Canada's health care system sucks [Archive]

Miss Anthropic

01-28-2005, 11:16 PM

In the U.S. if you don't have health care, often you can't get treated for something like strep at a regular doctor's office unless you have $200 up front, whether or not the actual appointment costs that much. So you go to the emergency room, which is considerably more expensive (maybe up to 3 times as much?) but they will send you a bill. If you can't pay it, your credit is affected and the hospital passes on the cost of the visit through raising prices they charge to everybody, mainly those who have private insurance. So then the cost of private insurance goes up. I have to pay for health insurance myself. I have six more months on a policy I had at my former employer. I pay $200 per month for just myself per month and have a $300 deductible. When I could afford it I paid for my daughter's insurance as well. The two of us cost $450 per month. (That is 2/3 of my house payment) I am a student right now and I work part time. Oregon has a health plan, but it suffered budget cuts. I managed to get my daughter on it (we're poor enough right now!) in June before they stopped taking new people. Fortunately she was accepted or I wouldn't have any health care for her. She has meds that would cost $120 per month without insurance.

I volunteer in an English as a Second Language class. I like to ask the students what they like and don't like about the U.S. The health care system is the biggest complaint they have. One Korean student broke a molar and needed a root canal. It was going to cost her $2000 for treatment--root canal and crown-- here. A plane ticket to Korea in March is $700 and the treatment there is $300 (U.S. $) So she gets to go home, visit her family and friends, get her tooth fixed and have $1000 left compared to what she'd have had to pay here. A student from Spain got sick while she was here and was made to wait 20 hours in the emergency room while they waited for a fax from Spain saying her treatment would be covered. The fax had actually been sent, but a hospital worker misplaced it...but in the meantime they wouldn't treat her. At a large medical clinic in my town where my family and I have been treated for years (I have an account and they bill me) they insisted I pay cash when my daughter came in with a strep infection when she didn't have health insurance. Think again if you think its so fabulous here. I suppose it is if you don't mind paying lots of money or being discriminated against if you don't have insurance.

jjt

01-28-2005, 11:38 PM

Both Canada and the USA sound scary, isn't getting ill or needing treatment in the USA if you haven't got insurance or if your insurance is run out the biggest cause of bankruptsy?

In New Zealand we have both public (Government funded) and private (Health insurance). I don't have health insurance and so rely on the public sector, so far I've had only good experiences, and not had to wait for treatment. But there are stories of people dying waiting on surgery lists for treatments like hip joint replacements. We also have a third system called Accident Compensation, where the government acts like a private insurance company if you get injured. They will completely pay for treatment resulting from an injury and will pay 80% of your salary if you can't work. I was off work for 6 weeks once with a broken foot and was a recipient of this - it was excellent. The government also pays for rehab equipment, wheelchairs, permanent carers and a lifelong disability allowance. This was set up so that people never sued anyone if they had an accident and indeed are not allowed to. A seperate government department monitors work environments for safety and fines a company directly if they were found negligent or unsafe.

My brother got leukemia a year ago and got amazing treatment including a bone marrow transplant, (he's now in remission) in a public hospital.

It's great to have the choice, especially if the govt system isn't working properly as in Canada. However the choice means that the government starts to rely on the fact that people get private health care and start to pull back their resources in the public system. The people that suffer are the ones who can't afford private health insurance, and languish on waiting lists for treatment which would be better given immmediately.

I think we have a reasonbly good system, although there are still a few problems.

relaxo

01-30-2005, 02:00 PM

Almost three dozen Ontario hospitals will be forced to cancel surgeries for one day next month because of a controversial move by anesthetists to withdraw their services in protest of the slow pace of fee negotiations with the provincial government.

"Thirty-four hospitals currently report that operating rooms are scheduled to be closed,'' Ontario Hospital Association president Hilary Short said in a release. "Impact is currently anticipated to be most significant in the Greater Toronto Area due to the concentration of operating room capacity and population.''

Anesthetists announced this week they will attend a one-day meeting in Toronto on Feb. 11 instead of going to work.

relaxo

01-30-2005, 02:14 PM

The two of us cost $450 per month.

If I do my calculations correctly, my wife and I pay roughly $950 a month in taxes towards health care.
(Actually I think this is way less ater doing some more research, me personally is somewhere between $300-$400 month. Why wife is probably a bit less. maybe $600/month. Who knows, it's taxes)

That's just taking our provincial numbers, not he federal taxes we pay and the sales taxes that go into it, plus payments on debt. We're in Canada, we have 1/3 less wealth than Americans.
$450 US a month would be amazing for private care.

It was going to cost her $2000 for treatment--root canal and crown-- here. A plane ticket to Korea in March is $700 and the treatment there is $300 (U.S. $) So she gets to go home, visit her family and friends, get her tooth fixed and have $1000 left compared to what she'd have had to pay here.

Well, that is dentistry,which isn't having a crisis anywhere I know of.
However, this is an example of how great the free market is. Prices too high, go somewhere else. Amazing. If private health care is too expensive in the USA, Americans should really start going elsewhere (maybe even to Canada's public system) to drive prices down.

Think again if you think its so fabulous here. I suppose it is if you don't mind paying lots of money or being discriminated against if you don't have insurance.
You should be "discriminated" if you can not pay for your health. People don't go to medical school for years to work for free. People don't invest massive amounts of capital into hospitals so people can get free treatment. If you decide not to invest in your health you are a fool. Yes, working is part of doing that. You need money. And don't give me nonsense about not finding work. Immigrants come to North America with virtually nothing, work hard and take care of themselves (in most cases). There is no excuse. There is always private charity as well.

relaxo

01-30-2005, 02:20 PM

I think we have a reasonbly good system, although there are still a few problems.

Canada's health system has usually been adequate I'll have to admit. In recent years it is deteriorating fast, to the point where your life, if you need treatment from specialists, is in question. We can always cough up the cash (on top of the thousands in taxes) and go to the USA for life saving treatment.
Canada's system could be so much better if some privatization were allowed. I don't want access to an adequate system where anyone can wait for treatment. I want the choice of a private system where if I want to pay I can. My demands are hardly unreaonable, but here in Canada people shout you down if you say such things. It really is a mass brainwashing. I've never seen anything like it.

relaxo

01-30-2005, 02:27 PM

relaxo

01-30-2005, 02:31 PM

My grandmother died in hospital just recently. She was very old and unhealthy. The pneumonia she caught at the hospital however helped finish her off. Do people usually catch pneumonia in hospitals? I'm not sure.

How many people died from SARS in the USA's terrible system? In Europe's mixed system? We had dozens die in Canada, right here in Toronto. We're not supposed to be a third world country. We have the best heath care in the world we are told.

relaxo

01-30-2005, 02:32 PM

My friend's dad had chest pains years ago. Went to the doctor. I guess it was too much of a bother to get him checked out in our universal all access system. Doctor told him to go fishing. Ya, he died from a heart attack months later.

relaxo

01-30-2005, 02:38 PM

This is from Mark Steyn (admittedly a big enemy of public health care)

Gérald Augustin of Rivière-des-Prairies, Quebec went to the St. André medical clinic complaining of stomach pain. He’d forgotten to bring his Medicare card, so they turned him away. He went back home, collapsed of acute appendicitis, and by the time the ambulance arrived he was dead. He was 21 years old, and he didn’t make it to 22 because he accepted the right of a government bureaucrat to refuse him medical treatment for which he and his family have been confiscatorily taxed all their lives. Clinic director Rouslene Augustin says it’s the policy to refuse all patients who don’t have their cards with them. No big deal, he wasn’t anything special, no-one in her clinic even remembers giving him the brush.

A few years back, when my little boy was a toddler, I had to rush him to Emergency at the Children’s Hospital in Montreal. They asked for his Medicare card. I didn’t have it. The missus usually has it with her, and she was out, and we don’t usually think to shuffle it back and forth between us all day. So the receptionist said we’d have to go away and come back later. In all my experience of American, British, French, Swiss, Austrian and other health care systems, I’d never heard such rubbish. I had my card. He’s my dependent. What would cause her to think he didn’t have a card or wasn’t entitled to one? And, given that the cards are generated by a computer anyway, why isn’t there a database of current card holders? Well, I kicked up a fuss, swore like Paul Martin reacting off-mike to a Gary Doer soundbite, and, after ten minutes of yelling, they agreed to see the kid. Perhaps if M Augustin had done that, he’d still be alive.

A year or so later, south of the border, another child had a fall on Thanksgiving and had to go to hospital for a couple of stitches. We pulled up at the door, the boy was taken to the examining table, and while they were looking at him the nurse handed me a release form to sign, giving them permission to treat him. Only after they’d looked at him and calmed him down and everything was underway did they suggest I saunter along to the desk to fill in the paperwork. Whatever the particular deficiencies of America’s or any other health service, any system that requires the operators to respect you as a client rather than tolerate you as a ward of the state is, in Romanow terms, more “moral”

mgb

01-30-2005, 04:37 PM

Why didn't you just call this thread, "Anecdotes I have collected about the negative side of Canada's Health Care System"?

relaxo

01-30-2005, 05:12 PM

Why didn't you just call this thread, "Anecdotes I have collected about the negative side of Canada's Health Care System"?

I kind of figured Canada's health care system sucks was good enough and self explainatory. Especially in a rant and rave section.

melancholeric

01-30-2005, 05:18 PM

mgb

01-30-2005, 06:24 PM

relaxo

01-30-2005, 07:45 PM

Some WHO statistics I already posted in "where do you stand" thread and that you conveniently ignored:

US:
Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 74.6/79.8
Child mortality m/f (per 1000): 9/7
Total health expenditure per capita (Intl $, 2001): 4,887
Total health expenditure as % of GDP (2001): 13.9

Canada

Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 77.2/82.3
Child mortality m/f (per 1000): 6/5
Total health expenditure per capita (Intl $, 2001): 2,792
Total health expenditure as % of GDP (2001): 9.5

Yes, the Canadian health system sucks, but the US system sucks more. In terms of cost-efficiency, anyway.

Surely there must be a system that doesn't suck? Pull out some more stats and we can see who has the best system based on age.

While you're at using stats such as that, how about this one:
Canada: GDP per capita - $29,800 (2003 est.)
USA: GDP per capita - $37,800 (2003 est.)

wow, you lucky buggers have and extra $8000 to spend on better health care. and you're even taxed less!

Canada:1.61 children born/woman (2004 est.)
USA: 2.07 children born/woman (2004 est.)
What does this have to do with health care? Well, if you're gonna have a kid, you kind of need a hospital and a doctor. The stat is as relevant as any of the others.

I suspect the whole 2-3 years life expectancy we gain in Canada is because your society has more violent death. And more immigrants coming from unhealthy backgrounds.

I'll take American private care any day. My family lives in the USA. They have private, they get treated better than any poor person in Canada's one for all system.

mgb

01-30-2005, 07:53 PM

Canada:1.61 children born/woman (2004 est.)
USA: 2.07 children born/woman (2004 est.)
What does this have to do with health care? Well, if you're gonna have a kid, you kind of need a hospital and a doctor. The stat is as relevant as any of the others.

This fact has nothing at all to do with infant mortality. Sorry, it does, they both involve infants. Rather than reply to melan's facts you just throw a whole bunch of irrelevant facts back. The number of children born has zero to do with quality of health care. And your justification for why this is relevent is ridiculous. Stick to the anecdotes.

melancholeric

01-30-2005, 07:54 PM

um, Canada spends less absolute funds per capita, yet it gets better results. But now that you asked...

Finland:
Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 68.7/73.5
Child mortality m/f (per 1000): 4/3
Total health expenditure per capita (Intl $, 2001): 1,845
Total health expenditure as % of GDP (2001): 7.0

Sweden:
Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 78.0/82.6
Child mortality m/f (per 1000): 4/3
Total health expenditure per capita (Intl $, 2001): 2,270
Total health expenditure as % of GDP (2001): 8.7

Norway:
Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 76.4/81.7
Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 70.4/73.6
Child mortality m/f (per 1000): 5/4
Total health expenditure per capita (Intl $, 2001): 2,920
Total health expenditure as % of GDP (2001): 8.0

( No total life expectancy for Finland available )

For more statistics, see
WHO website (http://www.who.int/countries/en/).

relaxo

01-30-2005, 08:40 PM

This fact has nothing at all to do with infant mortality. Sorry, it does, they both involve infants. Rather than reply to melan's facts you just throw a whole bunch of irrelevant facts back. The number of children born has zero to do with quality of health care. And your justification for why this is relevent is ridiculous. Stick to the anecdotes.

Of course. My stats are stupid. Other people's are better.

Canada has a much better health care system because we live 2-3 years longer. This fact proves we have better health care!

So if that is so, then it looks like Andorra is the winner!! At 83.50 Andora has proven it is the best health care system in the world!
And Jordan has a better system then the USA too!! At 78.06 years, they beat the stupid Americans by a whole .63 years!
But those stupid Irish, they have a worse system than America, so does Portugal, and Cuba, and South Korea. but they have more public than private, boy I am getting so confused now.

Oh but wait, I forgot that health care must be measured by infant mortality rates as well.
So Singapore wins with 2.28 deaths/1,000 live births!!

Oh but now Ireland has 5.50 , so it is now better than the USA.
This is all quite confusing.

But anyway I think we have established that health care should only be measured by average age , infant mortality and how much money is spent.
Stupid stories about my personal tragedies and stupid news stories indicating how the system is collapsing, are irrelevant.

and anyway, we are talking about QUALITY of health care, as you said, and you look at stats that show QUANTITIES to make your QUALITATIVE conclusions.
but hey, I showed the QUANTITY of gdp per capita is $8000 more in the USA which leads me to believe Americans can afford more QUALITY health care.
But sure, the QUANTITY of age proves that is not true.
One would have to ask then, does a longer age mean a QUALITY life? Well, if I lived 3 years less than you but made $8K more a year, you could probably say, I had a higher QUALITY life span no?

of course if I showed you other stats you would dismiss them with personal anecdotes.

but in any case youhave proven Canada has a much better system than the USA. I can only imagine my family lie to me, and these crazy things going on in my country are not true, and people I talk to on about it in my country are all wrong about their stupid little complaints. Foolish me.

For the rest of you who are not afraid of the truth, I will continue posting here.

mgb

01-30-2005, 09:11 PM

Of course. My stats are stupid. Other people's are better.

Canada has a much better health care system because we live 2-3 years longer. This fact proves we have better health care!

So if that is so, then it looks like Andorra is the winner!! At 83.50 Andora has proven it is the best health care system in the world!
And Jordan has a better system then the USA too!! At 78.06 years, they beat the stupid Americans by a whole .63 years!
But those stupid Irish, they have a worse system than America, so does Portugal, and Cuba, and South Korea. but they have more public than private, boy I am getting so confused now.

Oh but wait, I forgot that health care must be measured by infant mortality rates as well.
So Singapore wins with 2.28 deaths/1,000 live births!!

Oh but now Ireland has 5.50 , so it is now better than the USA.
This is all quite confusing.

But anyway I think we have established that health care should only be measured by average age , infant mortality and how much money is spent.
Stupid stories about my personal tragedies and stupid news stories indicating how the system is collapsing, are irrelevant.

and anyway, we are talking about QUALITY of health care, as you said, and you look at stats that show QUANTITIES to make your QUALITATIVE conclusions.
but hey, I showed the QUANTITY of gdp per capita is $8000 more in the USA which leads me to believe Americans can afford more QUALITY health care.
But sure, the QUANTITY of age proves that is not true.
One would have to ask then, does a longer age mean a QUALITY life? Well, if I lived 3 years less than you but made $8K more a year, you could probably say, I had a higher QUALITY life span no?

of course if I showed you other stats you would dismiss them with personal anecdotes.

but in any case youhave proven Canada has a much better system than the USA. I can only imagine my family lie to me, and these crazy things going on in my country are not true, and people I talk to on about it in my country are all wrong about their stupid little complaints. Foolish me.

