Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Canadian doctors decry airline ‘tush test’

Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:34 AM EST
health, science, only-on-msnbc-com, airlines, seat, travelers, cma, wellmannered-traveler, sharma, one-person, canadian-transportation�s
msnbc.com News — Harriet Baskas, msnbc.com - Only on msnbc.com

aircanada.com

Advertise | AdChoices

— After fighting it for nearly a year, Canada’s major airlines finally unveiled procedures they claim will comply with the Canadian Transportation’s Agency’s “one-person, one-fare” ruling.

On all domestic flights within Canada, the carriers are required to provide additional seating to disabled travelers who must be accompanied by a personal attendant or to travelers determined by medical professionals to be functionally disabled by obesity.

How airlines determine who needs or gets an extra seat has been a thorny issue. On Jan. 10, Air Canada and WestJet announced they will require disabled or obese passengers seeking a second seat to get a note from a doctor and send it in for review well before their flight date.

But doctors, disability rights groups and travelers of all sizes are calling that requirement everything from “too burdensome” to “ludicrous,” and they give the plan’s chances of working a big fat zero.

What’s wrong? Disability rights groups claim the medical forms require passengers to give too much personal information to the airlines. They suggest a third party — one more experienced with these issues — would be better suited for the job.

The Canadian Medical Association (CMA), meanwhile, is complaining that the form asking doctors to measure a patient’s behind “shows a disregard for the use of scarce medical resources.”

Disappointed doctors
“It would have been good if they met with us first,” said Dr. Briane Sharfstein, a spokesperson for the 68,000-member CMA. Sharfstein said doctors throughout Canada are “disappointed” and “concerned” that the airlines didn’t take the time to consult with the organization before deciding to “offload the decision about whether or not someone can fit into a specific seat on an airplane.”

Sharfstein explained that while Canada’s universal health insurance system provides free health care services to all residents, the reality is that patients often wait months to see their doctor. More than 5 million Canadians don’t even have a family doctor, he said.

“We think the majority of individuals seeking a second seat will be individuals who are simply too large to fit into a single airplane seat,” Sharfstein said. “That determination doesn’t require a visit to the doctor. It requires a tape measure.”

Passing the buck
Before the airlines settled on how they’d comply with the “one-person, one-fare” rule, Robert Jarvis, a law professor who specializes in aviation issues, laid out a series of proposed options. Those options ranged from easy (travelers self-declare as obese and get an extra seat) to hard (travelers take a physical exam from a doctor of the airline’s choosing.) Jarvis says he’s not surprised the airlines chose the “moderate” path.

“Clearly, letting travelers decide for themselves that they needed an extra seat would have invited too much abuse. Having the airlines make the decision themselves would have opened the door to all sorts of discrimination lawsuits. So requiring a doctor’s note was the only option really open to the airlines,” Jarvis said.

But Dr. Arya Sharma, an obesity specialist in Canada who also weighed in with some ideas for the airlines, said airlines are passing the buck. “You don’t need to go to medical school to figure out if someone can fit into an airline seat,” Sharma said.

Besides being a burden on doctors, Sharma contends the new system puts an undue burden on travelers. Travelers will have to pay out-of-pocket expenses for a doctor’s visit — and they'll have to wait. “Most people, for a non-acute medical condition, would have to wait weeks or months before they can see a doctor,” Sharma said. “In my clinic right now the waiting time is approximately one year.”

Make a rule, set a standard
For its part, the Canadian Transportation Association (CTA) is also waiting — and watching. While the agency didn’t order the airlines to choose medical certificates as the litmus test for getting an extra seat, the requirement does technically put the airlines in compliance with “one-person, one-fare,” spokesperson Marc Comeau said.

“Things take time to reach their cruising speed and get rolling,” Comeau said. “Our expectation is that the vast majority of these requests will get dealt with by airlines and their customers.”

Representatives from the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance (NAAFA) aren’t so sure.

NAAFA’s U.S. co-chair Peggy Howell doesn’t understand why CTA didn’t create standards and guidelines for the airlines to follow. “If you’re going to make a rule, why not set a standard? This way allows airlines to create a whole big mess of paperwork to avoid having to give people what they’ve been ordered to provide,” Howell said.

NAAFA’s Canadian co-chair, Jason Docherty, is alarmed and a bit angry: “Most people won’t want to go through all these steps and give the airlines so much information. It seems like a bullying tactic to get people to not even ask for the second seat.”

What’s next?

“It’s still not rocket science,” says Dr. Sharma. “I suggest the airlines go back and try again.”

Perhaps they will. Representatives from both CMA and the disability rights group Easter Seals Canada are drafting letters and making calls asking the airlines to sit down and talk about changes to their “one-person, one-fare” programs.

In the meantime, get out those tape measures.

  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Harriet Baskas's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: none
  • Public Discussion (150)
Jump to discussion page: 1 2 3
Chris Casciano

That's got to be one of the best newsgrafix™ ever!

  • 5 votes
Reply#1 - Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:56 AM EST
Donna DoreenDeleted
Dr Know

I used to weigh 450 pounds. I do not need anyone to take up my defense, then or now...

  • 1 vote
#1.2 - Fri Jan 23, 2009 8:24 PM EST
Donna DoreenDeleted
Dr Know

What do you say to little children who look a such people and say "you're fat". Punish the child for saying the truth?

  • 1 vote
#1.4 - Sat Jan 24, 2009 12:02 AM EST
Donna DoreenDeleted
Dr Know

I am still larger than the average bear (at least about the same size) and children say that to me all the time. The parents are horrified for the most part. I just laugh because the child is simply being truthful from their point of view. If you do not like the truth, change it. Do not get angry at others for noticing it.

  • 3 votes
#1.6 - Sat Jan 24, 2009 11:33 AM EST
Donna DoreenDeleted
Dr Know

Insults are MEANT to be harmful. Simply telling the truth should not be an insult.

How do you teach a child to lie about certain things then get upset when they lie to you?

