Interview with Canadian PM Stephen Harper, 8/10/09
Tapper: President Obama said that every time he talks to you, you bring up the buy-American provision in the stimulus bill. What do you tell him?
Harper: Well, I think obviously we have a general concern, as you know. One of the things that we absolutely must do in this recession is to make sure that we don’t start cutting trade and we don’t see a rise in protectionism across the world.
That is the single biggest risk, in my view, to the global economy long-term. That is what made the Great Depression so great. And, you know, of what’s made the world economy expand in the past generation. That has been the great expansion of world trade.
I think that wherever they’re done, these procurement preferences in the stimulus legislation are risky. They risk, you know, growing retaliation and protectionist measures across the board.
Now, obviously, what’s in the buy-American provision is not for national governments, sub national governments – we are very anxious to find a way that we – Canada – and the United States can maybe make some progress on this as the President indicated.
We are the two closest trading nations in the world. So if we were to find some way of – some way of dealing with this [particular problem, I think that would send a very good signal and, quite frankly, build our own reputations as fighters of protectionism.
Tapper: You talked about not wanting to have a trade war. As an observer as the third party in NAFTA, what are your thoughts and opinions in what’s going on right now between the United States and Mexico over Mexican trucking? Do you think those Mexican trucks are safe?
Harper: I am not in a position, in all fairness, to judge that issue. That is a bi-lateral issue between the United States and Mexico.
But, obviously our general position of the government is we try to encourage – we try and encourage countries to break down barriers to trade wherever they exist.
Tapper: It is part of NAFTA, which you did sign. And I recognize the individual issue as the third party. Are you not concerned by the steps taken by either the U.S. or Mexico –
Harper: Well, Canadian and American trucking is extremely integrated. It has been for a very long time. That’s not the case with Mexican and American trucking. So I think it is a unique bi-lateral situation.
Tapper: Ok. H1N1, I was told, was one of the biggest topics at this summit. What is your biggest concern, your biggest fear, in terms of what the U.S., Canadian, Mexican governments could do and aren’t going to do enough?
Harper: Well, I should think we have had a great response in North America. You know, it begins with Mexicans and, in all fairness, being quite open about the problems they have been facing. They have cooperated very highly with our disease control centers in both Canada and the United States. We have had great coordination and cooperation.
What we are doing in Canada is we’re purchasing, as we approach the upcoming flu season, we are purchasing an enormous amount of vaccine to make sure that the Canadian population is well covered. I think the American government is doing the same. The Mexican government is trying to do it, obviously, with more limited resources.
I think, once again, the great risk in H1N1 beyond, obviously, the health risks that we all know about – the great risk is not in North America but elsewhere where some countries are taking this as a trade issue, not looking at this as a health and science issue. But, you know, beginning to slap restrictions on importation of pork and these kind of things which absolutely have nothing to do with the health challenges that face our continent but also face the world.
And, as I said, I think that continues to be the big risk in everything. The big risk in everything these days – the global recession is that those who want to use anything – whether it’s..whether it’s political pressure or whether it’s a pandemic. They use these as excuses to erect trade barriers.
Tapper: There was a lot of talk in the statements just now about the humanitarian groups’ concerns about some of the abuses conducted by Mexican forces in fighting the cartels. The Canadian government is helping as well the Mexican government in terms of training, in terms of money. What are your concerns about those human rights abuses?
Harper: Well, first and foremost, we’ve been very supportive of President Calderon’s efforts. And I think both our populations in Canada and the United States have to recognize the dedication and the courage of President Calderon and his government in taking on these drug cartels.
These are very dangerous people. And, quite frankly, President Calderon and his people are undertaking great personal risks to themselves in going after these cartels and traffickers so vigorously. President Calderon, in our experience of the government of Canada, has an absolute commitment to human rights. And quite frankly, as part of the drug war, he is trying to put bad guys in prison. Part of what he is trying to do is build up the institutions of law enforcement in Mexico to deal with historic problems of corruption and lack of professionalism to make sure that the Mexican law enforcement authorities have the same kind of standards we are used to in the United States and Canada.
