAP). Under such circumstances, most governments would opt to use the printing press to inflate their way out of debt, rather than to go through a formal debt default."

http://www.shadowstats.com/article/gaap-ba...federal-deficit

Regards,

Warren

[WarrenJ]

These figures reveal a debt of about $65T. Add in the $66T of unfunded Social Security and Medicare and PRESTO!, you have Beck's number. Basic math. DONE.

The Aussi dollar is suddenly looking better. You've talked me out of the Canadian dollar. It's Aussi for me.

Regards,

Warren

[Cadillac Jim]

Some just sent me a link to this speech on health care legislation, apparently from CSPAN, by Mike Rogers (Republican) of Michigan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=G44NCvNDLfc

It's just a speech because it criticizes what's going on with the hearings on the health care bill. Other plans or solutions aren't mentioned in this four-minute clip. But it summarizes much of the current criticism of the Democrat's bill in clear language.

[WarrenJ]

Some just sent me a link to this speech on health care legislation, apparently from CSPAN, by Mike Rogers (Republican) of Michigan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=G44NCvNDLfc

It's just a speech because it criticizes what's going on with the hearings on the health care bill. Other plans or solutions aren't mentioned in this four-minute clip. But it summarizes much of the current criticism of the Democrat's bill in clear language.

Just a speech, perhaps. Perhaps a speech a lot more.

Regards,

Warren

[OynxSTS]

A good speech... A couple of corrections to consider..

He said things are working fine for the "other 85%". Are they? Are your insurance premiums affordable? Are they increasing at a inflationary rate? Is there adequate competition within the insurance industry? Do those firms play by the same rules as other industries? How many companies (like GM) are going broke trying to pay for health insurance for their employees?

Next, his data on Cancer survival rates are somewhat skewed. There are lots of cancers were Canadians live longer than Americans and there are lots of cancers were Americans live longer than Canadians... But keep in mind he is considering the survival rates of the 85% of Americans with healthcare vs 100% of Canadians. If you compare All of America vs All of Canada you will find that Canada actually does significantly better. Of course if you are going to slice and dice stats like this, he misses "the big one"; life expectancy in Canada is over 5 years longer for men and 3 years longer for women... If all these canucks are dropping dead from cancer, how come overall we live longer? I guess the ones that dodge the cancer bullet must routinely live past 100... Or could it be that the Canadian medical system does a better job treating heart disease, stroke and kidney disease?

BTW there are lots of Counties like Germany and Japan with government run systems that have even better survival rates then either Canada or the States.

He misses the point (over and over) that there is nothing wrong with American Health Care... Its your health care insurance system that is broken. In most parts of the States, insurance companies have become HUGE all controlling monopolies. AIG, another insurance company, got so huge, that when it failed (mostly for being stupid) it nearly but us all back in the stone age... It was so bad, that a Republican President was requires to Socialized the whole thing.

And lastly he chucks out that he doesn't want the government tell you what doctor you can see. Republicans love to throw that one out all of the time. I have lots of American Friends that I call up and talk to all of the time... Do they think that most Americans have no friends in Canada to check this simple fact? Let me help, I can tell you that in Canada I have never had anyone tell me what doctor I can or can't see, where or when I could see them or for what issue...

We are free to shop around Doctors and Clinics. It happens all of the time. My mom just switched doctors to the same one that my wife has. Her choice and no-one else’s. And while you consider that, does your HMO tell you which doctor you can see? When we took my wife to see a doctor in Hawaii last year, there was a long list of insurance companies that this doctor would not (could not?) do business with. I asked the clerk, what happens if I have coverage with one of those firms? Her resonce, you either see a different doctor, or we take all major credit cards. Why is it OK that your insurance company gets to tell you which doctors that they will pay for?

[BodybyFisher]

I am not sure how the survival rate that is continuously thrown around is an accurate way to determine the viability of a country's health care, can we delve into that?

What things can cause a country's survival rate to vary?

Stress?

Diet?

Weight norms?

Exercise?

Standard of Living, where two parents must scrap to make a living?

Costs of education, keeping up with the Jones?

Competition?

Environmental hazards, toxins

Mode of transportation

Smoking?

Suicides?

Living verses Surviving

What?

[OynxSTS]

I am not sure how the survival rate that is continuously thrown around is an accurate way to determine the viability of a country's health care, can we delve into that?

What things can cause a country's survival rate to vary?

Stress?

Diet?

Weight norms?

Exercise?

Standard of Living, where two parents must scrap to make a living?

Costs of education, keeping up with the Jones?

Competition?

Environmental hazards, toxins

Mode of transportation

Smoking?

Suicides?

Living verses Surviving

What?

Exactly, the cancer survival rates that the congressman point to are all but meaningless...

The main factor in cancer survial is early detection.

[WarrenJ]

Statistics are gathered differently in different countries. In Europe when a fetus dies it is recorded as an abortion. In the U.S. it is recorded as an infant mortality. That is why the U.S. has a higher infant mortality rate and why some Europeans gloat about it.

Lies damned lies... and statistics.

Regards,

Warren

[OynxSTS]

Statistics are gathered differently in different countries. In Europe when a fetus dies it is recorded as an abortion. In the U.S. it is recorded as an infant mortality. That is why the U.S. has a higher infant mortality rate and why some Europeans gloat about it.

Lies damned lies... and statistics.

Regards,

Warren

Yup, you can add that most Cancers are a disease of the elderly. And in the States most (all?) seniors are covered by Medicare...

So in a sense he is arguing that socialized health insurance doesn't work since Medicare is doing so well curing cancer...

This is really simple...

Follow the money..

This isn't about living longer, this isn't about curing cancer.

This is about large monopoly insurance companies running the show.

I used to work in the insurance industry, worked there for over 12 years. I can tell you that insurance companies at there core, do NOTHING, but they are hugely profitable, I was a vice president at the 5th largest insurance company in North America. The pay and perks were amazing. Our CEO used to joke, "we don't make people better, we don't reduce risks, we don't fix cars, or build homes, we just move the money around after we take our profit".

That company basically paid for my house in 5 years, very good money...