  • 2 votes
#1.8 - Sat Jan 24, 2009 11:47 AM EST
Donna DoreenDeleted
tim warner-417381

donna , did you say snickers?

  • 2 votes
#1.10 - Sat Jan 24, 2009 12:31 PM EST
Donna DoreenDeleted
Lkessler

Ok, don't get me wrong here, but does anyone have a snickers bar I can have?  =)  I will admit it's been years since I've had a Milky Way, Snickers or Twix bar.

  • 1 vote
#1.12 - Sat Jan 24, 2009 2:59 PM EST
gmainco

This is the stupidest thing to come along in forever.  What is wrong with having a regular sized plane seat that the person can sit in and if they don't fit then they get 2 seats.   If they do fit and still want an extra seat then they pay extra.  Why does the world have to make things so complicated?  Must have politicians involved.

    #1.13 - Sat Jan 24, 2009 3:13 PM EST
    Chris Casciano

    I think we're all agreed here. Snickers are good, and Snickers can be bad.

    Now can we get back to the matter at hand -- admiring the awesomely hand drawn, fit naked
     guy with the pointy butt?

    • 1 vote
    #1.14 - Sun Jan 25, 2009 9:40 AM EST
    Reply
    Canadian-412215

    Good Lord! Are there no limits to stupidity?  What is Air Canada and Westjet thinking when they require physicians' valuable time in measuring derriers not to mention the hardship for the individual involved who has to have his/her derriere measured in order to fly.  As it is, Canada has a shortage of medical doctors and access to them is difficult enough. 

     

    No wonder US sitcoms poke fun at us for being "Canadian".  Boycott Air Canada and Westjet.

     

     

    • 3 votes
    Reply#2 - Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:27 PM EST
    Barry-NJ

    I can understand the airlines' motivation.  If they make the decision, they risk being sued by someone who was denied the extra seat.  Put it on a 3rd party and they don't have that problem.  It is a perfectly logical business decision to meet a dubious (in my opinion) regulation.

    • 7 votes
    #2.1 - Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:23 PM EST
    carver-382006

    I totally agree Barry the only reason they used the CMA is to avoid being sued.

    Why can't they just measure the maximum size that will fit in the seat comfortably and post what the max size is.  Those few fat fat fat people can be measured at check in.  What is the heck is the problem?  

    And if it's illegal to kill yourself and smokers are taxed to death why aren't fat people taxed extra?  Or fatty foods taxed.  I should not be giving the Canadian government any more reasons to tax anything.  I'll shut up now.

    • 2 votes
    #2.2 - Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:16 PM EST
    Barry-NJ

    Carver ... it sounds very logical, but I can see all sorts of problems with check-in measurements, at least if it were being done in the US.  For instance, how much clothing is the person being measured allowed to wear?  Can you do accurate measuring without physically touching the person being measured?  You'd also need male and female measuring staff nearby at all times.  And, what if the person being measured thought that the same-sex individual doing the measuring was gay, and demanded that someone else perform the measurement?  In many states, conceding to that demand would be illegal discrimination by the airlines.

    Of course, some of that could be avoided with the suggestion that others posted on here for having a measuring device such as the one used for baggage.  But, for baggage, its pretty much a go/no-go situation.  But, even a large, overweight person might compress enough to fit through the measuring device.  How much effort should be required?

    I'm not usually on the side of the airlines, but in this case, I really understand their concerns.  Unless the Canadian government is willing to absorb airlines' legal expenses, leave these judgements to someone else.

    • 1 vote
    #2.3 - Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:36 PM EST
    Reply
    solo xxRestored

    Soon 'fatties' will be claiming discrimination for restaurant portion sizes; "Hey! This portion is for a normally built customer!  I demand relative portioning!  It's my constitutional right!

    Where does it end?  Wider doors?  Special auto suspension?  Xtreme airbags?  Love (toilet) seats?  Bigger sewer lines?  Wider sidewalks?  Big Gulp Beano?  Sumo: America's game?

    Fatties should not be accepted.  They should exercise some self control and self respect... and take a walk, instead of another burger.  Maybe then they could save up enough money for that extra seat.

    Most are not victims, but rather the product of their own gluttonous behavior.

    As Don Henley so aptly wrote;  "Victim of this.  Victim of that.  I'd like to meet your inner child... and kick its little ass." 

    Or fat ass, in this case.

    • 14 votes
    Reply#3 - Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:28 PM EST
    cutter-315893

    This "disabilities" crap has now reached the next level of imbecility.  Reasonable accommodation for serious disabilities seems fair, but it has risen (or fallen) to the level of the absurd.  AND, we can't afford to take of everyone who has a perceived disability.  But just like welfare (taxpayer supported entitlements), the social dogooders keep piling on more expensive mandates.  Life is not fair, and the social engineers just don't (or won't) get it.

    • 9 votes
    #3.1 - Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:44 PM EST
    John-Franklin

    Hooray!  You said what needs to be said.  99% of obese people are that way because of their own choices: stop with the "glandular disorder" BS excuses.  I guarantee if you gave those fat bastards to the Army Rangers or Navy SEALs, all that weight would miraculously fall off...I guess their glands got better!

    I also applaud the person who pointed out how ridiculous we are in the West: we're @!$%#ing about fat people rights while most of the world is starving.

    If you take up to seats, you pay for two seats: end of discussion.  If I buy two cars, I have to pay for two cars, if I eat two hamburgers I have to pay for two...why is this even an issue?  If you need "more" of something (i.e. seat space) then you must pay for more.  The world does not need to change for the obese: they need to accept that their choices mean they will not be able to "fit" (ha ha, pun intended) in with the rest of society.

    • 1 vote
    #3.2 - Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:41 AM EST
    david-475776

    John-Franklin - I guarantee if you gave those fat bastards to the Army Rangers or Navy SEALs, all that weight would miraculously fall off...I guess their glands got better!