For the rest of you who are not afraid of the truth, I will continue posting here.

I don't have to prove that Canada has a better health care system than the US, you have to prove that the US has a better system, you started the thread. And you haven't come even close to proving that Canada has a worse health care system than anywhere else in the world. You say it sucks, compared to what? Maybe you initial post should have just been the title with a period for the post because you seem to have an opinion with little to no factual basis.

You haven't provided any statistics so far that say otherwise. Your stats have been the GDP per capita between the US and Canada and the birth rate per woman. Way to go, that's some pretty conclusive information, I bow to your intellect. Your focus on GDP has nothing to do with purchasing power for the average American or Canadian. Luxembourg has a way higher GDP per capita than both places, but it costs a fortune to live there.

Your anecdotes are incredibly miopic, which is the downfall of your entire position. The fact is, every health care system has anecdotes of poor service and poor quality of treatment. It's not isolated to Canada, the US, Angola, Korea or Singapore. It's even funnier that you consider only your anecdotes "the truth".

You seem to want better quality health care for you and yours and fuck everyone else that can't afford decent health care because you can and because you can, you deserve the best health care money can buy.

This thread is pretty reminiscent of the "Were do you stand" thread. When presented with facts that contradict what you are saying, or when your facts are questioned you lash out and attack. To be honest, I can't wait until Monday when the AM radio shows open up their phones to the crackpots again and you have something else to do.

relaxo

01-31-2005, 01:02 AM

I don't have to prove that Canada has a better health care system than the US

nor can you apparently

And you haven't come even close to proving that Canada has a worse health care system than anywhere else in the world. You say it sucks, compared to what?

Not comparing to anything, it sucks.

Maybe you initial post should have just been the title with a period for the post because you seem to have an opinion with little to no factual basis.

News stories about losing nurses, lack of doctors, strikes. these are not facts, just, things you know, hey things that suck.
Waiting list stats. ya, irrelevant data. Expendatures. garbage.

You haven't provided any statistics so far that say otherwise. Your stats have been the GDP per capita between the US and Canada and the birth rate per woman. Way to go, that's some pretty conclusive information, I bow to your intellect.

Actually I was bowing to the intelligence (that is, being sarcastic) of the stats presented as conclusive proof that I ignored. Of course I ignored them because they are irrelevant. Average life expectancy being proof of a better/inferior health system? Canadian live 3 years longer than Americans is proof. Please.
I was going to use geographic size of the two countries as proof as well, but I didn't think anyone would get it.

The infant mortality rates are interesting though. I'd be interested in researching that.
oh, and one of my stupid stories, all of the people I know who have had babies have had great experiences in the system. but, my stories are stupid, and it is only coincidence that the infant mortality rates are pretty low.

Your focus on GDP has nothing to do with purchasing power for the average American or Canadian. Luxembourg has a way higher GDP per capita than both places, but it costs a fortune to live there.

but they have better health care...?

(I actually did use purchasing power parity levels. )

Your anecdotes are incredibly miopic, which is the downfall of your entire position.

My position that Canada's health care system sucks? It does. I'm sorry if you work in the health care system or something, but my experiences with it are poor. I pay good money for our system, I am offered no choice. I expect the best damned system, if not, give me choice and I won't complain. But I have no choice and until it is satisfactory to me, I shall complain. You, can be a typical Canadian and pretend everything is ok.

The fact is, every health care system has anecdotes of poor service and poor quality of treatment. It's not isolated to Canada, the US, Angola, Korea or Singapore. It's even funnier that you consider only your anecdotes "the truth".

I do? Well, we've already decided my anecdotes are wrong, as we said, news reports and personal experience meaning nothing.

You seem to want better quality health care for you and yours and fuck everyone else that can't afford decent health care because you can and because you can, you deserve the best health care money can buy.

I do deserve the best health care I can buy. So does everyone. Considering such a large portion of my money is taken from me without my consent, I really should have access to it.
I want everyone in the world to have access to the best health care possible. Our 100% public system doesn't allow that. If you make good money in the USA, you have access to great health care. Seems to me people should strive to make more money to get the best they can.

I'm sorry I made you so angry that you had to swear.

This thread is pretty reminiscent of the "Were do you stand" thread. When presented with facts that contradict what you are saying, or when your facts are questioned you lash out and attack. To be honest, I can't wait until Monday when the AM radio shows open up their phones to the crackpots again and you have something else to do.

I'm a crackpot because I am unhappy with our health care system? Strange.

Reviewing the threads, it does seem you are the lasher here.

Perhaps I need more smileys to show I am not angry? :)
Like when I said "And don't give me nonsense about not finding work", I could see someone thinking I was lashing at them. My excuse is being an INTP (see personality traits).

oh wow, if you look, I even say that our system has been adequate, but is falling apart. now why would I care, (why would I want our system to be better when all I care about is me? )

But then you jump in, for some reason, with nothing much to say at first, :)
and then melancholeric comes in with some stats, and then you tell him basically his stats aren't as stupid as my stories, hmm, then I get sarcastic about the stats, and you come back with the above.

I'll have to go back to the Where Do you Stand thread to get your information about Canada's health care system Iguess, because you have presented nothing here to change my mind that our system....sucks ;P

mgb

01-31-2005, 03:53 AM

nor can you apparently

Not comparing to anything, it sucks.

News stories about losing nurses, lack of doctors, strikes. these are not facts, just, things you know, hey things that suck.
Waiting list stats. ya, irrelevant data. Expendatures. garbage.

Actually I was bowing to the intelligence (that is, being sarcastic) of the stats presented as conclusive proof that I ignored. Of course I ignored them because they are irrelevant. Average life expectancy being proof of a better/inferior health system? Canadian live 3 years longer than Americans is proof. Please.
I was going to use geographic size of the two countries as proof as well, but I didn't think anyone would get it.

The infant mortality rates are interesting though. I'd be interested in researching that.
oh, and one of my stupid stories, all of the people I know who have had babies have had great experiences in the system. but, my stories are stupid, and it is only coincidence that the infant mortality rates are pretty low.

but they have better health care...?

(I actually did use purchasing power parity levels. )

My position that Canada's health care system sucks? It does. I'm sorry if you work in the health care system or something, but my experiences with it are poor. I pay good money for our system, I am offered no choice. I expect the best damned system, if not, give me choice and I won't complain. But I have no choice and until it is satisfactory to me, I shall complain. You, can be a typical Canadian and pretend everything is ok.

I do? Well, we've already decided my anecdotes are wrong, as we said, news reports and personal experience meaning nothing.

I do deserve the best health care I can buy. So does everyone. Considering such a large portion of my money is taken from me without my consent, I really should have access to it.
I want everyone in the world to have access to the best health care possible. Our 100% public system doesn't allow that. If you make good money in the USA, you have access to great health care. Seems to me people should strive to make more money to get the best they can.

I'm sorry I made you so angry that you had to swear.

I'm a crackpot because I am unhappy with our health care system? Strange.

Reviewing the threads, it does seem you are the lasher here.

Perhaps I need more smileys to show I am not angry? :)
Like when I said "And don't give me nonsense about not finding work", I could see someone thinking I was lashing at them. My excuse is being an INTP (see personality traits).

oh wow, if you look, I even say that our system has been adequate, but is falling apart. now why would I care, (why would I want our system to be better when all I care about is me? )

But then you jump in, for some reason, with nothing much to say at first, :)
and then melancholeric comes in with some stats, and then you tell him basically his stats aren't as stupid as my stories, hmm, then I get sarcastic about the stats, and you come back with the above.

I'll have to go back to the Where Do you Stand thread to get your information about Canada's health care system Iguess, because you have presented nothing here to change my mind that our system....sucks ;P

I don't really care if Canada has a better system than the US or not. It works fine for me so I don't have to prove anything to anyone. I am not the one making seemingly outlandish claims.

You must have some frame of reference to say it sucks. Otherwise I could say it's the best health care system in the world, hands down, because it's the only one I know. And you were comparing it when you started talking about the US health care system.

You talk of expenitures is garbage. You have given no dollar amounts or frames of reference to illuminate us all on what the real cost of health care is. You haven't said that in Canada we pay X for health care and in the US they pay Y. Instead, when presented with that evidence by melancholeric you present some "facts" in return that are completely irrelevent to your arguement, sarcasm or not, it didn't help your case much.

And I never called any of your stories stupid. You are the only one that has called your stories and facts stupid, let's just keep that in mind. I said that your anecdotes (not even calling them stories) are typical of all health care systems throughout the world. It's why they have malpractice lawyers everywhere.

And life expectancy, infant mortality, and total health expenditure per person are relevant facts. How come you didn't mention that last one incidentally? Life expectnacy in developed countries is certainly aided by having a developed health care system.

Fine you think the health care system sucks. But back that up with some evidence that doesn't start with "My friend's mom". I don't have any stories about my friends mom, so this just seems like an unfortunate incident to me and not indictive of the entire system. That is the problem with your arguments, you have a few numbers that no one can relate to and a couple stories and that's it. It doesn't make the whole system bad. You say it sucks fine, prove it.

You have complete consent to do whatever you want with your money. But if you want to live in Canada, you have to play by Canada's rules. The country affords you the opportunity to make a living under it's rules but it is in no way keeping you here against your will.

When you say "If you make good money in the USA, you have access to great health care." That's great, if you make "good money" if you don't make "good money" you join the 50 million people without any health care. If you just make ok, money you don't get good health care, you just get ok health care. I think that system stinks. It's hard to fathom how one of the richest countries in the world can't meet the basic needs of every single one of it's citizens. Instead, like you suggest, good health care becomes a luxury for those who can afford it.

You aren't trying to fix the health care system at all. That is your guise, fine, but what you are trying to do is make it better for you and everyone above your income level. What if the cut off for excellent health care was out of your reach, would you be so happy about it then? Would it seem like a good idea if your company took half your paycheck for complete health insurance instead of the government? Seems like the same thing to me.

As for the rest...next caller.

kuranes

01-31-2005, 01:22 PM

It's interesting to hear bad news about the Canadian health care system, as it's true that here in the USA we often only hear how wonderful it is. I do think it's logical for someone in Canada to be able to "opt out" of using the system, but you could not opt out of being taxed for it, unfortunately. So you would be paying ON TOP of what you get taxed for by going to the private sector. Because the taxes fund the whole system. Are they being spent efficiently, is the real question, I suppose. The anecdotes mentioned would certainly make me angry too, if I were living in Canada and experienced my relatives in such pain or worse. I remember the last time I was in a hospital here in the USA, they had someone come into my room every hour or so ( waking me up ) just to change the liner on the empty garbage can. I shuddered to think of what some of these "services" were costing me. It seems to me that the BOTH sides are right about some things. It's correct to infer that the remark about people being able to find good work if they really want to, is what set the gasoline alight. This is a position that a number of people on the site and elsewhere seem to believe. There are long complex arguments advanced by people like Robespierre in favor of it. I couldn't disagree more on that subject. Nevertheless it is true that some people take advantage of the safety nets a government sets up. That some immigrants end up fitting in quickly is not the issue. Many of these people are living 7 to a room while trying to get started. And you don't hear about the ones that went under. I don't remember where I read it, but it seems that there was research done showing that market forces are important, but that a pure Laissez Faire system historically does not work as smoothly as its well heeled proponents insist. Many people would say that working in a fast food place at minimum wage is a job an unemployed adult should take vs. continuing to look for something real. You can't afford to live in a decent neighborhood doing so, unless you're living with your parents or something, though, on those wages. Strict "market forces" types would say "tough shitsky, buddy" to that, seeming to feel that this settles the matter. In some ways it DOES settle things. If you're callous towards how others get along, though, how can you expect much sympathy for your own plight?

K

mgb

01-31-2005, 05:46 PM

kuranes,

Health care in Canada is not that bad. I don't know anyone that has had problems getting help before. Every emergency room is a triage situation. Those who apparently need immediate care get it. Sometimes that means some waits for people during busy times. If I have a broken ankle, I can sit for a while and wait for the doctors to take care of some people with asthma attacks, heart failure and the like. I'll live, they may not, hospitals don't work on a first come first serve basis anywhere in the world.

I'm all for universal health care. You shouldn't have to be able to afford to live.

MacGuffin

01-31-2005, 06:41 PM

Health care in Canada is not that bad. I don't know anyone that has had problems getting help before. Every emergency room is a triage situation. Those who apparently need immediate care get it. Sometimes that means some waits for people during busy times. If I have a broken ankle, I can sit for a while and wait for the doctors to take care of some people with asthma attacks, heart failure and the like. I'll live, they may not, hospitals don't work on a first come first serve basis anywhere in the world.

That sounds like the U.S. Except for the, you know, whole "payment" thing at the end.

relaxo

02-01-2005, 01:34 PM

I am not the one making seemingly outlandish claims.

No, only me, and health care study reports in Canada, which you conveniently ignore.
You also assume I am done posting facts and stories in here. I am not.

You must have some frame of reference to say it sucks.

Let's use the stats which you seem to think are all that is needed to prove how great our system is. As I mentioned, Andora has an average age of 83.5. You convieniently ignore this. Compared to that, Canada sucks, in fact, Canada sucks worse to Andora then America does to Canada by using age.

Birth rates? Singapore was 2.25 mortalities per 1000. So once again, Canada sucks.

So by your own standard measurement, our system sucks doesn't it.

However, I think it sucks by my own personal measurment, which is experience of myself and those I know who are using the system here and elsewhere.
I'm not sure if you are aware that the word "sucks" is actually not a scientific term. It tends to be a word used in subjective opinions.

(I'm curious as to why mortality rates are measured in male and female. That would indicate it is not 100% dependent on health care, that something else is at work. )

And you were comparing it when you started talking about the US health care system.

There's enough complaints about poor people not having access to US health care for me to believe if you did not have enough money down there, it would suck.
If we're going to use age to completly determine the quality of a health care system, well I guess we would have to ask: what is the average life span of those who do have access to the system?
I'll see if I can get those numbers one day.
I think you can already see, however, if you argue age is a big factor, then those without heath care should have lower ages, and those with, will have higher ages, thus bringing the quality of US health care closer , if not above, Canada's 100% access system. But I will try to find numbers on that one day.

You talk of expenitures is garbage.

It is? My personal expenses for health care are irrelevant? Therefore all complaints about personal expenses for health care are irrelevant. So no more comments about the cost of US health care for a person. or anywhere.
Are you a politician?

Using the % of GDP measure, one can always agrue, as I said before and you have conveniently ignored, that a nation with more money can pay more for quality health care. Also, a nation may decide it wants to pay more or less for health care.
Canada has decided to pay less, with consequences. Perhaps Canada needs to raise taxes to have better health care. Perhaps we need access to some private care.

And I never called any of your stories stupid. You are the only one that has called your stories and facts stupid, let's just keep that in mind. I said that your anecdotes (not even calling them stories)

I am sorry. You called them anecdotes, which is apparently "A short account of an interesting or humorous incident". Yes, it is interesting and perhaps humourous my father-in-law lost his leg. Thanks.

There are many reasons for my ancedotes.
1. when you just present facts, people will argue they are misleading, what is your personal experience
2. to show Americans our system is not perfect as many beleive it is
3. this is the rant and rave section, and talking about this stuff really has made me feel better. It doesn't seem to make you feel better though.

are typical of all health care systems throughout the world.

ya, I know, I said that before.

And life expectancy, infant mortality, and total health expenditure per person are relevant facts. How come you didn't mention that last one incidentally? Life expectnacy in developed countries is certainly aided by having a developed health care system.

ya, dealt with that above.

you have a few numbers that no one can relate to and a couple stories and that's it. It doesn't make the whole system bad. You say it sucks fine, prove it.

wow! I forgot to post the waiting list times for specialists in here. that was back in the Where do you stand thread.
Oh, and it is you who decided to ignore those number back then as well.
I'll post it all below.
you'll have to tell me how those number are irrelevant, oh, maybe ask me what my personal experience is.