So, you know, whenever you have this viscous of conflict, obviously, you know you worry about the potential for abuses. But, quite frankly, our big worries are obviously the nature and the activities and the extreme violence and (inaudible) of these drug cartels. I think that has to be our number one focus.
Tapper: I know you don’t want to get involved in the domestic U.S. health care reform –
Harper: You bet.
Tapper: But, there is a Canadian woman who is appearing in a TV ad. She is from Ottawa and she had a brain tumor and she said that if she relied on Canadian health care, she would have died. But she came to the United States to have it treated. And as you know, this is a criticism even within Canada of Canadian health care that the waits are too long. Are you concerned about this problem in the Canadian health care system and how do you respond to those criticisms?
Harper: Well, first of all, I am not going to get involved in the health care debate in the United States. I know that this is a – I know from our own health care debates historically in Canada that this is a very difficult, very tricky issue.
All across the world, health care systems of all kinds of different shapes and sizes have significant – have significant challenges. And, obviously, I can’t comment specifically on a Canadian woman who may have had one type of experience with our health care system, with the American health care system.
In Canada, health care is principally the responsibility of our provincial government. The federal government provides some transfers. We do some of the drug regulation, a number of other activities.
But it is principally a system run by our provincial government. So first of all, I don’t feel qualified to intervene in the debate. And it is a very complex debate. And as President Obama said, “there is a unique American health care system that’s evolved in a different way.” And I think that the American public themselves has to arrive at its own solutions for reform.
Tapper: But are waits in your country too long?
Harper: I say, once again, that-
Tapper: That’s not about your health care system-
Harper: Yes, but the responsibility for the health care waits, in our country, are the responsibilities of provincial governments.
I have taken the view, as the federal prime minister very different than some of my predecessors as I don’t lecture the provinces publically on how they should be running their health care systems.
What we try to do is work with them in a cooperative manner so we can be helpful in addressing the challenges.
All around the world, what we are seeing all around the world is important to understand is that there have been tremendous breakthroughs in medicine. We can treat more things, more ways through new technology, drugs than ever before.
At the same time, all of this costs money. If you are prepared to spend an unlimited amount of money, you can do an almost unlimited number of things in people’s health care. But you don’t have an unlimited amount of money no matter what your system is. And these are challenges that every system has to address.
But I’m not – I’m not going, quite frankly, criticize how our provinces are running their health care systems because I know the challenges that face them are very big.
Tapper: One last question. There has been some criticism about the United States for not doing enough in Honduras to return President Zelaya. Do you have thoughts on that?
Harper: well, as I said in our press conference here, I find this quite hypocritical. I would be quite – if I were an American I would be quite annoyed by that kind of question because the United States has been accused of – so regularly in my lifetime, particularly in our hemisphere – of meddling and interfering in the affairs of others.
Now we have a problem in Honduras and we have some people jumping up and demanding the United States intervene and meddle.
I think the approach taken by the American administration is the correct one. First of all, they’ve articulated the same values that Canada, Mexico and others have articulated and that is we need to see democracy and the rule of law restored in Honduras.
As you know, there’s two sides to that issue. The democratically elected government should be restored and that government should be committed to respecting the constitutional rules of that country.
I think we all agree with that. President Arias of Costa Rica with the Organization of the American States is leading mediated efforts. Canada and Mexico are directly involved in that mediation effort. We have been highly supported by the Untied States in the mediation effort.
The United States views are not secret. It has been pushing to see the same outcomes we’re trying to see and I think this is the appropriate approach for the United States is to be very forceful and very helpful and to work with others to make sure democratic norms are upheld in our hemisphere.
Tapper: Now, you said something during the summit that I thought was interesting. The question was about homeland security and border crossings and you said, “anything that’s a national security threat to the United States is also a national security threat to Canada.” President Obama and before him President Bush say that the war in Afghanistan must be fought. That’s where the people who attack the United States on 9/11 are. And yet, there’s a lot of talk about Canada not having any forces in the short term in Afghanistan. If our national security interests are the same, should Canada, even though its given up a lot of treasure, should Canada not continue its obligation to fight in Afghanistan?