    We could; but, do not pawn them off on us we got too many other things to worry about (Worldwide).  I think the USAF Special Operations Groups, US Army Special Forces, USMC Forces Recon (and Special Operations), Alphabet Agencies, etc. would tell you the samething, do not involve us.  Can you imagine that they would have to pass Air Assault School, Airborne School, Ranger School,  BUD/S, Q-Course, Dive School, "the Farm", etc.; what are you going to do have extra large RBs (Rubber Boats), Parachutes, higher load bearing ropes and gear, etc..  Plus they would have to be able to carry a few hundred pounds of gear and supplies for possibly a whole month.  Please do not turn these into PC (Politically Correct)("Panty") Courses, we cannot afford to have Special Operators (male or female) on the Battlefield crying for being called obscene names. 

    I know the Canadian Special Warfare would say the same thing don't pawn them off on us, I'll ask next time I see them in Southern Afghanistan (as a joke on them).

    This whole matter is simple.  Have the person sit in a row aircraft seats at the check in counter, if they cannot then they buy another seat, if they still cannot then they buy three seats. 

    If people want to look at this in another manner, this can be a problem of safety as experienced aircraft loadmasters would say.  Can you imagine the mass hitting the seats in front, during an emergency, ripping the seats up and killing the innocent passengers sitting in those seats.  What next wider aisles, higher strength bolts and airframes that the seats are bolted to (special aircraft). 

      #3.3 - Sat Jan 24, 2009 4:01 PM EST
      Reply
      solo xx

      Only in the West would a group(s) be fighting for the 'rights' of the obese, while tens of millions around the globe fight starvation, famine, drought and emaciation.

      Shame.

      • 11 votes
      Reply#4 - Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:33 PM EST
      Jane WIlder

      many people are overweight who are poor. Illness and poor nutrition like eating alot of low protein carbs can cause over weight. Some who are overweight are not even fat, the jusut have a pear shape that makes them difficult to seat.

        #4.1 - Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:19 PM EST
        Dr Know

        When did being overweight not qualify as fat? Political Correctness and/or denial in action.

        • 2 votes
        #4.2 - Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:22 PM EST
        tim warner-417381

        Are you the real Jane Wilder , I read your books to my men!

          #4.3 - Sat Jan 24, 2009 1:43 PM EST
          Reply
          Glenn-833992

          Why not have a metal "test seat" outside the boarding gate just like for carry on luggage?  If you fit you fly, if not pay up for the second seat......

          • 9 votes
          Reply#5 - Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:35 PM EST
          chponygirl USA

          Wow - I work in the legal field and just suggested the same solution.   Have a seat set up outside the check in gates, if you don't fit then you don't fly unless you buy 2 seats - how simple is that???  I can't imagine the $$$ spent trying to solve this problem.  Are we too scared to say you're fat, buy 2 tickets? 

          • 5 votes
          #5.1 - Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:59 PM EST
          spider-737231

          That's a great and simple solution. But I guarantee you, some fat ass's lawyer would sue the airline over it.

          • 4 votes
          #5.2 - Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:06 PM EST
          Jon-296837

          This would be a major headache. The airline has to know how many passengers are on the flight. If someone needs a second seat and the flight is fully booked than someone will get bumped.

          • 1 vote
          #5.3 - Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:31 PM EST
          Lee-456666

          Would you rather get bumped or sit next to a person who can't fit in their own seat and overflows into your own?  Getting bumped sucks, but that's not an easy question to answer.  I'd probably ask to be reseated.

            #5.4 - Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:58 PM EST
            sceptical

            If someone has to be bumped, then bump the fatass.  Maybe they can then walk to their destination and finally get some exercise.

            • 3 votes
            #5.5 - Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:42 PM EST
            Jane WIlder

            stop calling people a fat ass

            • 2 votes
            #5.6 - Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:20 PM EST
            Dr Know

            Yes, it is never JUST the ass that is fat include the WHOLE thing...

            • 3 votes
            #5.7 - Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:23 PM EST
            Reply
            alkimija

            I'm going to venture that if the seats were more comfortable and reasonably-sized, this probably wouldn't have come up as a problem. As it is, even "regular" sized folks feel squeezed into those tiny seats.

            • 2 votes
            Reply#6 - Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:36 PM EST
            willie-749103

            That can happen, kiss the cheap flights goodby though. The airlines make money by selling seats, only X number fit on any given plane, less seats means higher ticket prices.

            • 1 vote
            #6.1 - Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:57 PM EST
            colsohjunior

            Alkimija:

            I completely agree with you!  I am a male with a 34" waist and I find the seating uncomfortable, so I can't even begin to imagine what it's like for someone who is much larger than me.

            As much as I feel for those who are obese, they should pay extra for their accommodation's.  If a much larger person requires additional seats, sorry, they need  to pay it.  Sorry, but I have to pay for a seat that's not big enough by my standards.

            • 4 votes
            #6.2 - Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:00 PM EST
            alkimija

            I would be willing to pay more for more comfortable seats. I'm 5'11" - tall for a woman - and I feel absolutely crunched into place on planes. I see guys like colsohjunior - tall, broad (not necessarily overweight) and I feel for those poor guys. They look so uncomfortable it's not funny.

            As for extra-large people requiring extra room - yes, they should certainly have to pay for the extra seat. I have empathy for the larger folks, but don't think that they should get for free what others have to pay for.

            • 4 votes
            #6.3 - Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:27 PM EST
            Keith Burnett

            colsohjunior et all ... well I'm a litter bigger - 38 - and I manage to squeeze in though I admit it's a close fit, and in no way what I would descrribe as comfortable.  Any bigger than me and you're going to be wedged in there pretty good.

            I don't believe that anyone has a Constitutional right to fly!  I realize we're talking about different Constitutions here (Canada), but what starts in the Northland seems to find its way South.  There are other ways to get where you want to go.  When a disabled or obese person goes in to buy a car, is the car dealer required to outfit the car for their disability at no charge?  No?  There are organizations ... some of them govt funded that help with this, and I certainly support the idea, but it is not the car dealers obligation to do it for free.  Neither should it be the Airline's obligation, ass this always leads to highter prices for the rest of us.  I really do resent having to pay extra for someone else's issues, heartbreaking though they may be, and in the end that is what we're talking about here.    