You have complete consent to do whatever you want with your money. But if you want to live in Canada, you have to play by Canada's rules.

and one of the rules is, you can change the rules. Which is what is going to happen to health care here anyway. I just want to speed up the process.

you join the 50 million people without any health care.

sothat is the number, so are you saying about 17% of Americans are not in the health care system. So when I do my age calculation, I can take the age of only the 83% who have access to health and compare it to Canada's 100% to see if our quality sucks or not, right?

You aren't trying to fix the health care system at all. That is your guise, fine, but what you are trying to do is make it better for you and everyone above your income level.
well, you are wrong, I want everyone to have quality access.
However, assuming I have this guise and I only care about my income level and above, that means I am still wanting better health care for over 50% of Canadians. Is wanting better health care for anyone a bad thing? I want Bill gates to have better health care. Does that mean everyone else gets worse? No, it does not, unless you live in a marxist fantasy land.

You wanting things to stay the same is not fixing the health care system at all. You did use the word fix correct? Is there something to fix? Our perfect health system needs, fixing?

As for the rest...next caller.
next brainwashed Canadian please...

relaxo

02-01-2005, 01:41 PM

relaxo

02-01-2005, 01:49 PM

Earlier this week, Premier Ralph Klein proposed a new approach to health care in Alberta: private providers delivering care funded by the provincial government. Though the idea may seem revolutionary to Canadians, many other nations in the developed world have been enjoying the immense benefits such policies create.

Ha ha! I think mgbradsh and I need to switch provinces :devil:

A truly world class universal access health care program is characterized by either the very best outcomes health care can deliver, or the absence of waiting times, or both. Nine nations meet the requirements: Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Japan, Luxembourg, and Switzerland have programs that provide health services without waiting lists, while Australia, France, Japan, and Sweden outperform Canada on measures of health outcomes from care. All of these nations incorporate private hospitals within their public health care programs

hmm, no USA mentioned in there. I could be happy with a little bit of private if it fixes the problems, but when I make my billions, I am going to the USA for private care.

At present, no developed nation spends more (on an age adjusted basis) to purchase universal access health care for their populations than we do. And yet, most nations enjoy better access to advanced medical technologies and physicians, while some nations, through those key health policies, are able to deliver universal access to health services without waiting times.

age adjusted basis? Have to look up that measurement and why it is relevant to health care.
Also have to find some numbers for these supposedly better health care systems

synchronous

02-01-2005, 03:41 PM

The median wait for an MRI across Canada was 12.6 weeks. Patients in Prince Edward Island experienced the shortest wait for an MRI (six weeks), while Newfoundland residents waited longest (33.5 weeks).

Overall, Canada's total waiting time between referral from a general practitioner to treatment averaged about 18 weeks in 2004.

I'm not knowledgeable of the facts in this issue so I really can't debate. All I can offer is my 2 cents worth - my observations. Interesting you bring the median wait for an MRI. I' ve heard horror stories from people who have had to wait up to 8 months to get an MRI to confirm their diagnosis of cancer. I can't imagine to be told initially I have cancer but to wait months to complete the battery of tests to confirm it. My husband works in Vienna, Austria. He was diagnosed with colon cancer and required an MRI scan as part of the battery of tests to confirm the stage. The specialist in Vienna asked when it was convenient for my husband to have the MRI scan. Imagine that! Within a week of the initial diagnosis, my husband had his scan, and the scan results available four days later. My husband was also given options for surgery dates. My husband chose a date that was convenient. He had his surgery within three weeks of the initial diagnosis. The battery of tests confirmed that my husband had Stage I colon cancer, but, was a hair away from Stage III (survival rate 40-60%). Had he been cared in Ontario, the wait for the MRI scan may have resulted in a Stage III diagnosis.

I understand your rant about the inefficiencies of Canada's 'great' universal health system. It is in serious need of a overhaul. But, I don't think it's fair to overlook the general benefits. There is nothing like the security of walking into your doctor's office or the emergency room to have your general health issues taken care of, without the worry of having to find the money on the spot to pay for it. I think of low income families under a private health care system who may not have insurance to cover their most basic needs, and find any advanced care out of their financial reach. I would not go as far as saying Canada needs to adopt a private health care system to resolve the issues. Perhaps it should seriously consider studying and learning from more efficiently run systems. Putting more money into the system probably would hellp as well.

relaxo

02-01-2005, 04:36 PM

The JCUSH was a research study conducted by Statistics Canada and the National Center for Health Statistics, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Data collection began in November 2002 and ended in March 2003. The JCUSH was a one-time, random telephone survey in both countries. Approximately 3,500 Canadian and 5,200 U.S. residents participated in the study.

Americans were more likely to report that the quality of their health care services in general was excellent compared with Canadians (42 percent compared to 39 percent.) Among uninsured American respondents, 28 percent said the quality of the health care services they received was “excellent,” 44 percent “good,” and 28 percent “fair” or “poor.” When asked about their satisfaction with health care services in general, 53 percent of Americans and 44 percent of Canadians said they were “very satisfied,” while 37 percent of Americans and 43 percent of Canadians said they were “somewhat satisfied.” Among uninsured Americans, 39 percent were “very satisfied” with the services they received, and 40 percent were “somewhat satisfied.”

Unmet medical needs during the past 12 months were reported by 13 percent of Americans and 11 percent of Canadians. Among those with an unmet need, Americans were more likely to identify cost as the primary barrier to health care (53 percent of unmet needs cases), while Canadians cited waiting for care as the primary barrier (32 percent of cases). Among the 11 percent of American respondents who were uninsured, four out of every ten reported an unmet medical need. Likewise, only 43 percent of the uninsured respondents said they had a regular medical doctor, compared with 80 percent of total American respondents and 85 percent of Canadian respondents.

relaxo

02-01-2005, 04:51 PM

interesting stats from the USA to think about:

Approximately 45 million Americans, or 15.6 percent of the population, were without health insurance coverage in 2003. The number of uninsured rose 1.4 million between 2002 and 2003. (Carmen deNavas-Walt, Bernadette Proctor, Robert J. Mills, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2003,” U.S. Census Bureau Report, August 2004.)

Although Medicaid insured 13.3 million poor people, another 10.1 million poor people had no health insurance in 2001. They represented 30.7 percent of the poor, unchanged from 2000. (Robert J. Mills and Shailesh Bhandari, Ibid.)

Young adults (18-to-24 years old) remained the least likely of any age group to have health insurance in 2001. More than 28% of this group does not have coverage. (Robert J. Mills and Shailesh Bhandari, Ibid.)

“Nearly 58% of currently unemployed adults and 21% of employed adults aged 18-64 had been uninsured for at least part of the past year, and one third of currently unemployed adults had been uninsured for more than a year.” (Robin A. Cohen and Hanyu Ni, “Health Insurance Coverage: Estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, January-June 2003,” National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control, January 2004).

relaxo

02-01-2005, 04:59 PM

While a good health care system may, by intervention, extend the life of a small percentage of a population, it has very little to do with overall life spans. Life expectancy " in all but the least-developed countries " is primarily a result of genetic and social factors (e.g., lifestyle, environment, education, etc.) rather than the quality of medical care.
For example, Japan's average life expectancy (78.6 years) is one of the highest in the world, about three years higher than that in the U.S. If the three-year difference were the result of lower-quality health care in the United States, you would expect Japanese-Americans living in this country to experience shortened life spans. They don't. According to the National Asian Pacific Center on Aging, in 1980 (the latest numbers available) white Americans had an average life expectancy of 76.4 years, while Japanese-Americans had an average life expectancy of 79.7 years - just about the same three-year spread that exists between the populations of the two countries. Similarly, the California Department of Health reports that people of Asian or Pacific Island ethnic origin living in the state and using its health care system have a life expectancy 5.3 years longer (81.2 versus 75.9 years) than white Californians.

Critics of the American health care system who compare life expectancies are comparing apples and oranges. Of the industrialized countries with better life expectancies than the U.S., nearly all have overwhelmingly white populations of European descent. None have large black populations. Unfortunately, black Americans have more health problems and shorter life expectancy (70 years in 1991) than whites. The American population is a mixture of several ethnic groups - some with longer and some with shorter life spans than whites. Pointing to the average distorts the picture significantly

http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba141.html

relaxo

02-01-2005, 05:00 PM

Critics claim that the second-best indicator of the quality of health care is infant mortality. However, the evidence shows that differences in infant mortality frequently reflect differences in genes, lifestyles and environments rather than in the quality of medical care. Data from the California Department of Health Services, for example, show that the average infant mortality rate was 8.6 deaths per 1,000 live births in the 1980s. But Americans of Japanese descent living in California had an infant mortality rate of 4.8 deaths per 1,000 live births through 1989 (the latest data available for these populations), while Chinese had 7.1 deaths, Filipinos 7.8 deaths, Hispanics 7.8 deaths, whites 7.7 deaths and blacks 18.0 deaths per 1,000 live births. Since individuals in the different groups often live in the same communities and use the same hospitals and physicians, the difference clearly is a result of something more than the health care system. The health care policy problem is that some ethnic, geographic and economic groups need better health care. Desegregating the numbers helps illuminate the target populations to whom better health care must be delivered. Using national averages to stigmatize systemwide quality is clearly unjustified.

relaxo

02-01-2005, 05:06 PM

The United States spent 14.9 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on health care in 2002, up from 14.1 in 2001. Only two other countries, Switzerland and Germany, spent as much as 11 percent of their GDP in 2001, the latest year that international statistics were available. Canada was fourth at 9.7 percent of GDP.

relaxo

02-01-2005, 05:12 PM

WARNING!!! ANECDOTE:

Myths abound that Canada’s health care system is a sparkling example of compassion and universal access. Yet in Toronto, an 18-year-old suffering an asthma attack wound up brain dead from lack of oxygen after being turned away from emergency due to a shortage of space for additional patients. Countless testimonials like this and reams of research show that our cruel rationing of care is a disastrous model and should not be duplicated.

Hypnos

02-01-2005, 06:27 PM

I understand your rant about the inefficiencies of Canada's 'great' universal health system. It is in serious need of a overhaul. But, I don't think it's fair to overlook the general benefits. There is nothing like the security of walking into your doctor's office or the emergency room to have your general health issues taken care of, without the worry of having to find the money on the spot to pay for it. I think of low income families under a private health care system who may not have insurance to cover their most basic needs, and find any advanced care out of their financial reach. I would not go as far as saying Canada needs to adopt a private health care system to resolve the issues. Perhaps it should seriously consider studying and learning from more efficiently run systems. Putting more money into the system probably would hellp as well.
* You're assuming that people should have a right to the latest treatments.

* You're assuming that everyone enjoys the security you speak of (with the attendant costs).

* You might want to look at the Swiss model. Every citizen is required to hold health insurance. There's a nationalized infrascture, but anyone can opt out and apply the funds to a private provider. Furthermore, there is a means-tested entitlement to those who can't afford the insurance.

* I think the problem with US healthcare is the 3rd payer model, created due to tax incentives (employers don't have to pay taxes on this benefit to employees, and in some states they are required to provide it). Costs are not properly localized to benefits -- some dude gets morbidly obese, requiring expensive continuing care (e.g., diabetes, heart disease), and everyone else pays. This person should pay higher premiums.

synchronous

02-01-2005, 07:20 PM

* You're assuming that people should have a right to the latest treatments.

What I'm assuming, Hypnos, is that people should have the right to a reasonable level of treatment. I'm not suggesting it be the latest, cutting edge treatment. The MRI wait is just one of many examples of treatments becoming harder to access, in fact, some you would consider fundamental and basic. Relaxo has provided some anecdotes at the beginning of his thread. Many Canadians can report similar, frustrating experiences. In fact, the inefficiencies are reported in Canadian news quite frequently.

* You're assuming that everyone enjoys the security you speak of (with the attendant costs).

What I'm saying, and I can only speak to my experience as a Canadian, is that many Canadians enjoy the security of I speak of, to the point of complacency. I would say many Canadians, on average, spend little time thinking about the true cost of health care. I think Canadians would be surprised and perhaps shocked, what they would have to pay out of pocket without the universal health care safety net. You go to your doctor's office, present your health card, and the rest is taken care of. The physician bills the government and/or insurance compay directly. You rarely get a glimpse at the cost of the health services provided to you.

In contrast, we were handed the bill for the health services provided for my husband's cancer treatment and 1 week stay in the hospital in Vienna a few years back. It cost roughtly $30,000 CDN+. Most of the cost was covered by insurance. We had to pay 10% out of pocket. It was an eye opening experience.

jetboots

02-02-2005, 01:37 AM

canada rocks. ive been to many places. its health care has always worked very well for me and my family.

no matter what system is implemented anywhere, there will always be someone to complain about it.

My take is it is fine, and it is a better system than the U.S. As far as a socialist democracy, Canada is definitly one of the definers of the term. yay for Canada!

Biff_Loman

02-02-2005, 09:44 AM

This whole "privatize health care" thing makes me laugh. C'mon, don't be stupid: just look at the state of things in the U.S., and how many people go without health insurance or who have simply inadequate coverage.

So, you would trade universality of health care so that your mom can get her non-life-threatening ankle injury treated in a timely fashion? LOL - seriously!?

Man, you either 1) are smoking something, or 2) hate the poor. If it's 2), so be it, but shit dude: I love the fact that, no matter how desperate things get with me, financially, I don't have to fear not being treated at all if I get sick or injured.

Yeah, Canada's health care system could be doing better. So, should we throw the whole thing out and privatize it? The idea is, IMO, laughable, unless you're more interested in investing in companies that would provide health care than in, say, health. If you're actually interested in the health of ALL of Canada's citizens - so that everyone can enjoy the benefits of modern medicine and that the middle class person should not fear routine medical procedures due to astronomical costs - public is the only way to go.

If you want to be an elitist asshole who would love to see Sanjay the taxi cab driver in Toronto go without treatment for no particularly good reason - I mean, I can't stop you. That's politics; I can't make you have a social conscience. But, uh, I will gladly wait a while in the emergency room so that Sanjay, one of my fellow CITIZENS, won't have to die at an early age because he never went to the doctor and never learned he was developing heart disease or whatever.

Let's be honest. As a nation, we only have so many resources to go around. Trying to serve everyone stretches the public purse. The alternative, however, is to create a system in which the middle and upper classes hoard health care service. Sure, they might get better service - I'll admit this, they might get better service - but they'll essentially take the money ear-marked for the lower class's health care and divert it to: stockholders. My feeling is that some immigrant fresh off the boat from China is probably going need that public health care more than, say, the stockholder (who would already have health insurance under a private system). And if you would rather not have the poor pose a "drain" on the health care system (despite the statistics that provide evidence that the poor/immigrants do not take full advantage of health care), then you are simply a greedy, greedy bastard who doesn't know how to empathize with the people who share his country.

[edit] Ralph Klein can kiss my ass.

relaxo

02-02-2005, 02:00 PM

This whole "privatize health care" thing makes me laugh. C'mon, don't be stupid: just look at the state of things in the U.S., and how many people go without health insurance or who have simply inadequate coverage.
What was the number? 15% of the population in the USA? So 85% get health care without 15 week waiting times. I don't know man, if you really care about people youhave to make the tough decision, I'll take the 85% getting better healthcare.

By the way, the USA system is not 100% private. The government is involved in the majority of it.

So, you would trade universality of health care so that your mom can get her non-life-threatening ankle injury treated in a timely fashion? LOL - seriously!?
You think it is reasonable waiting 30 hours? Do other nations wait 30 hours to fix broken ankles while they work on more imprtant cases? The answer is no.

Man, you either 1) are smoking something, or 2) hate the poor.

I wish I was smoking something!
I don't hate the poor, I have no opinion about poor people, except that they should try not to be poor.
My desire to have better health care translates to hating the poor?

I love the fact that, no matter how desperate things get with me, financially, I don't have to fear not being treated at all if I get sick or injured.
Well, yes you do actually. You can die before you are treated properly.