Harper: Well, first of all, Canada has been a security partner of the United States and the United Nations. Ultimately, the United Nations-sanctioned mission in Afghanistan being carried out by NATO – not just by the United States- we have been a full participant in that mission from the beginning – from 2001.
We have now been there – let see that makes eight years. We have resolution for our parliament. We require that military deployments in Canada be supported by the parliament of Canada. Our government in – just in the last parliament – had that mission extended to 2011. That will mean we will have been there a decade.
This is a very important mission. We are operating under a parliamentary mandate. It’s a very important mission. I have been repeatedly clear that success in Afghanistan on a reasonable level, reasonable defined success is critical for not just for us in North America but for the world – for the global community in terms of preventing the return of terrorism or the return of the failed state to that country.
We are operating within a parliamentary framework, within a parliamentary mandate. We will continue to be supportive in any way that we can within the scope of what parliament has allowed.
Since 2005, Canada has had a command – has had to leave (inaudible) in Kandahar which is the most dangerous province in the entire country. We have suffered, as you know, enormous causalities in relative to the size of our forces – I think just quite a bit larger than anybody else. So Canada is not afraid to contribute but, obviously, we have to – we have to have the support of parliament and the Canadian people and that support has been given until 2011.
After that, we will be supportive in ways that we can be supportive. I am committed to operating within our parliamentary resolution.
Tapper: Should Canadian troops be there?
Harper: I think, frankly, it’s too early, in my judgment, to talk about the longer term. I have said that we are not committing Canadian troops beyond 2011. That’s the resolution. We passed through parliament – I think what we have to ask ourselves, what is the long-term strategy in Afghanistan? I don’t think that Canada, or the United Sates for that matter, can become permanently responsible for the government and security of Afghanistan. I think our objective has to be – and our objective in Kandahar is – to train the Afghan forces so they can become increasingly responsible for their own security. I believe ultimately that’s what the United States government is working on as well.
-jpt
Email
Rick Santorum Sweeps 3 States
Pentagon to Open Additional Jobs to Women
You would think Harper could have at least cleared up the lies in the healthcare ad…
Posted by: connecticut man1 | August 10, 2009, 4:45 pm 4:45 pm
I don’t understand why the virtually unanimous opposition to Zelaya inside Honduras, from their Supreme Court, their legislature, their army, and his own party doesn’t garner any sympathy from outside Honduras. Every judicial and political figure inside the country agrees that Zelaya violated their Constitution, yet every political voice outside that country (save a few Republicans) seem to agree that he should be returned to office anyway. Why is that?
Posted by: bgates | August 10, 2009, 4:45 pm 4:45 pm
“…we need to see democracy and the rule of law restored in Honduras. As you know, there’s two sides to that issue. The democratically elected government should be restored and that government should be committed to respecting the constitutional rules of that country….”
Oh boy. Even Harper doesn’t understand that Zelaya is the one who trampled on the democratically elected government of Honduras? He doesn’t know about the fake pre-printed ballots Chavez had made for Zelaya? Poor Honduras.
Posted by: Yehudit | August 10, 2009, 4:51 pm 4:51 pm
“Why is that?”
Apparently, a lot of politicians dream about being dictators.
Posted by: Left wing is the new right wing | August 10, 2009, 4:57 pm 4:57 pm
connecticut man1….probably because there were no lies in the healthcare ad.
Posted by: John Luft | August 10, 2009, 6:15 pm 6:15 pm
To: Posted by: Left wing is the new right wing | Aug 10, 2009 4:57:07 PM
You say Harper doesn’t understand Zelaya trampled on the democratically elected government of Honduras. Well, try reading thoroughly – what he said was:
“As you know, there’s two sides to that issue. The democratically elected government should be restored and that government should be committed to respecting the constitutional rules of that country.”
Clearly, he gets it.
Posted by: jt1 | August 10, 2009, 6:57 pm 6:57 pm
“You would think Harper could have at least cleared up the lies in the healthcare ad…” – Harper heads the Conservative Party, Canada’s version of our Republicans. Of course he is not going to say anything good about their health system. But their national health plan is hugely popular in Canada, kind of like Social Security here. They are ideologically opposed to Social Security, can you imagine a Republican president promoting it to a foriegn correspondant? It would be a politcal suicide in their ideologically narrow base.