            • 3 votes
            #6.4 - Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:31 PM EST
            willie-749103

            Yep, I am 6'3". If I get a doctors note can I have a few more inches of knee room? I mean porky is asking for a few more inches of butt room because he doesn't fit.

            • 9 votes
            #6.5 - Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:33 PM EST
            Dr. Zook

            Hey Alkimija, you can pay extra for a bigger more comfortable seat on an airplane.  It's called "First Class"!

            I myself have a 34" waist and stand 5' 11" and I find Economy Class seats wide enough for my rear but with insufficient leg room for my height.  Yes, it can get uncomfortable on long flights, so I walk around every so often and stretch my legs but I would love it if Economy seats gave me more room.  However,  Economy is what I can afford, so I grin and bear it.

            Life's like that sometimes.
                          

            This has been a Dr. Zook post:  "Just enough truth to be believable."

            • 4 votes
            #6.6 - Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:23 PM EST
            Chuck-407145

            I like what Southwest did. If you had to use a seatbelt extension you have to pay for an extra seat.

            I'm like some of the people above 34" waist but 6'4". It really sucks when the person in the seat in front of you puts their seat back and drives your knees back as well. What is really unfair is when the person next to you is so obease that they spill into your seat. If I have to pay for a seat I have the right to be uncomfortable in all of it.

               The really scary thing is what if one of these people had been on the plane that crashed into the Hudson River last week. Think about the size of most overwing exits. The flight crew couldn't use the larger door so as to keep the plane afloat longer.  What about a regulation that you have to be able to fit out of the emergency exits.  If you are obease thats your problem but when it threatens the saftey of other passengers thats another thing.

            • 3 votes
            #6.7 - Thu Jan 22, 2009 5:38 PM EST
            alkimija

            you can pay extra for a bigger more comfortable seat on an airplane.  It's called "First Class"!

            lol, that's true. Quit poking holes in my version of reality!

            • 3 votes
            #6.8 - Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:00 AM EST
            John-Franklin

            "Regular" sized?  And exactly what do you consider "regular?"  There is an obesity EPIDEMIC in the West right now: what we consider "regular" is not even close.  Just because you or your friends or the people around you are 30%+ body fat doesn't make you "regular."  Consider: the diameter of the dinner plate has increased from 7-9" in the 50's to 12"+ now...everything is a "Mc-Something" and Supersized.

            Again, stop the insanity.  Stop enabling people to be lazy, fat, and not take any personal responsibility for themselves.  Will power is gone, as it seems is common sense.

            • 3 votes
            #6.9 - Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:48 AM EST
            Jane WIlder

            I have sarcoidosis --you know the disease that killed Bernie Mac? I can't walk at all when I am having a flare up. I have a scar on my heart that makes me pass out if I do any aerobic type exercise. I have gained alot of weight from the medications I take to live. I help care for my elderly mother in law, and raised an adopted retarded kid with many disabilities from childhood. I have a fat ass. Do I want to pay for all the health care problems that other people have from bad habits , but my health problems are not from bad habits. What about all the people who have bad teeth and get abscesses, or drink and get bad livers, or smoke and get lung cancer who the rest of us have to pay for one way or another. Also many people are fat because they can't afford to be thin. eating well costs way more than eating crappy.

            I guess making fun of fat people is the last refuge of people who have such bad self esteem that the only way they feel they have any control over anything is to trash the fat people.

            • 2 votes
            #6.10 - Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:28 PM EST
            Dr Know

            You are a rare exception. You have a valid reason for your physical condition. The rest have "hand to mouth disease".

            • 2 votes
            #6.11 - Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:37 PM EST
            david-475776

             smoke and get lung cancer who the rest of us have to pay for one way or another

            Guess you never heard of asbestos.  All those non smokers that built ships.  Construction workers that built all those homes and skyscrapers.

            Bad example, in that the States are using the money won from the Tobacco Product Liability Settlements for everything except the intended use, Smokers that use their product.  Yes, your roads, infrastructure, schools, etc. were paid for with that.  And the States also have Stocks in the Tobacco Companies, conflict of interest.  So that is a example of Taxation without Representation also, in that the Taxers are not the users of the product being taxed, or affected by the taxes, examples: Boston Tea Party, Stamp Tax Act. 

            So that justifies as a legal precedent, taxing obese people.  See how when one groups "rights" are infringed others follow.

            If you think that is ridculous, go to youtube.com and google search S.1959 and H.R. 1955.

              #6.12 - Sat Jan 24, 2009 4:27 PM EST
              Reply
              tonyk-829717

              wait a minute....months to see a doctor....5 million without a family doctor....and we want universal healthcare too???

                Reply#7 - Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:37 PM EST
                Rachel-375623

                oh for goodness sake.  i'm sorry, but if you're so fat that you can't fit in an airline seat, then you're TOO fat.  DRIVE to your destination or start working out and getting thin. 

                canada appears to have a lot of problems...like, for instance, that you have to wait a YEAR to see a doctor????  that's ridiculous!  call me crazy, but i'd rather pay for my health care and get in the next day when i want to see my doctor than not pay but also never be able to see my doctor.

                dear canada, shape up!  and i mean your mid-section AND your health care! 

                • 9 votes
                Reply#8 - Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:40 PM EST
                karyn-834067

                Just so you know, the U.S has a much higher obesity rate than Canada.  And no Canadian has ever waited a year to see a doctor.  The doctor who claimed to have a waiting list of one year is an obesity specialist, who most people will never have to see anyway.  Normally a person only has to wait one day to a week to see their family doctor for routine visits.  And if somebody has an emergency and can't wait to see their family doctor, then they go to a walk-in clinic or an emergency room and are treated immediately with no out-of pocket costs.  And the taxes we pay are still less than what Americans pay for insurance.