Yeah, Canada's health care system could be doing better. So, should we throw the whole thing out and privatize it?

No, I want some privitization. Not the whole system. That can come later... :)

If you're actually interested in the health of ALL of Canada's citizens - so that everyone can enjoy the benefits of modern medicine and that the middle class person should not fear routine medical procedures due to astronomical costs - public is the only way to go.

not our system

Ralph Klein can kiss my ass.
considering his stance on homosexuality, I doubt he will. I suspect he is a closet case though :)

relaxo

02-02-2005, 02:03 PM

As far as a socialist democracy, Canada is definitly one of the definers of the term. yay for Canada!

The World Health Organization ranks us 30th in efficiency and 18th in access amongst the OECD countries.

On an age corrected basis, Canada's health system is the most expensive in the world.

Only Canada and North Korea legally forbid their citizens from using their own funds to supplement their health care needs, through purchasing extra insurance or care.

Strangely, Canada is the only country in which waiting lists increase as more funding is supplied. An OECD study showed that for every $100 of increased funding per capita, wait lists in Canada increased by a week, while they decreased by a week in other countries. Our opinion is that an inherently inefficient monopolistic system, unique to Canada, is responsible for this statistic

relaxo

02-02-2005, 02:32 PM

Someone would have to explain to me how allowing private health care in Canada would be a bad thing.

The good points:

1. freedom to choose
2. less medical profesionals leaving the country
3. public system access to private system if needed
4. reduced usage of the public system resulting in reduced strain on the public system
5. increased medical resources in the nation, leading to more research and innovation
6 if it doesn't work, it can always revert back to 100% public, just as it was done in the first place

Also, someone needs to explain to me how a person with money buying the best health care they can have, is morally wrong or a disservice to poor people.
It is morally wrong to stop a person from trying to access the best they can.

It seems in all of the arguments against privatization, it is all about rich and poor. Nobody seems to care about quality. Some sort of quasi-religious belief that not being poor is bad, how dare you buy something you can afford while others can not (at this present time).

Most European (and Japanese, Australian, New Zealand, Korea) health care systems have better results than Canada. If you don't like the American system, these systems are an alternative. They allow some privitization, and all of their citizens have access to timely high quality health care.
Americans with healthcare have timely access to health care as well.

Canadians do not have timely access and we are also suffering access to quality healthcare equipment.
Waiting list times in Canada are not anecdotes, they are facts.

Biff_Loman

02-02-2005, 02:38 PM

What was the number? 15% of the population in the USA? So 85% get health care without 15 week waiting times. I don't know man, if you really care about people youhave to make the tough decision, I'll take the 85% getting better healthcare.

Those are precisely the people I'm talking about. Those 15%, IMO, make or break the entire system. They can't afford health care - it's ridiculously expensive! So you would deny them these benefits, even though we're a wealthy nation, just so the rest of us can be pampered?

Hey, I know what it's like to wait in an ER. I had a concussion and a broken finger, and it took AGES for attention, even with a head injury (which is a big big big deal). If you would rather have bottom 15% of the population have 1) shitty health care or 2) no health care, that's fine. But I'd rather sit in the ER, concussed and with my finger sticking out the side of hand for hours on end than deny those Canadian citizens the benefits of living in this nation.

Is the system working particularly well right now? Well, the service is damned annoying, but: overall, our standards of health are superior to the U.S. I will get back to you with some stats to this effect shortly (I've just got to talk to a health science student). Of course, things might not be the same if you ignore those in the U.S. without health insurance, but I am not willing to ignore them.

And no, I hate the thought of introducing some privatization. The pressure towards privatization in all government areas is significant, and I'd rather draw the line farther back and than forward.

I think we've got a good thing going, overall, and you'll have to excuse me if I seem a little overzealous. If you'd rather have better service for some rather than mediocre service for all: those are your values, and that is your position. Of course, those who think like me will oppose you on this issue.

relaxo

02-02-2005, 02:39 PM

As for average life span determining how good a medical system is, as melancholeric and mgbradsh like to believe it does:

The WHO cites various causes for why the United States ranks relatively low among wealthy nations. These reasons include:

In the United States, some groups, such as Native Americans, rural African Americans and the inner city poor, have extremely poor health, more characteristic of a poor developing country rather than a rich industrialized one.
The HIV epidemic causes a higher proportion of death and disability to U.S. young and middle-aged than in most other advanced countries. HIV-AIDS cut three months from the healthy life expectancy of male American babies born in 1999, and one month from female lives;
The U.S. is one of the leading countries for cancers relating to tobacco, especially lung cancer Tobacco use also causes chronic lung disease.
A high coronary heart disease rate, which has dropped in recent years but remains high;
Fairly high levels of violence, especially of homicides, when compared to other industrial countries.

Biff_Loman

02-02-2005, 02:45 PM

In the United States, some groups, such as Native Americans, rural African Americans and the inner city poor, have extremely poor health, more characteristic of a poor developing country rather than a rich industrialized one.
The HIV epidemic causes a higher proportion of death and disability to U.S. young and middle-aged than in most other advanced countries. HIV-AIDS cut three months from the healthy life expectancy of male American babies born in 1999, and one month from female lives;
The U.S. is one of the leading countries for cancers relating to tobacco, especially lung cancer Tobacco use also causes chronic lung disease.
A high coronary heart disease rate, which has dropped in recent years but remains high;
Fairly high levels of violence, especially of homicides, when compared to other industrial countries.

Precisely. Those are the people who make a public system necessary, since they almost live outside the larger economic order. Who stands to gain, materially, from treating them? No one. They can't afford doctors and they can't afford health insurance - it is as simple as that. Yes, they should "try not to be poor," but I should also try not to be fat. Yet I am fat.

Naturally, one would hope that loads of money would be spent on education/prevention as well as on actual treatment. I, personally, like the stupid.ca campaign against smoking, and hope we see a LOT more good stuff re: health education in the future.

relaxo

02-02-2005, 02:46 PM

But I'd rather sit in the ER, concussed and with my finger sticking out the side of hand for hours on end than deny those Canadian citizens the benefits of living in this nation.
Right, I don't have a choice.

Is the system working particularly well right now? Well, the service is damned annoying, but: overall, our standards of health are superior to the U.S.

Health, or health care?
Leave the USA out of it then. Every other nation onthe planet has access to private health care to some degree. Is our health care system as good as a wealthy European system?

The issue is health care, not health. Health is determined by many factors already listed throughout the discussion.

And no, I hate the thought of introducing some privatization. The pressure towards privatization in all government areas is significant, and I'd rather draw the line farther back and than forward.

but, other nations have had private care for decades, and they still have 100% public access.
Just because you hate the thought of something doesn't mean you should reject it if the results are better. :)

relaxo

02-02-2005, 02:54 PM

Let me state my position another way and see if it registers with people differently.

Poor people in Canada have bad access to health care. There is no excuse for the waiting times and lack of equipment. France and Sweden's poor people have far superior health care. The main difference seems to be that richer people in those nations can spend their money on some private options, thus reducing the strain on the public system which allows the poor better access. Canada should start to adopt some of the health care practices of these progressive societies so that our poor also have better health care.

Biff_Loman

02-02-2005, 02:57 PM

Relaxo: I will talk to a health science student and try and get some 1) evidence and 2) perspective on your last statement.

If the Europeans are genuinely doing things better than we are, we should seek to learn from them, without question. Don't for a moment think that I am some knee-jerk, mindless supporter of our system. I just see the U.S. as a scary alternative, and have some strong beliefs with respect to the social responsibility of a democratic nation.

cuspuser

02-02-2005, 05:41 PM

I'd be fine with Private health care so long as there is no way to opt-out of paying taxes for the public care, and on top of that any taxes collected by the private sector has to be used for the public.

synchronous

02-02-2005, 07:56 PM

relaxo

02-02-2005, 09:21 PM

relaxo

02-02-2005, 09:47 PM

Relaxo, I invite you to read this Harvard Study Release. You might feel better about our national health care system, despite its inefficiencies.

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=42456

that is pretty crappy!
There are a couple of points I can discard though.

1. Canadians can go bankrupt from having time off work as well due to illness (not from medical bills however)

2. they say they "waste" 1/3 of every health care dollar on insurance bureaucracy and profits. Profts are not a waste, they are an incentive for a better system. Canada also wastes money on government insurance bureaucracy.
If this 1/3 number is true, does that mean I can assume the real cost of US health care is actually 1/3 lower than the 14.9% of GDP? That would put it at 10% of GDP. Since there are no "profits" in Canada, and America already has a huge government medical bureaucracy, the numbers are pretty close (9.7% for Canada). And Americans still has better health care.

3. Uncovered medical bills averaged $13,460 for those with private insurance at the start of their illness. People with cancer had average medical debts of $35,878
Don't forget, the average American, according to PPP GDP pr capita, makes $8000 more PER YEAR than a Canadian. If we had access to that amount of money our system could be much better, and a bill of $13 to $36K financed by debt is not much of a burden if you've been saving money for emergencies.

The American system has tons of government involvment I have discovered through reading. What a mess. It's sounding more and more like it is government involvment in the USA is causing most of the problems.

I wish it made me feel better about our system, but reading the article just makes me feel worse about America's system and I still think our sytem sucks.

relaxo

02-02-2005, 10:00 PM

I wonder what doctors, nurses and medical professionals think?

I mean, we all scream we have a right to health care. Then we pass laws telling those who are supposed to treat us what they can do, how much they can make, etc...I wonder if they get fed up and angry?

Some stupid famous( I forget who) Canadian said something about not trusting a doctor who was only interested in money to do the minimum medical treatment. (i.e doing unnecessary treatments)
I think I fear more the doctor who is pissed off that he is not paid well and told what to do by people who scream for their rights to his/her services.

What happens if doctors and nurses say, nah, I quit, you try and take care of yourself if you're so smart. Your apparent rights are now, aparrently gone.

I wonder if that isn't what is happening right now in Canada? We do sepnd a lot of money, 4th in the world. How can our system be so bad? Maybe our providers are slacking off a bit on purpose to make a point?

relaxo

02-02-2005, 10:11 PM

I think many Canadians don't know much about the American system. I don't.
They just "know" it's bad somehow and that the government doesn't do enough.

The new year begins as employees begin a process called open enrollment--when many employees designate a health plan through their employer.
... most are forced to enroll in a managed care plan, i.e., an HMO or PPO.

From their beginnings, HMOs were designed--by Democrats and Republicans--to eliminate individual health insurance. The result is a vast network of health care collectives (HMOs, PPOs, Point-of-Service plans) created by government...

The individual was first discouraged from buying insurance in 1942 when employee health premiums were made tax deductible to employers--not to individuals. Congress created Medicare in 1965, making individual insurance for those over 65 obsolete. Subsidized, unrestricted health care for seniors...

President Nixon ... proposed the HMO Act, which Congress passed in 1973. The law created new, supposedly cheaper health coverage with millions of dollars to HMOs, which, until then, constituted a small portion of the market. Kaiser Permanente was the only major HMO in the country by 1969 and most of its members were compelled to join through unions.

Combined with Medicare, the HMO Act eventually eliminated the market for affordable individual health insurance.

The new managed care plans mushroomed with federal subsidies. Employers perceived managed care as less expensive than individual insurance and stopped offering a choice of plans, making insurance more expensive for the individual

Under managed care, if the patient gets sick, he or she may wander the maze of managed
bureaucracy, be treated, or, languish in pain awaiting treatment. The patient may also be refused treatment and die.

Premiums under managed care do not pay for an insured contract for medical care decided between the patient and the physician--premiums pay for the management of care, i.e., health maintenance, by a third party.

Unrestricted free choice in medicine--health insurance chosen, provided and paid for by the individual--has practically vanished.

cuspuser

02-03-2005, 03:25 AM

You forgot to ask for the first born child as well. :devil:

Well, assuming its the elite who would be using privatized healthcare it would be impossible to take their tax dollars out of the system without everyone elses standard of care going down - and as a private commodity you can only expect it to be taxed - this tax should be used for the public sector, it only makes sense. no one would be forcing anyone to use the public sector - thus you'd only do it if you could afford it and you'd know the price going in, if many people started to use it then it would be possible to eventually reduce the money needed to fund the public sector, or the public sector may improve to a point where people will want to use the public sector as much as the private, the new load would then push them back to the private sector creating a balance of care, and increasing the quality available to all people - not only those that can afford it. this should be our goal.

if you want people to be healthy enough to have first born children you can't go taking funds away from those who need it most (wishes he knew all the fancy emoticons =P)

the problem with the other suggestion, however, is that if/when the conservatives get back into power, they would cut the public sector to nothing ... which is why there is so much contention surrounding the private system now. plus we've seen privatization come back and bite us in the ass too many times, even in my life time ... hiways, power, oil, these decisions are ones that even when bad, cannot be undone.

relaxo

02-05-2005, 03:05 PM

Well, assuming its the elite who would be using privatized healthcare

assuming indeed, and "elite"? You mean people who make a lot of money I assume. I didn't know they were the elite of society.

it would be impossible to take their tax dollars out of the system without everyone elses standard of care going down

wrong, waiting list times would drop, other people's care would go up

- and as a private commodity you can only expect it to be taxed -

yes, agreed

it would be possible to eventually reduce the money needed to fund the public sector,

that will never happen. Health care can always have more and more money thrown at it, there is no end.

the problem with the other suggestion, however, is that if/when the conservatives get back into power, they would cut the public sector to nothing ...

huh?!?!?! Conservatives in Ontario were the ones who increased the funding, it was the (elite :smooch: ) federal Liberal government that made all of the cuts. It is the current provincial liberal government that is cutting nurses.
check your head for bias :)

plus we've seen privatization come back and bite us in the ass too many times, even in my life time ... hiways, power, oil, these decisions are ones that even when bad, cannot be undone.
They can't be undone? How were they "done" in the first place?

relaxo

02-05-2005, 03:10 PM

now Doctors are getting in on the politics! even they admit it sucks!

http://www.supportourdocs.ca/

"Delays in treatment are having a negative effect on the health of Ontarians.

Eight out of ten family doctors have difficulty finding a specialist to treat their patients.

Nearly one quarter of Ontario doctors report sending patients out-of-province for care, treatment or diagnostic tests.

Ontario's doctors have solutions to long wait lists. Strategies to ensure you won't have to wait months for urgent tests or ever be without a doctor when you need one.

The Ontario government must accept responsibility for long wait lists and cooperate with doctors to fix our health care system. "

Apparently the liberal government in Ontario is spending 120 million on new MIR equipment. Have to see if that will reduce waiting times for MIR use.

sbw

02-05-2005, 03:29 PM

I didn't read all the posts, but the only thing I've heard about canadian health care is that all sufficiently-wealthy canadians come across the border into the U.S. and pay for operations rather than wait months and months. As with all things socialist, sounds like a crap system to me.

Scott

Star

02-05-2005, 04:12 PM

The other side of that issue : all the American senior citizens running to Canadian pharmacies to have their prescriptions filled. Or is that finally a crime? Sounds like a crap system to me. :)

relaxo

02-05-2005, 07:41 PM

The other side of that issue : all the American senior citizens running to Canadian pharmacies to have their prescriptions filled. Or is that finally a crime? Sounds like a crap system to me. :)

In my province prescription drugs are not coveraged by government (unless you apply at age 65 and pay a premium).
I believe the Canadian government somehow regulates the price of drugs though.

I encourage all Americans to come to Canada and buy our drugs at a cheaper price!

cuspuser

02-05-2005, 08:37 PM

assuming indeed, and "elite"? You mean people who make a lot of money I assume. I didn't know they were the elite of society.

yes, in this case what i mean by elite is the wealthy.