Posted by: Mark from atlanta | August 10, 2009, 7:03 pm 7:03 pm
With regard to the Canadian woman who had to go the states to save her life because of a brain tumor and the too long Canadian system I find her claims ridiculous If her condition required immediate attention she would have received immediate attention in the Canadian system without any wait I say this because my brother also had a brain tumor and did not any problems with wait periods By the way he was operated once in Florida and then in Montreal where he received great care in both countries Stop the hysteria and get down to solving
the healthcare problems in both countries
Posted by: skmtl08 | August 10, 2009, 7:06 pm 7:06 pm
Skmt, I’ve read the woman’s story on the Mayo Clinic website. They are the ones who treated her in the USA.
Clearly she did not get adequate service from our hospitals here in Canada. She was blind in one eye. Perhaps her GP did not navigate the system properly. Who knows. But she was let down terribly.
And there are other people who have not gotten good service from Canadian hospitals.
But those failures are not caused by our government health insurance scheme.
Those failures are caused by virtually all of our hospitals being run by government agencies — with no competition.
If we had competition between hospitals, we would not have the waiting list problems we have.
The Americans are perfectly safe in going to universal medicare.
They should not nationalize all their hospitals (nobody down there is suggesting they do).
Posted by: BobB | August 10, 2009, 8:03 pm 8:03 pm
Yehudit, many governing national leaders want to hold in reserve the option of disobeying their country’s constitution and national laws the way Zelaya was.
Hence these governing national leaders support Zelaya.
The actions of the Honduran government (including congress, judiciary and military) against President Zelaya for his violation of the constitution are similar to the actions the UK and US governments should have taken against President George Bush and PM Tony Blair.
Posted by: BobB | August 10, 2009, 8:16 pm 8:16 pm
Harper is afraid our stimulus package buy American is protectionism ? You have got to be kidding me. Our stimulus package is NOT A BUSINESS. Does he seriously feel the American people should borrow money, put our grandchildren in debt and buy Canadian with it ?? Are the American people trying to stimulate Canada’s economy ? This is pure insane and political thinking and is very very unfair to the American people.
We wonder why Americans are getting so angry. These politicians better look out because the anger in America is growing and it is not within party lines.
Posted by: jd2408 | August 10, 2009, 8:16 pm 8:16 pm
skmtl08 it is misleading to say that our Conservative Party is akin to their Republican Party.
Our Conservative Party is more “left wing” even than your Democratic Party on issues like public health care, abortion rights, government pensions, death penalty, war, military spending, and prison sentences.
Internationally Canada has become a very “left wing” country on these issues.
The USA is a very “right wing” country on these issues.
Historically, right to left our parties have been: Conservatives, Liberals, NDP.
With the election of Michael Igantieff to be leader of the Liberal Party of Canada (yes, he is a Canadian, not an American) our Liberal Party is moving to the “right” of our Conservatives, the same way Tony Blair took the UK’s Labour Party to the “right” of the UK’s Conservative Party.
Posted by: BobB | August 10, 2009, 8:25 pm 8:25 pm
jd2408 what you describe your country doing, what you advocate is called protectionism.
If you practice protectionism we’ll have to develop other markets for our goods.
And we’ll have to retaliate.
But Canadians will do it in a small way, by individually choosing non-American products.
we can’t have a trade war. But individually we can cool our relationship with you.
Posted by: BobB | August 10, 2009, 8:30 pm 8:30 pm
BobB – Thanks for trying to dispel the myths regarding Canada’s health system. I am not sure it will help with those of us Americans who are ideologically committed to a private system. Before we can have universal health coverage of all Americans it will take a change of hearts as much as a change of minds.
Posted by: Mark from atlanta | August 10, 2009, 8:38 pm 8:38 pm
An important clarification for the transcript: “Since 2005, Canada has had a command – has had to leave (inaudible) in Kandahar which is the most dangerous province in the entire country.”
It is very clear if you listen to the interview that Prime Minister Harper accurately states: “Since 2005, Canada has had a command – has had THE LEAD ROLE in Kandahar which is the most dangerous province in the entire country.”