                • 7 votes
                #8.1 - Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:06 PM EST
                kc1979

                it's not free.  someone is paying for it through insanely high taxes

                • 1 vote
                #8.2 - Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:33 PM EST
                Keith Burnett

                The one year thing is an Urban legend circulated by those who are resisting the Universal Health Care initiatives in the US.

                1. In 97% of statistical measures (heart attack recovery for example) their system outperforms ours.
                2. In Canadian / European vs US proceedures, there is no significant difference in waiting time for any particular proceedure except those that are truly elective.
                3. There are as many medical advances coming out of the Canadian / European system per capita as comes out of the US system (the idea that the extra profits made by drug companies in the US lead to newer and better medicines is non- sense - 55% of the technical advances in medicine over the last ten years came out of Canada / Europe)
                4. In terms of GDP, their system costs half of what ours does.  The added cost in taxes for Canadians is significantly less than the cost of Insurance premiums for most of us in the US 
                • 2 votes
                #8.3 - Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:44 PM EST
                carver-382006

                Keith you sir are correct!  People in the US don't get it.  They already have universal health care in a sense, however it is only for the poor (people who make less than 10,000 approx), and the people who are not poor are paying for it.  It's called Medicaid!  You are already paying for health care costs for people who are not citizens!  But you don't want a plan where everyone is covered and you don't get denied by your insurance company for a "pre-exisiting condition".  Hmmmm "what did my insurance premimums pay for exactly?"

                Now if you Americans could get rid of the insurance giants who are driving up the cost of health care, (the US spends more per person on health care than anyone in the world but ranks 18th, just behind Costa Rica) you could actually have a great system.  Medicaid is one of the most efficient government social service programs.

                • 2 votes
                #8.4 - Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:51 PM EST
                jim-350736

                I'm glad to see some truth about this finally. The author of this article, even though it is mainly about airline seating, couldn't pass up the chance to throw another log on the "Canadian Healthcare is crap" fire. This is one of my main gripes with American media. Little bits of propaganda lies spread thinly everywhere.

                Thank you for a bit of truth about the reality of health care in Canada!

                • 2 votes
                #8.5 - Thu Jan 22, 2009 4:40 PM EST
                GK Thetruth

                The Canadian's are right when it comes to Health care. It is ironically funny, but mostly sad, that from a health care prospective we provide the most to the least productive people in our society. The retired and the disabled? You sure wouldn't run a business that. "Health care for everyone, unless you are an asset to the company." Now I know a country is not a company, but it has to make you ask some questions.

                The truth is, there is a tremendous amount of money spent by Big Business, to get Americans to think Universal Health Care is bad. Big Pharma, Big Health Ins Companies, Big Hospitals, Big Medical Suppliers. But until it is taken care of, 40% of our work force will go without.

                • 2 votes
                #8.6 - Thu Jan 22, 2009 4:43 PM EST
                Chuck-407145

                Ever wonder why the US drug companies fought so hard to ban the import of drugs back into the US from Canada. Even though the drugs were exactlly the same it was cheaper to buy them from Canada.

                • 1 vote
                #8.7 - Thu Jan 22, 2009 5:43 PM EST
                mike-568809

                We already have universal health care in the US. Who do you think pays for the illegals and other poor persons who receive medical services - the rest of us stupid! Because of this my health care premium (Blue Cross of CA) has gone up 100% over the last 12 months! WTF? And I still have to wait at least a week to see any doctor. And my taxes are already too high!

                Hey, at least I'm not fat!

                  #8.8 - Thu Jan 22, 2009 5:50 PM EST
                  John-Franklin

                  Lotsa numbers...not much sense.

                  In 97% of statistical measures (heart attack recovery for example) their system outperforms ours.

                  A 2007 review...comparing health outcomes in Canada and the US in a Canadian peer-reviewed medical journal found that "health outcomes may be superior in patients cared for in Canada versus the United States, but differences are not consistent."  One commonly cited comparison ranked Canada 30th and the U.S. 37th... rated the US "responsiveness", or quality of service, as 1st, compared with 7th or 8th for Canada. The average life expectancy for Canada was rated at 72.0 years compared with the U.S. at 70.0 years.  However, the study methods were criticized by some analyses.  Some argue that Canada has had higher mortality rates for some conditions, such as heart attacks. Overall, results for mortality favored Canada with a 5% advantage, but the results were weak and varied. The only consistent pattern was that Canadian patients fared better in kidney failure.

                  So they have a better outcome afterward, but fewer survive the actual attack?  Oh yeah, that sounds good...the fact is there hasn't yet been a consistent "statistical measure" by which to accurately judge the situation.  Care and regulations vary so widely between provinces and countries that an even comparison is difficult to achieve.

                  In Canadian / European vs US procedures, there is no significant difference in waiting time for any particular procedure except those that are truly elective.

                  21% of Canadian hospital administrators, but less than 1% of American administrators, said that it would take over three weeks to do a biopsy for possible breast cancer on a 50-year-old woman; 50% of Canadian administrators versus none of their American counterparts said that it would take over six months for a 65-year-old to undergo a routine hip replacement surgery.

                  Right now versus three weeks; right now versus six months?  Sounds pretty "significant."  And I don't know about you, but a biopsy for possible cancer and the replacement of a major joint don't sound "elective" to me.

                  There are as many medical advances coming out of the Canadian / European system per capita as comes out of the US system (the idea that the extra profits made by drug companies in the US lead to newer and better medicines is non- sense - 55% of the technical advances in medicine over the last ten years came out of Canada / Europe)

                  Hmmm...yeah some guy in Korea says he is making clones.  Is this the kind of advance you're talking about?  New HIV & tropical disease drugs, drugs for cancer and Parkinson's, new chemotherapy protocols, lasers, the Human Genome Project, etc.: don't fool yourself into believing these advances were made possible by any country but the US.  Whether it was directly from US researchers or funded by the US subsidiaries of international companies, the US drives the healthcare market (for better or worse.)