Quote:
it would be impossible to take their tax dollars out of the system without everyone elses standard of care going down

wrong, waiting list times would drop, other people's care would go up

wrong-waiting times wouldn't drop nearly enough to make up for the funds being taken out of the system if the people who opted out no longer had to pay for public healthcare as well - even if it is a flat rate rather than a percentage (which makes absolutely no sense considering we have a graduated tax system in canada) the best thing you could hope for is the status quo for whose left in the system, which according to you isn't good enough as it is.

Quote:
it would be possible to eventually reduce the money needed to fund the public sector,

that will never happen. Health care can always have more and more money thrown at it, there is no end.

in which case there was also the OR option which would probably be more likely, at which point those who opted out for private care would likely come back to the private system if it really got that good.

Quote:
the problem with the other suggestion, however, is that if/when the conservatives get back into power, they would cut the public sector to nothing ...

huh?!?!?! Conservatives in Ontario were the ones who increased the funding, it was the (elite ) federal Liberal government that made all of the cuts. It is the current provincial liberal government that is cutting nurses.
check your head for bias

the liberals have also made cuts to a fully public system but i don't see where you make the assumption that Conservatives in Ontario put any money back into the system, i'll use this link because i don't have any of the newspapers left from the "Common Sense Revolution" ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mike_Harris

anyways what was taken out/put in to a 100% public system was hardly my point - this related back to having a two tiered system, do you really think that the conservatives would put more money into the public sector for healthcare than liberals would if there was a two tiered system? especially when you consider that it is the conservatives that want the two tiered system in the first place? (at least without deficit spending) that just seems like an odd claim. you should also check your head for bias ... especially considering that you are supporting a position of zero public healthcare.

i have happened to notice that Conservatives like to privatize things, its not too hard to figure out, they do it every time they are in power, and i personally don't like that method, they want to have government assets in the hands of business, which would mean that if we do put a two tiered system into place the public tier would get less funding - the fact is the people who would vote for the conservatives would also find this to be the optimal choice, or at least those who have noticed trends throughout there life, others are just naive. another far out observation, conservatives believe in trickle down economics, i also don't believe this works - which has led to deficit spending because the tax money doesn't come rolling in, if you didn't happen to notice the ontario conservatives left the province with huge deficits ...

the liberals obviously haven't done an optimal job either, but at least they seem to keep a balanced budget when they do make their cuts, and if we are able to keep our debt payments low, or at least not increase the debt over time this will continue to give us more money to spend on services instead of putting money down on interest payments for the debt. notice interest payments (not debt payments) this is what we *have* to pay each year no exceptions.

Quote:
plus we've seen privatization come back and bite us in the ass too many times, even in my life time ... hiways, power, oil, these decisions are ones that even when bad, cannot be undone.

They can't be undone? How were they "done" in the first place?

they were done in the first place because the government was necessary to get the respective industries going when they weren't profitable, or impossible to create an infrastructure by the business community, or needed for regulatory purposes or to keep costs down, or to provide necessary services.

lets take ontario hydro as an example, the province owned all of the infrastructure, once you sell that off there is no going back, it is now in the hands of the private sector, unless of course you think it would make any sense for the government to go around buying back what they sold for a premium? this has lead the government to try to regulate electricy prices because its gotten out of hand.

Another example is selling off the 407 to private investors, the 407 was supposed to be a toll hiway at cost to keep up its maintence, but now that it is in private hands the cost is totally out of control.

tho, i'm not as concerned with the 407 because it isn't what i'd call an essential service, i can take another hiway to get where i need to go.

another example is petro canada which was supposed to be there to protect us from high inflation of gas prices, and price setting, now its typically the highest priced gas in my area ... the majority of which was sold off by the conservatives (the last few percent being sold off by the liberals - whats the point of having any shares if you don't have controlling stake for a crown corporation, its no longer achieving the goal you had set out to do), because thats their ideology ... i have enough friends that try to tell me this is the right thing to do, to know where people stand.

and its not just about the people who are paying 600-900 dollars in taxes a month in taxes for healthcare, but for those that are below the poverty line and paying next to nothing, they have as much right to health care as anyone else does ... and these are the people who'd get hurt by privatizing healthcare, this would create a whole bunch of other spin off problems

giftedmadness@hotmail.com

02-07-2005, 04:05 AM

My personal experience with it, plus my parents experience with private health care in the USA (most of their doctors are ex-Canadian) leads me to warn Americans not to destroy your private system.

We are destroying our system, it's just a slower process due to Medicare and Medicaid.

giftedmadness@hotmail.com

02-07-2005, 04:26 AM

It's hard to fathom how one of the richest countries in the world can't meet the basic needs of every single one of it's citizens.

Haha, that one made me laugh. Maybe you don't have an understanding of what the United States of America is built upon. If this was a collective country, a socialist country, then yes, that would be hard to fathom. But we are a country of individuals, with each individual the end result of his work and life. His life isn't lived to support the state or other citizens.

Miss Anthropic

02-07-2005, 09:11 AM

Haha, that one made me laugh. Maybe you don't have an understanding of what the United States of America is built upon. If this was a collective country, a socialist country, then yes, that would be hard to fathom. But we are a country of individuals, with each individual the end result of his work and life. His life isn't lived to support the state or other citizens.
Yeah, the double-edged sword...some of the things that makes the U.S a really awesome place are the same things that makes it the worst place. Capitalism. It doesn't help that the disparity in wealth is at its greatest since the days of the Robber Barons at the turn of the century. On the other hand, to be poor here as far as material goods go this is probably the best place to be. Material goods such as clothing, electronics, cars are available (affordable)for pretty much everyone. It is the important stuff like health care that isn't affordable to everyone. At this point in my life ( temporarily I hope!) I am in one of the lowest income brackets--and despite what relaxo says, that's not $38,000 a year! Yet I own (am purchasing) my own home, I have a car....it's getting rather old, but its an Acura, so it can handle the miles.....I have every thing I could possibly need. I think about countries where running water and indoor plumbing is a luxury. We really don't have much to complain about...except President Bush and his affiliates!

mgb

02-08-2005, 07:25 PM

MacGuffin

02-08-2005, 08:09 PM

It's actually pretty sad and pathetic. It's almost like you live in a country of filthy animals, clamouring for whatever piece of meat you can get off the carcass that is your economy.
Now, now. Let's not forget that some of the biggest beneficiaries/leeches of the U.S. economy are Canadians.

We MADE this continent! [/jingoism]

crule81

02-08-2005, 08:22 PM

And thanks to our benevolent hegemony, you can still call yourself Canadians. [/jingoism]

For an alternative, check out Harry Turtledove's "Great War" series for some alternate history.

sbw

02-08-2005, 09:43 PM

Yeah, the double-edged sword...some of the things that makes the U.S a really awesome place are the same things that makes it the worst place. Capitalism.

Miss (love the name, btw), IT AIN'T CAPITALISM'S FAULT!

Capitalism results in income disparities only because within humans exist talent disparities, ambition disparities, responsibility disparities, financial acumen disparities, self-control-to-not-knock-somebody-up disparities, etc. The declaration of independence states that "all men are created equal." Since this statement is obviously untrue in a specific and limited sense (i.e. some men are taller than me while some are shorter, some are smarter than me while some are dumber, etc.), this has been understood from the outset to mean equality of OPPORTUNITY. I would imagine that a child born into middle- to- lower-middle class existence (like me) has MORE opportunity for success and accumulation of wealth than such a person born into any other society in the history of earth. Virtually all who are broke in america (I like to use the word "broke", because, as you correctly stated, even the "poor" people tend to have a structure in which to sleep, and some food) have only themselves to blame.

Economist Walter Williams (who is AWESOME!!!) describes a "roadmap" out of poverty as follows: "Complete high school; get a job, any kind of a job; get married before having children; and be a law-abiding citizen. Among both black and white Americans so described, the poverty rate is in the single digits." AMEN.

Scott

mgb

02-08-2005, 10:33 PM

giftedmadness@hotmail.com

02-09-2005, 03:34 AM

It's actually pretty sad and pathetic. It's almost like you live in a country of filthy animals, clamouring for whatever piece of meat you can get off the carcass that is your economy.

Holy moly, I didn't realize people like this were around still. Well, I'm pretty naive, but who resurrected Lenin?

mgb

02-09-2005, 03:51 AM

Holy moly, I didn't realize people like this were around still. Well, I'm pretty naive, but who resurrected Lenin?

Wow, Lenin. *staggers backwards at giftedmadness@hotmail.com's originality*

Hey, umm, what is the budget and debt of the US at these days? I wonder where all that money is going? Tax rebates I suppose.

sbw

02-09-2005, 01:13 PM

Wow, Lenin. *staggers backwards at giftedmadness@hotmail.com's originality*

Hey, umm, what is the budget and debt of the US at these days? I wonder where all that money is going? Tax rebates I suppose.

The budget of the U. S. federal government is out of control primarily because we are ignoring the constitution and thus allowing the politicians to whore for the special interest groups and their constituencies (estimated 50-70% of federal programs are NOT within the enumerated rights of the federal government; it's the tyranny of the majority they warned us about).

Individual consumer debt in america is the highest of any society in the history of earth primarily because the federal reserve has been hyper-accomodating to debt accrual via absurdly low interest rates. Oh, and "pimp my ride" makes everyone want to have blingin' rims on their cars (accounting for roughly 30% of our GDP).

Scott

sbw

02-09-2005, 01:15 PM

Wow, that sounds so easy. I wonder why it doesn't happen that way as often as we think it should?

Just cuz people are fuck-ups. Oh, and cancer and stuff. Why CAN'T it be as simple as that?

Scott

p. s. and mg, I didn't read all of the posts in this thread (so as to ascertain some insight regarding your political views), so I have no idea whether or not you were being sarcastic.

mgb

02-09-2005, 06:33 PM

Just cuz people are fuck-ups. Oh, and cancer and stuff. Why CAN'T it be as simple as that?

Scott

p. s. and mg, I didn't read all of the posts in this thread (so as to ascertain some insight regarding your political views), so I have no idea whether or not you were being sarcastic.

Not being sarcastic on this one.

The road map is waaaayyyy to simple. I would say that it's pretty hard to finish high school if you don't have food to eat, for example. Or, you have to join a gang because you get tired of getting the hell beat out of you everyday on the way to school. The road map sounds great on paper, but when applied to the areas that need a road map the most, I don't think it holds up because so many other parts of the system are failing.

Claverhouse

02-09-2005, 07:31 PM

Miss (love the name, btw), IT AIN'T CAPITALISM'S FAULT!

Economist Walter Williams (who is AWESOME!!!) describes a "roadmap" out of poverty as follows: "Complete high school; get a job, any kind of a job; get married before having children; and be a law-abiding citizen. Among both black and white Americans so described, the poverty rate is in the single digits." AMEN.

ScottWow, that sounds so easy. I wonder why it doesn't happen that way as often as we think it should?
Actually, there is a better roadmap: Be born into the 1% of people who own 38% of the United States; attend and graduate from the schools and colleges they send you to; take a job, any kind of job, they arrange in the companies they own; marry someone twice as wealthy as yourself; inherit money from family members; never spend from capital; be law-abiding and minimise taxes and out-payments for work through any legal means possible; support the democratic process by helping your politicians with generous gifts; never pay for lunch ( unless tax-deductible ), instead subsist on the remnants of sandwiches left by brown-baggers in the park. Among both black and white Americans so described, the poverty rate is in the nought digits.

And for those who failed one or more of these steps to happiness the University of Waco has a correspondence course for MBAs only guiding the future perplexed for when one's entire investments for retirement have gone belly-up in the next big crash or even if one diversified one's portfolio between Energy ( Enron ) & Technology ( Dotcom ): 'Beat that Old Depression with a Song'

Module 1. Selling Apples --- Making sure they are not shriveled old crab-apples before you invest.
Module 2. Bootlaces: Find the Right Tray. Make the Right Impression.
Module 3. Finding A Home for the Night --- Expose Yourself in Public.

Claverhouse :ph34r:

sbw

02-09-2005, 09:44 PM

Actually, there is a better roadmap: Be born into the 1% of people who own 38% of the United States;

My family was on food stamps when I was 10 or so. (just in case it's an unfamiliar term in other nations, food stamps = dole = poor.) I dropped out of college. I'm 24. And I have plenty of money. I've even invested some of this money in rental properties, which makes me wonder: who SHOULD own the land? Poor people who have no means to pay for it? You very well may be a socialist and therefore not believe in property rights. Many people feel this way; my opinion is that socialism is untenable. I think that human history has repeatedly supported my opinion. For instance, my distinct impression is that "poor" americans have a higher "quality of life" than all cubans save for a few who work for castro.

Most of the wealthy and successful people I've met have been flat-broke at some point in their lives: usually during childhood (i.e., when their parents are in charge of that sort of thing) or early adulthood. The smart, responsible ones among us just don't stay there.

Also, while I agree with the mainstream-euro viewpoint that George Bush is a lying, theocrat half-wit, I would imagine that they distort the specifics of the american economy. You should come check it out sometime; it truly is the land of opportunity.

Scott

Claverhouse

02-10-2005, 02:32 AM

My family was on food stamps when I was 10 or so. (just in case it's an unfamiliar term in other nations, food stamps = dole = poor.)
We know what food stamps are. The egregious ( and unspeakable ) Michael Moore has a little fit in one of his books about when he discovered the airline pilot on a plane he was embarking on got so small a wage he qualified for these useful additions.

But bearing in mind your present views, don't you think it was wrong that your family accepted these diabolical emblems of statist welfare, and they should have proudly starved to death rather than take hand-outs ?

I don't, but I'm a Bismarckian and Otto practically started the welfare state.

I dropped out of college. I'm 24. And I have plenty of money. I've even invested some of this money in rental properties, which makes me wonder: who SHOULD own the land? Poor people who have no means to pay for it?
Not necessarily, but I consider that the evils of eventual concentration into the hands of the very few offer a worse alternative. In Britain it used to be that a small group of ( super ) aristocrats, by virtue of wealth rather than noble descent owned individually much of the land. EG one little chap owned 50.000 acres whereas the battered masses had individually virtually no prospect of ever owning twenty square feet. This has been replaced by corporations taking the place of aristos. The situation is still worse in many parts of Latin America even to this day. Land reform and redistribution has been a constant of revolutionary/political appeal since Roman times. Even though I feel that I would be an excellent person to own half the known world, I would be willing to forgo this if there was some mechanism for limiting the amount an individual can hold.

If only because the best exponents of capitalism, the self-made achievers: the Oligarchs of the Russian Federation and in your country Mr. Gates do not seem wholly charming specimens of humanity.

You very well may be a socialist and therefore not believe in property rights.
No, no, no. no, no. I detest socialism. Because it is a form of democracy. As a monarchist I loathe the egalitarian principle, however capitalism is as much a creature and expression of the enemy Liberalism as any other of it's daughters, including socialism, nazism and communism. Nonetheless I adhere to state control and socialist methods where necessary, as in Prussian Socialism and Benevolent Despotism. It would be impossible to run any large country without socialist planning in the modern age. And not even George W. Bush would try.

However, our political views are so opposed, including the fact that I neither believe anyone ever 'deserves' anything whether wealth through achievement or the extremes of unstate-relieved poverty and death through their lack of achievement, there's no point in arguing.

Many people feel this way; my opinion is that socialism is untenable. I think that human history has repeatedly supported my opinion. For instance, my distinct impression is that "poor" americans have a higher "quality of life" than all cubans save for a few who work for castro.
Some may, or they may not. Child mortality in parts of Harlem are even now worse than in the awful African countries. Further, although not communist-inclined ever, as with those missionaries who went to die in parts of the world just to save souls, communists gain an enormous amount of satisfaction and spiritual pride merely from taking part in the movement, so sometimes a poorer people can be happier than another richer people whose wealth cannot compensate for the sense of bleak grey futility ingrained in their pointless existences.

Most of the wealthy and successful people I've met have been flat-broke at some point in their lives: usually during childhood (i.e., when their parents are in charge of that sort of thing) or early adulthood. The smart, responsible ones among us just don't stay there.
Doesn't alter the fact that the very richest, and the people liable to stay in that position, are there due to the fact that they were born that way. And good luck to them, it's scarcely their fault some old rascal of an ancestor did some rough stuff on Wall Street a century or so back: but, it runs counter to wealth being a form of achievement for them.