Posted by: AM | August 10, 2009, 8:57 pm 8:57 pm
BobB You just help yourself Bob because that can go both ways. Americans did it with France and we can do it with Canada. In fact I am going to start right now. Thanks for the great idea. If you think American taxpayers want to borrow money to stimulate your economy you are smoking the wrong stuff. Unless of course you want to do the same! Thats a joke, if you don’t take you don’t want.
Posted by: jd2408 | August 10, 2009, 9:02 pm 9:02 pm
There is something phony with this story of the woman with cancer. I had my first sympton of cancer on May 4 and had surgery on May 16, Not much wait there. The only people that are waiting are those with non-life threating conditions, like joint replacement. That might hurt a lot but it won’t kill you.
Posted by: kay | August 10, 2009, 9:21 pm 9:21 pm
Thank You Jake for an excellent and informative interview
Posted by: TB | August 10, 2009, 9:22 pm 9:22 pm
bgates: The Canadian Prime Minister is not going to start “clearing up the ads” regarding a propaganda war on t.v. going on in the United States. If you know anything about Canadians they will not interefere politically, and this is really what this is all about, in another country’s ambitions to change or not their healthcare system. Respectfully, it is the business of Americans only.
Posted by: b48 | August 10, 2009, 9:49 pm 9:49 pm
We should be going for what Canada has. The democrats better come through with a strong public option.
Posted by: rightbehind | August 10, 2009, 10:52 pm 10:52 pm
I would think that a country as rich as the USA is would consider that having approximately 50 million Americans without health care to be a blight on your country’s reputation. Our system in Canada doesn’t turn anyone away and for that I’m proud to be a Canadian. It should be a human right for all Americans, not just those who can afford it.
Posted by: Harvey Millstone | August 10, 2009, 11:21 pm 11:21 pm
As a Canadian who has had to rely on our health care system for the past few years, I can say those ads I’ve seen do not ring true for me. I have a condition that is much less serious than a brain tumor, but I have had virtually no waits for care. Once again, we up here in Canada are watching a segment of the American population get whipped into a frenzy over something that works quite well.
Now, I will say…I wonder whether our health care system would work with a population as large as America’s. I don’t think what you need is a Canadian style system, but it wouldn’t hurt to take some of our concepts and adapt them to work for you.
When it comes to something as important as health, Republicans and Democrats need to get off of their high donkeys and elephants (not necessarily in that order ;-) and look at it from a purely humanitarian standpoint. Good luck to you all. :-)
Posted by: TV Gord | August 11, 2009, 12:48 am 12:48 am
The woman in those ads is named Shona Holmes. She did not have a brain cancer as has been claimed – in fact she had a benign cyst called a Rathke’s cleft cyst. It is not a fatal condition. She actually did a piece for Mayo Clinic confirming that this was her diagnosis, not cancer. She was seen at Mayo Clinic and was sent back to Canada to await her surgery, but then she returned to have the surgery done sooner, at her own expense.
Posted by: mallory | August 11, 2009, 2:49 am 2:49 am
I am a Canadian and I find it astonishing when I hear that 1 million Americans declare bankruptcy every year because of medical debts. In Canada that number is ZERO — unless you count the small number of people who decided to gointo debt to pay for things like face lifts or breast emlargement, which are not covered. Get that??? ZERO.
Also my wife and my father both were in hospital within two days of being diagnosed with cancer, and neither treatment cost us one penny (including my father’s upgrade from a ward to a private room for his final days so the family could have some privacy).
My father and my in-laws are all dead now, and not one of them was subjected to any kid of “government death panel” — in fact, the only death-related problem was my wife’s father, who moved from Canada to the USA 40 years ago, and whos widow was forced to fight with an insurance company for months after his death about who was going to pay for the new pacemaker he received just before he dide at age 88.
I am descended from a farmer-soldier who fought the British i George Washington’s Army, and I admire Americanfor its achievements. However, like many Canadians, I am astonished at the lies told in the American public debate about the nature of single-insurer, tax-funded, government run insurance, and even more astonished at what appears to be the widespread willingness of so any people to ut their brains in the refrigerator and believe this nonesense.