                  Medicines / drugs are better in the US because the FDA requires them to be more thoroughly researched: the quality and safety is better.  If I'm buying laundry detergent, maybe it's no big deal to buy the cheaper generic brand.  If it's a pharmacokinetic substance I'm putting in my body that has the chance of killing me...I'm paying for the safest one that's had the most tests run on it.

                  In terms of GDP, their system costs half of what ours does.  The added cost in taxes for Canadians is significantly less than the cost of Insurance premiums for most of us in the US.

                  Now this is true, but as the saying goes, "You get what you pay for..."

                  "Many Americans have access to quality health care. All Canadians have access to similar care at a considerably lower cost." There is 'no question' that the lower cost has come at the cost of 'restriction of supply with sub-optimal access to services.'"

                  This is really the crux: you get what you pay for.  Canadians seem to be content with lower quality in some areas (wait times, etc.) in exchange for lower costs.  Americans are not: they want exactly what they want and they want it now.  Canadians (and many other nationalities) flock here to get life saving procedures they are denied in their homeland...that's just a fact.  And although most Canadian provinces don't expressly make it illegal to use private healthcare, they make it near impossible to do so by applying financial disincentives for patients and doctors alike.

                  People in the US who have good insurance are happy: those that don't aren't.  Make one mandatory system for all and the former will chafe at the resitrictions while the latter will rejoice...until they have to wait weeks or months for a procedure.  Can't please everyone...

                  Fact is the lifestyles, priorities, and choice variables in both countries make is impossible to accurately compare the two.

                    #8.9 - Fri Jan 23, 2009 5:03 AM EST
                    david-475776

                    My comment to all of this Universal Health Care.  Is that the Canadian is lumped into the European, while it is actually modelled after the British Universal Health Care.  Not the Continent's Universal Health Care.  There is a difference, I lived at both.

                    The disturbing thing is to see "third world" countries with better health care than the United States, including the US Military Health Care (this includes Dental which should NOT be a seperate part of "Health Care").  Of course these countries have "no loop holes" flat tax also.  They also do something that makes too much sense, "whole medical facility" concept, but that is another topic.

                      #8.10 - Sat Jan 24, 2009 4:45 PM EST
                      Glinda

                      @John-Franklin

                      Canadians are not "content with lower quality" health care.  We are continually watching for government scrimping and there is consistent pressure on all governments to improve the system - one advantage of a public system is accountability.  If they slash health care funding or services, they are going to have to explain why or get the boot. Canadians feel about health care the way Americans feel about the right to bear arms. 

                      The main issue at the moment is a shortage of doctors which is not specific to Canada.  There is a shortage world-wide and in fact India and African countries complain that the wealthy western nations routinely poach their young doctors.  It is perhaps more evident in Canada because more people use the system where in the U.S. they may avoid going to a doctor because they don't wish to pay for treatment of minor ailments, or for treatments not covered under their private plan. 

                      Medicines / drugs are better in the US because the FDA requires them to be more thoroughly researched: the quality and safety is better.  If I'm buying laundry detergent, maybe it's no big deal to buy the cheaper generic brand.  If it's a pharmacokinetic substance I'm putting in my body that has the chance of killing me...I'm paying for the safest one that's had the most tests run on it

                      Oh come on what do you think we do just mix them in somebody's bathtub?  Generics are drugs with expired patents, ie they have been produced for 20 years - so go ahead and pay more for the name-brand but don't imagine you are getting any extra testing on it. Generic drugs are cheaper than brand name drugs because generic pharmaceutical companies do not have to make the initial investment into research, testing, and applying for approval.  They also don't bear any cost for advertising ...which now I think of it just make me like them more.

                      As far as Canadians flocking to the US for treatment, in fact Americans come here for treatment as well (as do people from all over the world) and in even higher numbers they go to India for affordable, quality care. 

                      I agree with your final statement - Americans would likely be happier with a mixed system as they have in many European countries where doctors may opt out of the system and charge whatever the market will bear.  A two-tier system like this is not acceptable to Canadians because it is widely perceived that given the opportunity aggressive American medi-corps would 'Walmart' the public system out of existence.

                      • 1 vote
                      #8.11 - Sat Jan 24, 2009 5:02 PM EST
                      Reply
                      Mary-615037

                      So, then the NEXT question should be:  Since I am small and take up 1/2 a seat, shouldn't  I pay half the fair? 

                      Wouldn't it be nice if we could just accomodate EVERYONE with EVERYTHING?  (or declare discrimination?)  For crying out loud, if you eat two boxes of chocolate, you should PAY for two boxes.  If you need 2 seats, then you should pay for two seats. 

                      I thought it was just us Americans who were getting more stupid every day.  I guess it's global...LOL

                      • 9 votes
                      Reply#9 - Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:46 PM EST
                      spider-737231

                      Yes Mary, I honestly think that you should get a 50 percent rebate. Great post! 

                      • 1 vote
                      #9.1 - Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:09 PM EST
                      That's Mo

                      Just make the fare system based upon weight.  You and your bags get on the scale, here's your price.

                      Basic fee for the seat, then a scaled cost for weight.  Weight drives the fuel cost.  It's consumption-based pricing.

                      • 9 votes
                      #9.2 - Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:31 PM EST
                      carver-382006

                      That's Mo, I LOVE IT!!!!  Somebody send that to the CEO of Air Canada...

                      It is so good I would like that to be the standard worldwide!

                      • 2 votes
                      #9.3 - Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:56 PM EST
                      Lkessler

                      Carver:  can you imagine the rioting at airports?

                      • 1 vote
                      #9.4 - Thu Jan 22, 2009 5:10 PM EST
                      colsohjunior

                      I've got the answer!  LOL!  Why don't all the airlines reconstruct all seating (by size) as follows:

                      Rows 4 thru 8: Small

                      Rows: 9 thru 13: Medium

                      Rows: 14 thru 18: Large

                      Rows: 19 thru 23: X-Large

                      May have to switch it up so that the back half of the plane could actually leave the ground!