[ If you ever find any books by Ferdinand Lundberg, they're pretty funny on this aspect of economic life ]

Also, while I agree with the mainstream-euro viewpoint that George Bush is a lying, theocrat half-wit, I would imagine that they distort the specifics of the american economy. You should come check it out sometime; it truly is the land of opportunity.
For a moment I felt like defending George Bush... But no thanks, I've no interest in America other than it's authors, a deep detestation of it's political structure and a distrust of it's immense capacity for self-delusion in history [ being almost libertarian in some ways... ]; but I don't even vaguely dislike the people ( well, I probably would individually to exactly the same amount as I'd dislike certain proportions in all lands ) and don't start saying we hate America because we envy her, as Americans in most forums say. We do neither: someone's got to be the super-power at any period.

As for the economy, and opportunity, ever read 'Fast Food Nation' ? And before that, 'The Jungle' ? Life doesn't always offer out the same chances.

:)

Claverhouse :ph34r:

sbw

02-10-2005, 01:11 PM

However, our political views are so opposed, including the fact that I neither believe anyone ever 'deserves' anything whether wealth through achievement or the extremes of unstate-relieved poverty and death through their lack of achievement, there's no point in arguing.

If you don't believe that any person has a sovereign right to the fruits of their achievement, then you are correct in assessing that we have little common ground for discussion. (I feel like I'm on "punk'd", to be honest. Monarchist? Like, seriously?)

As to the first snide comment, I was a little kid, so rejecting food stamps wasn't really an option, nor was I familiar with the, umm (about to sound pretentious), philosophical ramifications of food stamps.

What ya gotta realize, man, is that even the broke people--except those at the very bottom, but there is ALWAYS going to be a poverty class in ANY society EVER--have it pretty good (i. e. a house, 2 cars, and 3 tv's, all while on welfare). And the reason for all that wealth is ever-increasing productivity which results from the entrepreneurial activities of liberal capitalism. People are not going to build a better mousetrap if building it is not going to benefit them. (Why would they?) We incentivize mousetraps here.

I'll leave you with this: "The standard of living of the common man is higher in those countries which have the greatest number of wealthy entrepreneurs." (Ludwig von Mises)

Scott

MacGuffin

02-10-2005, 02:26 PM

Doesn't alter the fact that the very richest, and the people liable to stay in that position, are there due to the fact that they were born that way. And good luck to them, it's scarcely their fault some old rascal of an ancestor did some rough stuff on Wall Street a century or so back: but, it runs counter to wealth being a form of achievement for them.
Sorry, but you are wrong

Forbes 400 Richest Top ten:

1. $48 billion Gates, William Henry III
2. $41.0 Buffett, Warren Edward
3. $20.0 Allen, Paul Gardner
4. $18.0 Walton, Alice L
4. $18.0 Walton, Helen R
4. $18.0 Walton, Jim C
4. $18.0 Walton, John T
4. $18.0 Walton, S Robson
9. $14.2 Dell, Michael
10. $13.7 Ellison, Lawrence Joseph

Only the Waltons inherited their wealth. And that company, Wal-mart, was started in 1962, hardly "Wall Street a century or so back".

I don't see any Rockefellers or Morgans on the list.

In total, 39 percent of the 400 inherited at least some of their wealth, the rest were self made.

mgb

02-10-2005, 02:32 PM

Sorry, but you are wrong

Forbes 400 Richest Top ten:

1. $48 billion Gates, William Henry III
2. $41.0 Buffett, Warren Edward
3. $20.0 Allen, Paul Gardner
4. $18.0 Walton, Alice L
4. $18.0 Walton, Helen R
4. $18.0 Walton, Jim C
4. $18.0 Walton, John T
4. $18.0 Walton, S Robson
9. $14.2 Dell, Michael
10. $13.7 Ellison, Lawrence Joseph

Only the Waltons inherited their wealth. And that company, Wal-mart, was started in 1962, hardly "Wall Street a century or so back".

I don't see any Rockefellers or Morgans on the list.

In total, 39 percent of the 400 inherited at least some of their wealth, the rest were self made.

Bill Gates came from a pretty upper middle class family at very least. Just saying. And that isn't the top one percent of rich people in the US, it's the top .00000033%

Think more like Forbes 3,000,000.

sbw

02-10-2005, 03:08 PM

mgb

02-10-2005, 03:29 PM

thank you macguffin for providing that supporting evidence. And mgbradsh, "upper middle class" is not the same thing as the aristocracy of wealth that claver was referring to; there are literally millions of americans that could accurately be described as "upper middle class." Speaking of claver, he referred to "the very richest"; he didn't specifically address the top 1%, and I would think that "top 1%" and "top .0000033%" would both qualify as definitions of "the very richest." Again, thanks to macguffin for providing that list, and pointing out that those people achieved rather than inherited. And for the wal-mart ones who did inherit, I believe that sam walton (i.e. the guy who gave them that money) started his company from nothin'. Again, entrepreneurial spirit is like, important, and stuff.

Scott

For Bill Gates, I said "at very least" and "just saying", implying both of the things you mentioned without having to spell them out.

In Claverhouse's example, he specifically mentioned the top 1% who owned 38% of the United States. The sample here, while very rich, is not large enough to have the measurable effects on society that Claverhouse was indicating. He wasn't talking about 20 or 30 kids living a life of luxury, but 6 to 9 million. That will have a much more measurable effect on an economy.

Sam Walton did make the money. When he died it was inhereted by his family who are now all rich. Not entreprenurial.

sbw

02-10-2005, 04:15 PM

You're right about claver's example (I didn't read back far enough)...and I was saying that as to the walmart people, even though they inherited the money, their dad CREATED the money (i.e., he himself did not inherit wealth, so far as I know).

Scott

MacGuffin

02-10-2005, 06:52 PM

I just used Forbes because it was recent and easy to find.

The best thing I could find on the top 1% uses older data:

U.S. Trust Corporation surveyed the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans and found that inheritances were a significant source of wealth for only 10 percent of respondents. Earnings from a privately owned business were the dominant source of wealth (46 percent), followed by earnings from corporate employment (33 percent) and earnings from a professional practice (29 percent).
http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s235/s235.html

I don't know how many inherited privately owned businesses, but you don't inherit corporate employment or professional practices.

Dman

02-10-2005, 08:30 PM

I’m not following where the discussion is going. So, it’s bad to accumulate wealth, bad to then pass on that wealth to your family, bad to accept food stamps?

What are the alternatives? No one should accumulate too much wealth? Who defines what too much wealth is? No one should pass on any wealth to their families? How could that even work – there is an infinite amount of ways to pass on wealth to your family. I understand the dangers of wealth concentration, but I am unaware of how to prevent it. I would venture to say that as long as the wealthy are bringing the rest of the masses along with them (i.e. higher standard of living), that beats any alternative.

mgb

02-10-2005, 08:36 PM

Dman

02-11-2005, 08:27 PM

I did read Claver’s post, and now I’m Really Confused. He seems to be despising a system of being born into wealth, yet claims he’s a monarchist – which is a system of people essentially being born into wealth. And no one deserves anything, including the opportunity to make their life more bearable? Under this logic, why would a ruling member of the monarchy “deserve” to be in power? Shouldn’t anyone be able to be in power?

If I understand correctly, which I hope I don’t, he would prefer a system where individualism is oppressed, as well as any opportunity to express freedom of will. The Monarchist system goes counter to human instinct, which is why there are very few such systems left in the world that exercise any real authority.

It appears to me that he’s trying to make a point against capitalism by pointing out the flaws inherent in the existing forms of it. However, I still don’t see compelling evidence of a viable alternative, other than those that sacrifice individual human rights for all people in order to prevent the minority of people from making poor choices.

I had a friend in high school who once said “In America, people have the freedom to be poor”.

Claverhouse

02-11-2005, 11:13 PM

If you don't believe that any person has a sovereign right to the fruits of their achievement, then you are correct in assessing that we have little common ground for discussion. (I feel like I'm on "punk'd", to be honest. Monarchist? Like, seriously?) What on earth is a 'right' ? I have the right not to have Turks come and slit my throat: it wouldn't protect me in the least in real life, nor has it ever done much good to many thousands... Not even one thousandth as much as a nice gun.

But even imagining that effort and toil are somehow commensurated justly, and that some avaricious old bastard like Rockefeller I 'earned' the wealth he undoubtedly achieved, and that the equal toil expended by one of his --- perhaps less intelligent, but equally worthy --- diggers was justly rewarded by a pauper's grave: it would be strange to maintain that one has an inalienable right to hold on to one's possessions whilst no right exists in nature of others to lead a life above squalid poverty and starvation. Whether or not they deserve it. Merely because of the nature of all living things to survive and exercise the will to live.

Yes, monarchist. Really. But to me it is impossible to imagine any sane person acclaiming either the degrading belief in democracy or the other alternative of some repulsive oligarchy. Republics only come in those two flavours. And it's always the last, sometimes masquerading as the first.

As to the first snide comment, I was a little kid, so rejecting food stamps wasn't really an option, nor was I familiar with the, umm (about to sound pretentious), philosophical ramifications of food stamps. Not even faintly snide. You have stated emphatically that you do not see any reason or goodness in Welfare or even a minimum wage ( how low would you conceive a wage should go ? There has to be some limit ), therefore if your family received food stamps, which no doubt did help bring you to this moment in life and not catch illnesses due to malnuitrition, no-one would expect that you should have rejected it then, being young 'n all; but you could say now that because of your libertarian capitalist views you now believe they were wrong to do so. If not, why not ?

What ya gotta realize, man, is that even the broke people--except those at the very bottom, but there is ALWAYS going to be a poverty class in ANY society EVER--have it pretty good (i. e. a house, 2 cars, and 3 tv's, all while on welfare). Actually the folk in Fast Food Nation didn't have some of these things, and I daresay there may be a few others, hard-working too, in America who also lack a couple or more. But that's no doubt left-liberal propaganda.

And the reason for all that wealth is ever-increasing productivity which results from the entrepreneurial activities of liberal capitalism. People are not going to build a better mousetrap if building it is not going to benefit them. (Why would they?) We incentivize mousetraps here. Most inventors have invented for other reasons than reward, like artists. And there are other incentives; why else would people become sometimes poorly paid teachers and medics, helping the poor and diseased for very little money ? [ And no, I don't share this impulse either. ]

I'll leave you with this: "The standard of living of the common man is higher in those countries which have the greatest number of wealthy entrepreneurs." (Ludwig von Mises)

Scott I'll respond with this from an article on Baron Evola:

'Oswald Spengler alerted Evola to the fundamental decadence of modernity, despite its boasts about “progress” and “the advances of science.” From Spengler he learned that it is a sure sign of corruption of the body politic when the economy wins the upper hand. He agreed with Spengler’s analysis of the onslaught of money against the spiritual in Western culture: “Only high finance is completely free, completely unsusceptible to attack. Since 1789, the banks and thus the stock exchanges have come into their own as a power, feeding off the credit needs of an industry growing into monstrous proportions. Now they, and money, want to be the sole power in all civilizations.”'

Claverhouse :ph34r:

Claverhouse

02-12-2005, 02:46 AM

Just now the Misanthropic Bitch introduced by Utopmk in that eponymous thread (http://www.intpcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=525)has reappeared with an email which touches on some of these points:

Can you believe that this year marks the 8th anniversary of my site?
Oh, how I've grown in that time: from a bitter 18-year-old college student to a bitter almost-26-year-old middle-class peon.

But thank God, the horrible layout of my site has stayed the same. Everyone needs a little consistency in their lives.

Sadly, I'm teetering on the brink of apathy, knowing that almost any article will end with, "Americans are complacent idiots who never learned about civics, and they'll let the government and big business roll over them as long as the equity in their houses increases enough annually to pull some out for a trip to Vegas." And don't you know, it's all the fault of the liberal media, who just won't give conservatives a break....

Liberals do not control the media. Corporations control the media. And corporations don't want to bite the hand that feeds them -- regardless of the political affiliation of their master...

While Bill Clinton's actions encouraged Americans to lie about engaging in oral sex and killing former business partners, the Bush administration has taken arrogantly lying and shirking of accountability to new levels. It's so blatant and out there, even I can do little more than shake my head in amazement. They've proven that personal responsibility is irrelevant as long as you can convince enough people that it doesn't matter and that somehow, it's part of a conspiracy spearheaded by a group that hasn't been the majority in a decade.

My late grandmother -- a 5'10, German corrections officer
(unfortunately, not as hot of an image as one would imagine) -- used to say, "You can't change things you're prepared to tolerate." And unfortunately, Americans are prepared to tolerate a lot of shit and along the way, hope someone else will have the balls to stand up to the baseless cries of "Obstructionist!"

Politicians are not your friends, people. They are not on your side. They are not your buddy. They don't care if you starve to death in the street, as long as they get re-elected. The T-shirts don't say "Question authority unless your team wins." Because you're not part of the team. You're a pawn.

Before the 2004 presidential election, members and supporters of a wide spectrum of political parties wrote to me in agreement with concern over the country's direction. As a libertarian, I have a slight problem with the curtailing of civil liberties and privacy under the guise of smoking out a few bad apples or kowtowing to special interest groups.

Republicans were not adhering to the principles many Americans assign to them -- less waste, less bureaucracy, fewer government intrusions into private lives -- and Democrats weren't adhering to the principles many assign to them -- namely, being a thorn in the side.

As the election approached, it became far more divisive, and it was rarely based on logic or sound political theory. It was, "You don't support Bush. You suck, you goddamn bleeding heart!" Bush could have said the chief goal of his second term was eliminating public education and using the savings to colonize Mars for righteous Christians, and it wouldn't have made a damn bit of difference. Because he was "their" guy.

Let them have high-deductible "consumer-driven" health funds that leave them even deeper in the hole, no safety net when their 401k's lose much of their value, jobs at chain restaurants because American industry no longer produces much of what anyone wants to buy, increasingly uneducated and uncultured children who are force-fed a steady diet of
standardized curriculum and tests, limited legal recourse against businesses that legitimately harmed them, and the expanding nanny state that tells them what's best and tries to reinforce that dissent is un-American. And who cares if the dollar doesn't regain its value? It's not like any REAL Americans visit Europe.

A good portion of Americans are clearly happy with being fucked over as long as they can brag on message boards about "their guys" winning against "them libruls." Never mind that those stereotypical "libruls" haven't existed in years.

Very few people want to see their tax dollars squandered on programs that either don't work or are being woefully mismanaged. They don't want to create or prop up a system that subsidizes people to the point that subsequent generations are incapable of independence and self-sufficiency. But they recognize that a web of social programs is necessary to maintain order.

What too many Americans seem to forget is that we like to pretend we live in a civilized society, in which we have certain rights and responsibilities.

Not all of those responsibilities seem fair, but to a misanthrope like myself, until we set up concentration camps and gulags for the general citizenry, I'd rather see my tax dollars go toward social programs whose goals often involve those near to my heart -- keeping people happy, healthy and fed enough that they don't try to break into my house to steal my stuff, rape me or kill me.

I'm content with having fewer dollars at the end of the month if it means that someone, somewhere, has decided against shooting me for my debit card and sneakers. Because until we implement a program to quietly "take care of" the miscreants and leeches in society -- and I'm looking at you, suburban parents who can't be bothered to teach their pampered brats manners and a sense of personal accountability -- we have
to do something with them. And the annual rent for a 6' x 8' cell is no bargain.

Having lived in Jersey City for most of my life -- with the early years being spent in the much more upscale city of Trenton -- I've seen what happens when social responsibility and The Golden Rule break down, and there's no respect for other people's space, property and lives. And you know what? It's not pretty, and it won't get any better by simply diverting tax dollars back into your pocket without any
concern for the programs that money is no longer helping to fund. You can hide in your gated communities for only so long.