One final word — my daughter was raised in Canada, but was pregnant while her husband worked for a fortune 100 company in Silicon Valley. She experienced both systems, and had far more choice in Canada, where there are no bureaucrats telling us which HMO-approved doctors to use, which HMO approved hospitals. Our doctors do not needot get anyone’s permission to send us to get a blood test or an x-ray… the last time I had blood word done, the doctor gave me the slip of paper, I chose which lab was most convenient (for parking), I drove there right away and got the test and everything was billed ddirectly to the very efficient government-run medical plan. No co-pay, and no paying up-front and getting re-imbursed later.
To my American friends who are confused — just remember this… nobody in Canada loses indurance when they lose (or change) jobs, nobody in Canada has restrictions because of “preexisting conditions” (my wife is a cancer survivor… same coverage as me for $54/month) and NOBODY goes bankrupt.
Don’t believe the BS.
Posted by: David | August 11, 2009, 6:44 am 6:44 am
Prostate Cancer 5 year survival rate in Canada: 82%. Prostate Cancer 5 year survival rate in the US: 98%
Why is that?
Posted by: JBG123 | August 11, 2009, 7:02 am 7:02 am
“Prostate Cancer 5 year survival rate in Canada: 82%. Prostate Cancer 5 year survival rate in the US: 98%
Why is that?” – Canada has longer life spans and higher infant survival rates. Why is that? Both can be linked, in varying degrees to access to affordable primary and pre-natal care.
Posted by: Mark from atlanta | August 11, 2009, 7:29 am 7:29 am
JGB123 wrote:
>Prostate Cancer 5 year survival
> rate in Canada: 82%. Prostate
> Cancer 5 year survival rate in
> the US: 98%
> Why is that?
======================================
A lot of these figures tossed around are cherry picking — and unless we look at the source, nobody can accurately answer the question “Why is that?”
It may well be that since Canadians, on average, have a longer life expectancy the population of aging men with prostate cancer in Canada is older than the population of prostate patients in the USA, and therefore are more likely to die of old age. It may be that this is a disease that strikes one racial group more severely than others, and the differences between countries is a reflection of the differences in racial makeup. I don’t know, and JGB123 doesn’t know either.
It may be that one country measures “survival time” from estimated date of onset, and the other from date of diagnosis or date of surgery or end of radiation/chemo or whatever the treatment may be. I don’t know, and JGB123 doesn’t know either.
I don’t know, the person who posed the question doesn’t know, and probably nobody who reads this chat board knows… yet I’ll bet this is thrown around as some kind of “proof” that one system is better than the other.
I’m sure that a good cherry picker could come up with similar “proof” that the Haitian health care system is more effective than either Canada or the USA.
In this debate — if a medical “fact” fits on a bumper sticker, it’s probably not true.
Posted by: David | August 11, 2009, 7:59 am 7:59 am
I want what Canada has for health care!
Posted by: rightbehind | August 11, 2009, 9:38 am 9:38 am
I find it amusing that the focus for this article has centered on wait times for non life threatening conditions in Canada, when the U.S. rationing of health care is extreme and deadly. For a start 50 million are rationed by virtue of being too poor for minimal coverage.
The U.S. insurance companies profits have risen in excess of 400%. This profit arises from DENIAL of health care to patients with insurance. This is true rationing. This is not a short wait for elective surgery. This is a pencil pusher deciding what you do and don’t receive.
Canada does not deny health care to anyone and to intimate it does is disingenuous and disgusting. The U.S. HMOs deny health care for their own profit. That is the reality.
When you buy automobile insurance and you crash does your insurance company refuse to pay out? Well, the health insurance companies do in the U.S. all the time.
The countries which routinely deny coverage to its citizens because they can’t afford to pay are China and the U.S. Yeah, that’s a system to emulate. Go USA.
Posted by: Alice | August 11, 2009, 10:13 am 10:13 am
I’ve lived in Canada for more than a decade now and have extensive experience of the health care system. There are good bits and bad bits — if you have a serious accident, or come down with a major malady such as cancer or a heart attack, you’re generally going to be fine.