                      Anyone above X-Large will have to charter their own plane, or be tagged and bagged and put below with the rest of the luggage!  Hey, I'm just kidding!  Really, I am!  But can anyone, seriously, come up with a practical and sensible solution?

                      • 3 votes
                      #9.5 - Thu Jan 22, 2009 6:38 PM EST
                      Glinda

                      Hey that moves me to the front of the plane - you get my vote!

                        #9.6 - Sat Jan 24, 2009 5:05 PM EST
                        Reply
                        willie-749103

                        Problem - lard asses don't fit.

                        Solution - rip out seats and install couches.

                        Actually the real solution (and it is probably not too far off) is charge by weight and volume just like the rest of the frieght industry does. Air travel these days is just that.

                        I have seen a lot of these "medicaly obese" people fishing for first class seats...boo hoo, you want room, pay for it like the rest do. Or, "light bulb moment" lose weight.

                        • 6 votes
                        Reply#10 - Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:55 PM EST
                        Nodak-834051

                        If an obese person requires two seats, they should pay for two seats.  Why should the airline lose revenue?  Receiving payment for one seat - when they could have sold two - is not the airline's responsibility.

                        What's next... movies?  Concerts?  Plays? Sports events? The business owner should not be forced to accomodate one large person - when they could otherwise have sold two tickets.  

                        • 3 votes
                        Reply#11 - Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:58 PM EST
                        dave-786070

                        I for one would not bother if I was disabled or obese. The airports are already in turmoil with post 9/11 issues. Stay home or find another way!

                          Reply#12 - Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:59 PM EST
                          Mary-615037

                          They can send letters to the airline and they can use these as their signatures, which will determine the size:

                          (_x_)     (__x__)  or  (____x____)

                          • 9 votes
                          Reply#13 - Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:03 PM EST
                          Mary Ann-295349

                          OMG! Mary, This is sooo funny!!  LOL

                          And you're right. One has to pay full fare for a child or toddler.  2 kids = 2 seats. Under these "new rules", then, shouldn't it be, if the 2 kids fit into one seat, then pay for only one seat?

                          Why not?

                          • 1 vote
                          #13.1 - Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:42 PM EST
                          david-475776

                          LOL!!!!

                          I almost had coffee coming out of my nose when I saw that.

                          • 1 vote
                          #13.2 - Sat Jan 24, 2009 5:00 PM EST
                          Reply
                          BillBodine

                          I think its great the airlines are doing what they are doing.  If you really want that free seat for being fat, then you should be required to do all the 'leg work' that will make it happen.  What's the worst thing that could happen???  maybe lose a little weight while running around getting your 'I'm fat' doctor's note.

                          • 4 votes
                          Reply#14 - Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:15 PM EST
                          Matt-816841

                          We are just afraid to hurt people's feelings. Some things need to be said. We shouldn't have to waste all this money so accomodate people who, for the most part, are a victim of their own habits (or their parents habits).

                          Like Mary said, I'm a small guy. Can I pay less than full fare?

                          • 3 votes
                          Reply#15 - Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:20 PM EST
                          Jack-419114

                          Karyn-834067

                          for free???

                            Reply#16 - Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:27 PM EST
                            M Lyster

                            Maybe they should have one of these Wile E. Coyote cutouts at the gate, like at Disney world with his hands outstretched, saying "If your --s is THIS wide or wider, you cannot ride on this plane". Or just put an airline seat in security. "If the butt don't fit, you cannot sit", to paraphrase Johnny Cochran.

                            Another brilliant facet of the Canadian medical system. isn't this the system that President Messiah and his lackeys want to emulate?  Remind me to retire from medicine beforehand.

                            • 3 votes
                            Reply#17 - Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:29 PM EST
                            betsy-834100

                            I think people should HAVE to sit in a seat to prove they can fit into one airline seat. If they can't they should have to PAY for two seats.

                            The real sufferers are the people WHO SIT BESIDE the overweight people.

                            I read one post where a woman was sitting b/t a husband and a wife, both overweight. She felt badly that she was embarassing them when she asked for a seat change. someone pointed out to her that many overweight people book the aisle and the window seats on purpose HOPING the poor scnook who gets stuck in the middle will ask for a change. Then they can up the arm rests and have a delightful flight!!!

                            I carry some extra weight, and understand it is hard to lose it. But before I mortified myself by taking up more than my 1/3 or 1/2 I would find another way to get there.

                            I do not see obesity as a disability, although I am sure I am wrong legally. It is what it is. If you can't fit in the seat, buy two or don't fly.

                            • 3 votes
                            Reply#18 - Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:29 PM EST
                            Brenda-330507

                            Yes, there are "tricks" many obese people use to take up more than their "fair" (read "paid for") share of an airplane.  People pay for their space on an airplane and should be entitled to it.  They should not be crushed because someone else wouldn't pay for the additional seat he or she needed.  Websites for obesity groups teach these "tricks."  They include asking to board early and putting the armrest up to give "you the inch or two of extra space you need. The chances are that the passenger who will be seated next to you won't say anything; if he does, smile pleasantly and say that you'll both be more comfortable if the armrest is up."  Ya, I think we all know that the person is thinking ONLY of his or her comfort....not of yours!!!    Other "hints" included asking for the exit row which have more space.  Just what I want in an emergency like the recent Hudson landing.  Nothing like a 350 pound person who NEVER goes to the gym being in charge of MY safety.   But, hey, just think of your own comfort and don't worry about the rest of us!

                            In case anyone wants to know where I pulled this from:

                            http://www.grandstyle.com/airlinetip.htm

                            • 1 vote
                            #18.1 - Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:21 PM EST
                            tim warner-417381

                            Brenda, OMG I can't believe what I read on your link!

                            my favorite is the "I can't get my food trough, I mean tray down" .

                            If the flight attendant asked me to move my seat to make it easier for lardass to stuff his or or face I would tell them to piss off! 