What kills me is that many of the people demanding that social welfare programs be significantly cut or eliminated are the same ones who have no problem claiming the child-tax credit -- which is just another form of the government subsidizing someone's lifestyle choice with no regard as to how that money is spent. And they rarely seem to have a problem with childless homeowners paying through the nose to fund public schools they don't use. The theory goes that raising children is expensive and a necessary task for society to maintain itself, so parents should receive a financial break and everyone in society should foot the bill. We're expected to suck it up because it's "for the social good."

But social good isn't a one-way street. So, pay your damn taxes so my retarded, never-worked-a-day-in-her-life, doesn't-believe-in-bathing grandmother can pay for the diabetes medication she has no clue how to administer properly. You don't want her wandering the streets. I don't even want her in my house. I also.

She's very good, isn't she ?

Claverhouse :ph34r:

relaxo

02-12-2005, 03:27 PM

Someone critized the American public debt without looking up information some way back. (some of you INTPs really don't act INTPish)

USA public debt = %62.5 of GDP (2003)

quite high right? Depends who you compare it to.
a partial list of nations with higher debt levels:

Spain 62.7%
Germany 64.20
Austria 67.60
France 68.80
Canada 77.00 (ouch) :blink:
Greece 100.90
Belgium 102.00
Singapore 106.40
Italy 106.40
Israel 108.60
Jamaica 145.60 (ganja!)
Japan 154.60 (you rock!!)
Malawi 235.70 (1st place winner!) :shock:

(update: Canada:Household debt rose to 120 percent of disposable income in 2004 )

relaxo

02-12-2005, 03:40 PM

and now back to health care...

Ontario's anesthetists were holding patients hostage with their one-day job action to back demands for more money, Health Minister George Smitherman said Friday.

The comments came as hundreds of patients across the province faced delays in elective surgery as anesthetists assembled for a "study session" at a Toronto hotel.

The province is already short more than 90 of the specialists and almost half of those now in practice are approaching retirement age, said Dr. Geraint Lewis, head of the medical association's anesthesiology section.

"This problem was not created by doctors," Dr. Lewis said.

The province has to hire more than 450 anesthetists over the next decade or more operating rooms will close and patients will face even longer wait times for surgery, he said.

About 179 of 252 operating rooms at 27 hospitals across the province were idled, forcing cancellation of about 70 per cent of elective procedures, such as joint replacements, at those facilities. Critical-care services were not being affected.

Anesthetists earn an average $350,000 a year and were offered an increase of 19.2 per cent over four years in a proposed agreement between the province and the association, which the doctors voted down last fall.

Mr. McGuinty called the package "generous" and said it would have made the province's family doctors the highest paid in the country, and its specialists the second-highest paid.

However, Dr. Lewis said the proposed increase was half of the government's estimate and anesthetist incomes have only risen in recent decades because they are working harder, longer and faster.

so some interesting points

1. $350K a year!!! I wonder if the American counterparts in the private system make that much? They must at least because...

2. Even being the highest paid doctors in Canada is not enough for Ontario's doctors. I would have to assume then that American doctors are paid much more in the private sector, mayeb even in the public.

sbw

02-12-2005, 04:07 PM

Someone critized the American public debt without looking up information some way back. (some of you INTPs really don't act INTPish)

USA public debt = %62.5 of GDP (2003)

quite high right? Depends who you compare it to.
a partial list of nations with higher debt levels:

Spain 62.7%
Germany 64.20
Austria 67.60
France 68.80
Canada 77.00 (ouch) :blink:
Greece 100.90
Belgium 102.00
Singapore 106.40
Italy 106.40
Israel 108.60
Jamaica 145.60 (ganja!)
Japan 154.60 (you rock!!)
Malawi 235.70 (1st place winner!) :shock:

I was not criticizing, and (if it's my post that you're referring to) I didn't compare it to GDP; naturally, other nations have larger such ratios because their GDP is so much smaller than that of the U.S.; in real terms, americans have more total $ debt. That's all I was saying.

Scott

sbw

02-12-2005, 04:17 PM

It appears to me that he’s trying to make a point against capitalism by pointing out the flaws inherent in the existing forms of it. However, I still don’t see compelling evidence of a viable alternative, other than those that sacrifice individual human rights for all people in order to prevent the minority of people from making poor choices.

Exactly. Liberals (as any commie-collectivist anti-capitalism type is referred to here in the states; I realize that it's confusing) NEVER have a viable alternative. And they tend regard any income disparity as evidence of corruption and evil rather than as evidence of inherent differences in talent and ability between individuals. (see claver's most recent, if somewhat muddled, comments about rockefeller.)

Scott

relaxo

02-12-2005, 04:25 PM

I was not criticizing, and (if it's my post that you're referring to) ...
Scott

Not you, it was mgbradsh, in an attempt to critisize America's economy after referring to Americans as a bunch of animals trying to rip meat off a carcass.

Hey, umm, what is the budget and debt of the US at these days? I wonder where all that money is going? Tax rebates I suppose

Many people will consistantly ingnore GDP per capita numbers, employment numbers, etc, because it does not support their holywood version of the USA as being a terrible country.

Canadians are quick to critisize the USA without looking at their own nation first, or even knowing anything about other nations. In fact, most Canadians probably know more about the USA then their own country. It's an inferiority complex. That would be a good topic.

sbw

02-12-2005, 05:27 PM

Canadians are quick to critisize the USA without looking at their own nation first, or even knowing anything about other nations. In fact, most Canadians probably know more about the USA then their own country. It's an inferiority complex. That would be a good topic.

Most canadians, I would be willing to wager, also know more about america than most americans do. Even here, some (not all) critics don't let the facts get in the way of a good argument. They're known here as "liberals", and they are egged on by hollywood and CNN (which stands for Communist News Network, incidentally; and no, I don't religiously watch fox news (is there any other way to watch fox news? ARRGGHH too many jokes in one set of parentheses))

Scott

coffeezombie

02-12-2005, 09:22 PM

Most canadians, I would be willing to wager, also know more about america than most americans do. Even here, some (not all) critics don't let the facts get in the way of a good argument. They're known here as "liberals", and they are egged on by hollywood and CNN (which stands for Communist News Network, incidentally; and no, I don't religiously watch fox news (is there any other way to watch fox news? ARRGGHH too many jokes in one set of parentheses))

None of your arguments can be taken seriously at all if you consider CNN "Communist." They are about as purposefully moderate as moderate can be in this country, even down to the broadcasters' robotic accents. I wonder where you'd consider the BBC on your imaginary political spectrum.

relaxo

02-26-2005, 02:54 PM

The 42-year-old father of one from the Lower Mainland city of Surrey died two days after being readmitted to the same area hospital that had discharged him due to a bed shortage. He was discharged against his family's wishes because he continued to complain of the heart and head pains that brought him to Surrey Memorial Hospital in the first place.

...even though the Liberals have added about $2 billion to provincial health-care funding since coming to power in 2001

relaxo

02-26-2005, 03:00 PM

wrong-waiting times wouldn't drop nearly enough to make up for the funds being taken out of the system if the people who opted out no longer had to pay for public healthcare as well - even if it is a flat rate rather than a percentage (which makes absolutely no sense considering we have a graduated tax system in canada) the best thing you could hope for is the status quo for whose left in the system, which according to you isn't good enough as it is.

Yes, you are right. People who make millions for example would take millions out of the system.
I was thinking more of people who make say $100K (shows you at what income level I consider "elite"!).

The most fair would be that the taxes you pay on private health care would be deductable from your income tax.

relaxo

02-26-2005, 03:30 PM

...the problem with the other suggestion, however, is that if/when the conservatives get back into power, they would cut the public sector to nothing ...

..the liberals have also made cuts to a fully public system but i don't see where you make the assumption that Conservatives in Ontario put any money back into the system...

...especially when you consider that it is the conservatives that want the two tiered system in the first place?...

...if you didn't happen to notice the ontario conservatives left the province with huge deficits ...

I'm really tired of revisionist history.

1. if conservative wanted two-tier health care they have had decades to implement it, and they have not anywhere. Unfortunately, conservatives in this country do not really want two-tier health care.

2. conservatives do not cut the public sector to nothing. Provide an example during the decades of conservative rule that has reduced the public sector to nothing. I can only wish they would.

3. deficits in ontario (from Canadian government statistics):

NDP rule: 1990 left with a 90 mil surplus
1991-1995 : total debt increase: 47.718 billion
note, total DEBT in 1990 was 35.409 billion. the NDP socialists more then doubled Ontario's debt
in 1995 they left the next government with 10.129 billion deficit
Conservatives: 1996-2004, 24.404 billion
by 1999-2000 budget year the conservatives ran a surplus
2002-2003 the surplus was .524 billion

The Liberals came into power 2003-2004 and said the conservatives left a 6.2 billion deficit. They admitted the deficit was because of the new spending they would implement. The liberals now project deficits until 2007. They can't try and blame the next 4 years on conservative surpluses.

4. health care spending

95-96: 17.607 bill
96-97: 17.760
97-98: 18.389
98-99: 19.743
99-00: 22.993
01-02: 24.108
20-03: 26.223
03-04: 28.099

so yes, the conservative did spend more on health care each year (unfortunately).

"Lefty" myths never stand up to any evidence.

mgb

02-26-2005, 09:06 PM

Aren't you dead yet? I would have thought that the big bad horrible health care system would have gobbled you up by now.

:cheers: Here's hopin'

INTerloPer

03-01-2005, 12:56 AM

What is so horrible about privatizing some parts of Canadian healthcare? I'm by no means proposing an "Evil, American-Style Two-Teir' system, but whats wrong with out-sourcing non-essential services? The private sector means competition, which means competitive prices. That will save taxpayers money and free up hospitals for emergencies and non-elective sh*t.

relaxo

06-13-2005, 09:46 PM

So the other month my friend waits in emergency 12 hours with pancreitis pains.

Another friend was hit by a car, went to hospital, they told him they used a special x-ray on him and he was fine.
A month later, still in pain, a doctor notices he has 2 broken ribs.

Our health care system sucks so bad.

relaxo

06-13-2005, 09:49 PM

and just last week in Canada:

The Supreme Court has ruled that suffering and dying while waiting for "non-urgent" medical care violates our right to "life, liberty and security of the person."

The court ruled, on the basis of unchallenged evidence before it, that delays for surgery cause irreparable physical injury, and can even result in death.

Further, living in pain for months -- or years -- while waiting for surgery, interferes with quality and enjoyment of life, not to mention the ability to earn a living.

Unfortunately, it is against the law for us to spend our own after-tax dollars to provide for our own health care.

Quebec, Alberta, B.C. and P.E.I. all have laws preventing citizens from spending their own money on the health-care insurance of their choice.

Medical insurance can only be bought for medical services that are not available in the government-run monopoly.

This means that Albertans are required to suffer -- and sometimes die -- on waiting lists for so-called "non-urgent" surgeries.

In other words, Albertans are allowed to spend their money on alcohol, tobacco, vacations, jewelry, VLTs, and fast food, but not on better or faster health care.

With our current two-tier system, only the very wealthy can jet off to the U.S., while the rest of us are forced to wait for government care.

Ironically, NDP-governed Saskatchewan is open to the private sector.

Physicians who don't participate in the government-run system can set their own fees, and patients have the right to buy insurance to cover those costs. But not in Alberta, which outlaws private insurance entirely in the government-run sector.

The Quebec government argued that allowing people to spend their own money on private medical insurance for a full range of medical services would destroy the public health-care system, or at least weaken it.

Based on evidence presented, the court ruled "many western democracies that do not impose a monopoly on the delivery of health care have successfully delivered to their citizens medical services superior to and more affordable than the services presently available in Canada. This demonstrates that a monopoly is not necessary or even related to the provision of quality public health care."

Private health care and insurance in Germany, Australia, Sweden, the U.K., Netherlands, New Zealand, Austria and other countries does not harm their public systems.

The court ruled "when we look to the evidence rather than to assumptions, the connection between prohibiting private insurance and maintaining quality public health care vanishes."

Canada, North Korea and Cuba are the only countries which outlaw the freedom to spend one's own after-tax income on one's own health.

Two-tier care is already here: The rich can secure timely, quality care for themselves by going to the U.S. or other countries, pro athletes never have to wait surgery and politicians don't wait in line either.

Dman

06-17-2005, 07:43 PM

Everybody's health care system sucks. The question is "compared to what"

smash0gre

06-17-2005, 09:54 PM

...The court ruled, on the basis of unchallenged evidence before it, that delays for surgery cause irreparable physical injury, and can even result in death...

my dad was in se b.c. awaiting valve replacement surgery in calgary for 8 months in 1997 (calgary foothills being the closest hospital with a cardiac surgeon). six weeks prior to the scheduled date, he was gardening, and some clotted blood broke away from behind the bad valve, and lodged in his brain. he was 59, and on "medical leave" from his position as the top administrator of his school district.

basically he was using up his accumulated sick leave before his 60th bithday and retirement in jan 2000.

the stroke didn't kill him. but he, a professional communicator with 4 books in progress, has spent his retirement in a wheelchair with the intellectual capacity of a 5 year old, and exactly 7 words in his lexicon.

his mountain bike, canoe, fishing, and camping gear sit in the shed, rusting.

Hamro

06-18-2005, 10:11 AM

in Canada, isnt there both private health care and the one everyone has access to? the priblem for USA is the huge gap there is between being poor and rich, and theres alot of poor people in USA.

relaxo

06-19-2005, 09:52 PM

There are no private heath care options in Canada.

The USA doesn't have a health care problem. Some individuals have a poverty problem.

geezer

06-21-2005, 03:38 PM

Don't kid yourself folks. There is a myth that only the poor Americans don't get access to quality healthcare. I am a IT Architect making over $100k per year and I am not gauranteed high levels of service.

For those unfamiliar with the US system, here's how it works: You must have a job that's considered Full Time (at least 40 hours per week). For an unskilled laborer this isn't easy as many employers only offer Part Time work for retail clerks, and unskilled jobs. So let's assume you are fortunate enough to have a Full Time job, then you "choose" your medical insurance provider.

Even as recent as 5 years ago, you actually had a "choice" of insurance providers. But today most companies have been forced to only offer one insurance provider in order to reduce costs. What's worse is that the 4 employers I've had in my IT career all change the single insurance carrier annually in order to get the next best deal for insurance costs! Imagine, this year you have Insurance-A, then come January you are forced to switch to Insurance-B and compare benefits, renew presecriptions, and perhaps get new doctors if your current Insurance-A doctors aren't covered under Insurance-B. Or you could decline and switch to your wife's plan...assuming she has Full Time benefits.

It gets worse. Let's say I get laid off. I must then pay for my own insurance 100% out of pocket. For a healthy adult, this insurance can be about $350 per month! However since I have been diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis, insurance for me could be over $1000 / month...or I might not be able to qualify for it at all.

So here I am, super-qualified IT Pro. But as soon as I leave a job, I lose all benefits, unless I'm over 65 in which I qualify for the American Medicare assistance program (minus pharmaceuticals). Or, if I make less than $12,000 per year I qualify for the Medic-Aid, which is the state sponsored program for the poor. Finally, while US Hospitals cannot refuse treatment to patients with Medic-Aid or no insurance, the reality is that the paper processing could delay your treatment.

That's why for many Americans, employment is a life and death situation. Without employer-sponsored insurance health care costs can bankrupt any family. On the other hand, if you have marketable skills and believe you're gauranteed to always be employed, then the US system works fine. (Let me know if you find any "garaunteed" jobs.)

PS- If you think we have really nice healthcare professionals, guess again. My family and I often resort to getting more information on a diagnosis than the doctor provides. Plus there's a HUGE shortage of nurses in the US for Hospital care.

relaxo

06-22-2005, 10:35 PM

Don't kid yourself folks. There is a myth that only the poor Americans don't get access to quality healthcare.

but you do get access to health care? Must be nice. Not the case up here.