The problem is with the non-urgent complaints. In Ottawa (the Canadian capital), the wait time for an MRI is a year. One year. I know this, because I chose to pay $750 Canadian for a private scan. The capital has a handful of skin specialists, so it takes months to get an appointment. About a third of families in Ontario (the most populous province) do not have a family doctor and have little chance of getting one. So they clog up the emergency wards when they’re sick. In parts of Quebec (another major province) it can take 28 hours to be seen if you turn up at the emergency ward.
So there are good and bad sides to the system. There are no panels of bureaucrats in Canada deciding who should die. You don’t hear of cases like the pregnant American woman who — faced with the imminent expiration of her health insurance — had her baby induced and then discovered the insurance company wouldn’t pay.
When it comes to health care, I for one am happy to be living here.
Posted by: Stuckinthenorth | August 11, 2009, 10:16 am 10:16 am
What I know is htat I have a large number of family members in Ontario, as this is where my husband was born and raised. And they are all very happy with their health care, even some who are nurses, and some who have suffered from serious conditions. My husband was appalled to find out what we have to spend here just to have coverage, let alone cost-share for treatment, even with employer-subsidized health insurance. The insurance and pharmaceutical corporations own our health care system, and their own inscrutable “death panels” decide who does and does not get care. Their decision are made solely on what is most profitable for them, not out of any obligation to the American people. A government-run public option is the only thing that will break their absolute control, make them competitive and hold them accountable. That is why they are fighting this reform so hard and shamelessly using the media to spread false propaganda and feaR from so many angles. Our government, while far from perfect, is the only entity with the power as well as the responsibility to to protect the interests of American citizens, and we have been clamoring for years for them to do so. Now when they are trying to do just that, many are falling for outrageous partisan lies and trying to stop anything substantive from being accomplished. We need a national public option, and we need it yesterday.
Posted by: iamwomaninMI | August 11, 2009, 10:17 am 10:17 am
Only 2 major issues need to be reformed in health care. Period.
1. Catastrophic Health calamity – This can be solved by a simple Private/National Health catastrophic insurance policy that picks up after one’s health insurance benefits run out.
2. Insurance for the uninsured. To be paid by a government fund after it is determined that the prospective insured is an eligible US citizen, who cannot afford private insurance and does not want willingly want to forgo insurance.
A 1018 page illegible bill is totally unnecessary.
Posted by: Leo | August 11, 2009, 1:09 pm 1:09 pm
I live in the US and have great healthcare. I work in the Texas Medical Center and anyone that says people are turned down for healthcare services are liars. I have a Canadian friend who was going to have a hysterectomy and knew she had cancer. Her wait for the surgery was eight months. I had to have a hysterectomy and all I had to do was pick up the phone, call my doctor and we scheduled it within two weeks. There are problems with our system, but we don’t need to trash it because 10% of the population doesn’t have (insurance – not healthcare). We have government run medical services already and we need to fix those to better serve the uninsured. Something as important as this needs to be looked at carefully and not rushed through in the middle of the night.
Posted by: Rex | August 11, 2009, 2:04 pm 2:04 pm
One thing canada doesn’t have what US has is a media. every media seen on national television in left wing media. corruption within the liberal party is well protected by their media.
In USA, this kind of corruption would not have lasted for thirteen years since FOXNEWS would have them for dinner at every chance they get.
Posted by: Richard | August 11, 2009, 5:00 pm 5:00 pm
Prime Minister Harper is the last person in Canada to ask about our NATIONAL HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.He is a Neo- Conservative or you could say he is the leader of the Canadian Republican Party.As he states he is taking a different position than previous PM’s in Canada.He actually disowns our Health Care System by saying he has nothing to do with it.We do have a CANADIAN HEALTH CARE ACT which he is ignoring so some provinces can assist him in destroying our Public system.This man is a Corporate Lackey that would make us a USA clone. God help Canada if he ever gets a majority government.
Posted by: DON AITKEN | August 16, 2009, 1:19 pm 1:19 pm
The woman did not have a brain tumor , she had a benign cyst. Not life threatening
Posted by: Skeeve | September 12, 2009, 3:32 pm 3:32 pm