                              #18.2 - Sat Jan 24, 2009 2:03 PM EST
                              david-475776

                              Brenda-330507  - This is just getting beyond stupid.

                              Does that mean that certain Religions can put their prayer mat in the aisles and have the plane turn off course and fly toward mecca.  (no offense meant).  Small wonder why they say things like USA means, "U" Stupid of America.  Wonder what they are saying about Canada.

                              When does this insanity stop.

                                #18.3 - Sat Jan 24, 2009 5:14 PM EST
                                Reply
                                M Lyster

                                Better still: charge for tickets by the pound. Want to save on your fare?  Try putting down the doughnut, Porky.

                                  Reply#19 - Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:30 PM EST
                                  Patricia-834108

                                  Airlines are not non-profit.     They will have to make up losses ... and it will probably be by increasing the cost to others.  Is this fair?

                                    Those with addictions to alcohol, tobacco, marijuna, etc. are not rewarded.... why reward, and thereby encourage, one who is addicted to food by literally "giving" them an extra seat?   I agree with those who suggested a seat placed outside of the boarding area (to avoid embarrasment and inconvenience, the size of seat should be listed on airline website).    I sympathize with those few who are medically obese, (a condition out of ones control) and a note from their physician sounds reasonable.      To avoid extra costs to the challanged traveler, a form could be provided which could send to their doctor, thereby avoiding a visit.   Anyone obese enough to require an extra seat has most likely seen their doctor within the past two years.....if not, perhaps they should.

                                  Most people enjoy eating and most travelers would prefer a larger, more comfortable seat....but do not expect to be "given" one.

                                    Reply#20 - Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:33 PM EST
                                    Joe-834131

                                    "I sympathize with those few who are medically obese, (a condition out of ones control)" Except for the very rare Prater-Wily syndrome, picking up food and putting it in one's mouth is not out of one's control.   Obese people want to hitch a ride on the 12 Step "powerless" train (plane?) with all the attendant sympathy, etc.... with one small exception: they take umbrage when you challange them about their continued to "use."

                                      #20.1 - Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:01 PM EST
                                      Reply
                                      Lillie-377757

                                      I do not think that the airline should bear the burden.  Now if Canada health feels this is ligit, they should pay for the extra ticket for travel that is medically necessary for the attendant to travel with the disabled person.  Being obese is no excuse, since there are only rare ligitimate reasons to be that obese as to be disabled, the rest is individually caused and the airline shouldn't have to pay for someone's greedy needs.  The airline should, on special occasions offer to perk someone severely disabled, for trips for leisure, but they should not be mandatorily forced to provide the extra seat.  Families of severely disabled are already burdened with that disability for any type of transit, so a freebie now and again is nice, but certainly should not be manditory. 

                                       I still feel that if the girth is too great that an extra seat be paid for by the passenger because it sucks sitting cramped for hours next to someone who fails to fit in their space.   

                                      • 1 vote
                                      Reply#21 - Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:34 PM EST
                                      Charlie in Sterling

                                      The simple solution as pointed out is to charge by the pound or kilogram.  Can you imagine the dieting going on before and during vacation? Laxatives and diuretics would be in vogue as it would help reduce preboarding weight but could also wreek havoc in flight. Imagine the market for last minute weight loss sales. This could be the airline industry's answer to the poor economy.

                                        Reply#22 - Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:41 PM EST
                                        Joe-834131

                                        If I put booze or drugs into my system and showed up for a flight totally stoned outta my head, I would not be allowed on a plane.  We don't reward addicts for continued using; we hold them accountable. It's about time we started treating food addicts the same way. If you choose to drink, drug... or eat your way to severe impairment, that's your choice. But, don't ask others to bear the costs or consequences.

                                        • 1 vote
                                        Reply#23 - Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:43 PM EST
                                        Barry-NJ

                                        Joe.  You're exactly right.  If someone showed up drunk, they would not be allowed to board.  I think that's appropriate.

                                        But, maybe those drunks are using the wrong approach.  They should claim a disability (alchoholism) and yell discrimination if they're not allowed to board.  After all, its not their fault if they can't stay sober long enough to sit in a waiting area.  In fact, they should be allowed to bring along a companion for free to help them on/off the plane.

                                        • 1 vote
                                        #23.1 - Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:44 PM EST
                                        Reply
                                        save america 1

                                        this whole thing is complete BULL @!$%#!!!!!!! If you want to feel good in your seat,LOSE WIEGHT!!!!!most are plain fat and lazy and want us to cater to them because they are to damn lazy and dont care to do something other than cry about it!and I do say most I understand that there are few with problem or illness but most are just fat lazy slobs and should get no special treatment,in fact should be told they can't fly at all not given an extra seat!!

                                        • 1 vote
                                        Reply#24 - Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:44 PM EST
                                        Joseph01

                                        >snip
                                        "Most people, for a non-acute medical condition, would have to wait weeks or months before they can see a doctor," Sharma said. "In my clinic right now the waiting time is approximately one year."
                                        >endsnip<

                                        Ah, yes... the benefits of "free, universal, government-sponsored" medical care.  The Canadian government can take the time to promulgate travel rules about disability, obesity,and equality, but doesn't seem to be able to reduce wait time for medical care beyond January 2010.

                                          Reply#25 - Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:06 PM EST
                                          Jump to discussion page: 1 2 3
                                          Leave a Comment:
                                          You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                                          You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                                          (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                                          Newsvine Privacy Statement
                                          As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                                          FUN STUFF:
                                          • Leaderboard |
                                          • E-Mail Alerts |
                                          • Top of the Vine |
                                          • Newsvine Live |
                                          • Newsvine Archives |
                                          • The Greenhouse
                                          COMPANY STUFF:
                                          • Code of Honor |
                                          • Company Info |
                                          • Contact Us |
                                          • Jobs |
                                          • User Agreement |
                                          • Privacy Policy |
                                          • About our ads
                                          LEGAL STUFF:
                                          • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                                          • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                                          • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com