...the reality is that the paper processing could delay your treatment.

the reality in Canada is that waiting lists for free health care kill people.

Plus there's a HUGE shortage of nurses in the US for Hospital care.

which is why a lot of Canadian nurses go south to work in the USA. we have as shortage too. doctors, nurses, hospitals, equipment, well, anything to do with health care we are short of.

trendal

07-02-2005, 08:31 PM

I have been to a hospital emergency room about 15 times in my life, and have never had to wait longer than 2 hours to see a doctor. Most people I know have never had to wait more than a couple hours, either.

People I know who live in Toronto have a different story, and talk about 12+ hour waits in packed emergency waiting rooms. Perhaps it is a symptom of Toronto's size, and not the system as a whole? Maybe Toronto just needs more hospitals, for the population size.

I live in London, which isn't a small city, and have never had trouble or hassle accessing health care.

trendal

07-02-2005, 08:35 PM

Privatized health insurance can't increase the patient capacity of hospitals.

Only more (or more efficient) hospitals and staff can.

mgb

07-04-2005, 07:30 PM

ppc

07-05-2005, 10:20 AM

Better?

OF COURSE HAVE BETTER, does that mean everyone has better? uhh of course not, because not everyone is rich.

Canadians get more for their money - Americans have more money to spend so the rich Americans get more for their MORE money.

Does everyone or even most people in America have more or most money in America? I don't think so.

Yes you come to America for the best health care but certainly not the most proportionate. Who cares where the best is? I want the best value, me and most people I know are not rich and I live in America.

mgb

07-05-2005, 04:40 PM

Claverhouse

07-20-2005, 05:05 PM

PLACE-HOLDER FOR CLASSIC STATUS

distraction tactics

11-10-2005, 11:55 AM

Relaxo strikes me as the kind of person who, if someone fails to signal while making a lane change in front of him, has a ten minute rant when he gets home about how he was almost in a 20-car pileup. Take a fucking pill buddy, or my tax dollars are going have to pay for your medical bill when you have a heart attack. Honestly, I'd rather just ship you off to whatever country it is you believe has a utopian health care system and let them deal with you.

Anecdote time: No one in my family or extended family has ever had a bad experience with the Canadian healthcare system, including one of my cousins who died from leukemia (marrow transplant didn't take - not the system's fault).

Now wasn't that a convincing argument?

Against a perfect healthcare system, yes, the Canadian system sucks. Unfortunately, by that standard everything else sucks from your car's engine to your own sex life. Neither is running at a perfect 100%, now are they? How relevent is such a measure? Not very - oh wow - what a surprise! If we want to take a look at how the Canadian system actually stacks up, we measure it against other developed nations.

--

On another board I frequently visit, a discussion recently came up on the Canadian private versus public healthcare debate. Here's a snippet of a post from a non-governmental management consultant in healthcare from Alberta:

...that, let me add a few points on the problems with privatized medicine (and I do wish I could speak to this "live" because it would be easier to communicate).

1 - Taxpayer cost won't be significantly alleviated

The bulk of healthcare services are used by individuals in lower income brackets. This isn't going to change with privatization - significant costs will remain for the base infrastucture of the system. And even the middle and upper classes won't concede public services such as general practice and the majority of disgnostics.

2 - The queue won't be "cleared"

This is perhaps the strongest argument for privatized services: clear the queue to free up resources. Well, for one, resources are finite. Privatization won't result in a sudden surge in physician availabilty (we'll get to that one later) so you will still have 'x' individuals competing for 'y' resources. The biggest change will be in just that - competition. If someone moves ahead in the queue due to financial vaibility it will affect the line behind him. If you are in line for a major operation - and know that you too *can* move ahead - what is your response likely to be? People will "find" resources needed to stay with the pack, to ensure that their drop from 35 to 50 doesn't become a drop to 67. The end result is a bulk middle class borrowing money to pay for subsidized services. What you end up with in effect is a new system where wait remains for many people, but now they are paying much more for the assurance that they will not slip through the cracks. The queue remains, it just become chaotically dynamic and driven by money.

3 - Resources are finite

As mentioned, privatization won't suddenly bring in a rash of new physicians. Perhaps over time this may happen, but it will be tempered by additional repercussions. One, the short term will see many of the better care providers moving to private systems, thus removing resources from a public system which handles far more traffic. Two, those in the private system may well cut their hours (from experience I know that many professionals would opt for reduced hours if this could be financially supported). You end up shuffling resources around, and may in fact reduce them. Given the choice, most specialist would choose a private practice over a public one.

4 - "Best of both world"-wanting physicians

Physicians, for the most part, are not businessmen. That's why they hire me. I can tell you that trying to coax a physician to invest in infrastructure is a job in itself. So when physicians move to private practice, how much infrastructure will remain supported by public dollars? Let me put it this way - a physician in a booming (but rural) town opts for private practice for 80% of his business. He retains 20% for public clients. That physician wants a shiny new piece of diagnostic equipment mainly for private use. Does he a) pay for it out of his own pocket? b) petition the government/health authority for the equipment because he does, after all, treat the public? I'll leave you to answer that one. Oh...and what assurance does the public side have that they'll have timely access to the equipment once he gets it?

5 - Middle Class motivator

Political change is usually driven by big business and the middle class vote. You can call me on it and tell me I'm full of shit, and that's fine, but we can probably agree that poor people don't drive change. The healthcare system in Canada has problems. If the middle class and upper class become largely removed from the public system, who will be left to stimulate change? Who will champion improvements in the system if the biggest users remain the lower classes who no one gives a fuck about? Right now, inefficiencies in the system affect all but the very wealthy. This creates a burden on the public to improve the system - it pressures people (i.e. politicians) to push for change. Making the system better has always been one of the top priorities of the Canadian public, and the system *has* become a lot better as a result.

6 - Increase drug costs / less coordination of benefits

Canadians pay far, far less for perscription drugs than do Americans. I'll be succint on this point - in a private system, those costs will skyrocket, as will insurance plans. Whatever you pay now, you'll pay a lot more in a private system. What's more, currently this "consolidation" encourages insurance providers to play nice in the sandbox with regards to information management development, etc. This incentive will be reduced (if not eliminated) in a private system.

I could probably add another dozen points, but these ones stick out for me. There is room for some private services in Canada, yes. And the system as a whole could use a lot of improvements. But introducing privatized surgery is not going to be the cure-all some believe it to be, and without a very, very good plan for ensuring public resources are maintained it will be a disaster - the same shit only more expensive for everyone.

--http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=128562&page=1&pp=25&highlight=canadian+healthcare

dubbeltop

03-19-2006, 05:58 PM

healthcare used to be this:you sick you die period. youre all spoiled go to africa for a day and you'll pay every bill without the blink of an eye.It costs so much because its that good at keeping us alive until we look like zombies.

Star

03-19-2006, 06:05 PM

I don't even have a health card yet, and I saw a doctor for 30.00 who prescribed me 6 months' worth of my medications, no questions asked. Try that in the USA -- they want you back in every other month for more office visit fees.

And btw -- DIE THREAD DIE

relaxo

05-04-2006, 02:06 PM

Relaxo strikes me as the kind of person who, if someone fails to signal while making a lane change in front of him, has a ten minute rant when he gets home about how he was almost in a 20-car pileup.

That's too bad my response to this months ago has disappeared.

Anyway, yes, me wanting a better health care system, and a private one, is just like complaining about a bad driver. Worrying about one's future health is just as frivilous as that.

Of course, when changing a lane, one should signal shouldn't they, or they could endanger everyone's lives. Kind of like health care. People like you who don't signal cut the rest of us off from the kind of care we want, but you don't care because you are the selfish unthinking one who just changes lanes because you want to, to hell with everyone else.

Pookie

06-08-2009, 06:55 AM

This thread belongs in the Rants and Raves section.

I've lived in Dallas, Texas and Bakersfield, California aswell as Toronto, Ontario and Vancouver, BC. I had a hernia operation as a child with only pleasant memories in California while my husband suffered a heart attack in Texas with, again, only sunny recollections of the quality of care.

Personally, I've worked for a national non-profit agency in Canada supporting women with Ovarian Cancer and didn't make enough money to purchase extended health coverage.

It surprises me that this subject hasn't come up...the difference in quality of Canadian healthcare with or without extended coverage. The cost of prescription medication is not covered by Canadian Public Health and many extended health plans have a meticulous way of discrediting any of the health problems that you personally struggle with. Therefore, coverage under public health (in the way that Americans like to perceive it) is sadly incomplete.

American life expectancy is lower than in Canada, not because of public health, but because of cultural norms. In Canada we actually walk places, engage in activity for leisure and generally don't eat out fast-food four meals a week or more. No matter how good a health care system is, if a people are addicted to drugs, overeating and smoking to excess there is nothing a health system can do (public or otherwise). The trend in Canada is preventative healthcare. For instance, smoking is prohibited in all workplaces, public places, restaurants, even bars and dance clubs. Most Universities are moving away from candy dispensers and replacing them with vending machines containing healthy food choices.

Plastic surgery has no where near the impact on Canadian society as American life. Doctors offices in the States advertised price lists for simple procedures on the walls of examination rooms such as collagen injections, lipo, etc. (as if it was a health service!). Most Canadian women view plastic surgery as either a health matter, anti-aging or in those extreme cases a passport to Hollywood (Pam Anderson).

Regardless of these overtly cultural differences, the financial orders of both countries are directly linked to such cultural differences. In America, the poor are denied medical attention, as is well documented by Michael Moore's "SICKO". In Canada, the poor must receive care. However, many don't bother and those who do may not have the skills (language, social) to be able to advocate for themselves. I believe that advocacy is a huge issue in Canadian Health (much more so than in the States). It is assumed that if you can pay for your care that you are entitled to the care you are receiving. However, in Canada there is nevertheless a hierarchy of class and socio-economic privilege that undercuts which treatment what patients actually get. Charities, such as the one I worked for, play an important role to advocate for sick patients (educating the people about stardards of care) otherwise they might be improperly handled in the system causing their quality of care to suffer.

Statistics are interesting. However, where are all of the stats in this thread about the sick and dying. Isn't THAT what health is about. Trying to stop unnecessary death and suffering. Saying how many people LIVE and, how OLD people live for is NOT THE POINT. Healthcare is about trying to minimize how many people lose their lives and studying the causes and effects of systems and policies affecting LIVES. Quality of life is totally separate for quality of healthcare. Money and dollars are so not the point or else each person would be assessed in value once they popped out of the hopper. How ridiculous? Life is priceless. Shouldn't we strive to deliver equal and fair health care to all. This is about what is fair and right. It shouldn't be about WHO is right!!!

If the US spends more money on health care is obviously has a better system. Problem is, it is restricted to the rich and those who go without, do without. If Canada spends more money on health care, depending on how rich you are individually, it spends less attention and thus, care to those who depend on public health. Which is best, neither. Will either change. Probably not if politics has got to be the way to navigate through the mess.

I was in labour for 12 hours, went to the hospital I'd registered with. They sent me home to "go to sleep" (when I'd been awakened at 6am by contractions). When I got home my water broke and I was back in the car for the most horrible ride of my life. The cord was wrapped around my baby's neck twice and I fear that if I hadn't arrived when I did, there could have been serious complications. In Canada, the doctor's have more power than the hospitals. In the US, this never would have happened because the hospital wouldn't risk having a lawsuit on their hands. Long and short, my baby lived, I'll probably live longer now since it woke me up to the fact that I can't rely on doctors to care for me and I'd better do it myself AND suffering is not considered poor healthcare.....but it is. Care is when you don't have to suffer needlessly because all the resources that are available aren't being inappropriately allocated. After a 24 hour labour, with a hell of a punch, I fear doing it over again. SERIOUSLY SCARY. That's the free system for you. Pay more, get more. Afterall, you get what you pay for.

mgb

06-10-2009, 04:15 AM

This thread belongs in the Rants and Raves section.

Sure n00b.

I've lived in Dallas, Texas and Bakersfield, California aswell as Toronto, Ontario and Vancouver, BC. I had a hernia operation as a child with only pleasant memories in California while my husband suffered a heart attack in Texas with, again, only sunny recollections of the quality of care.

Personally, I've worked for a national non-profit agency in Canada supporting women with Ovarian Cancer and didn't make enough money to purchase extended health coverage.

It surprises me that this subject hasn't come up...the difference in quality of Canadian healthcare with or without extended coverage. The cost of prescription medication is not covered by Canadian Public Health and many extended health plans have a meticulous way of discrediting any of the health problems that you personally struggle with. Therefore, coverage under public health (in the way that Americans like to perceive it) is sadly incomplete.

American life expectancy is lower than in Canada, not because of public health, but because of cultural norms. In Canada we actually walk places, engage in activity for leisure and generally don't eat out fast-food four meals a week or more. No matter how good a health care system is, if a people are addicted to drugs, overeating and smoking to excess there is nothing a health system can do (public or otherwise). The trend in Canada is preventative healthcare. For instance, smoking is prohibited in all workplaces, public places, restaurants, even bars and dance clubs. Most Universities are moving away from candy dispensers and replacing them with vending machines containing healthy food choices.

Plastic surgery has no where near the impact on Canadian society as American life. Doctors offices in the States advertised price lists for simple procedures on the walls of examination rooms such as collagen injections, lipo, etc. (as if it was a health service!). Most Canadian women view plastic surgery as either a health matter, anti-aging or in those extreme cases a passport to Hollywood (Pam Anderson).

Regardless of these overtly cultural differences, the financial orders of both countries are directly linked to such cultural differences. In America, the poor are denied medical attention, as is well documented by Michael Moore's "SICKO". In Canada, the poor must receive care. However, many don't bother and those who do may not have the skills (language, social) to be able to advocate for themselves. I believe that advocacy is a huge issue in Canadian Health (much more so than in the States). It is assumed that if you can pay for your care that you are entitled to the care you are receiving. However, in Canada there is nevertheless a hierarchy of class and socio-economic privilege that undercuts which treatment what patients actually get. Charities, such as the one I worked for, play an important role to advocate for sick patients (educating the people about stardards of care) otherwise they might be improperly handled in the system causing their quality of care to suffer.

Statistics are interesting. However, where are all of the stats in this thread about the sick and dying. Isn't THAT what health is about. Trying to stop unnecessary death and suffering. Saying how many people LIVE and, how OLD people live for is NOT THE POINT. Healthcare is about trying to minimize how many people lose their lives and studying the causes and effects of systems and policies affecting LIVES. Quality of life is totally separate for quality of healthcare. Money and dollars are so not the point or else each person would be assessed in value once they popped out of the hopper. How ridiculous? Life is priceless. Shouldn't we strive to deliver equal and fair health care to all. This is about what is fair and right. It shouldn't be about WHO is right!!!

If the US spends more money on health care is obviously has a better system. Problem is, it is restricted to the rich and those who go without, do without. If Canada spends more money on health care, depending on how rich you are individually, it spends less attention and thus, care to those who depend on public health. Which is best, neither. Will either change. Probably not if politics has got to be the way to navigate through the mess.

I was in labour for 12 hours, went to the hospital I'd registered with. They sent me home to "go to sleep" (when I'd been awakened at 6am by contractions). When I got home my water broke and I was back in the car for the most horrible ride of my life. The cord was wrapped around my baby's neck twice and I fear that if I hadn't arrived when I did, there could have been serious complications. In Canada, the doctor's have more power than the hospitals. In the US, this never would have happened because the hospital wouldn't risk having a lawsuit on their hands. Long and short, my baby lived, I'll probably live longer now since it woke me up to the fact that I can't rely on doctors to care for me and I'd better do it myself AND suffering is not considered poor healthcare.....but it is. Care is when you don't have to suffer needlessly because all the resources that are available aren't being inappropriately allocated. After a 24 hour labour, with a hell of a punch, I fear doing it over again. SERIOUSLY SCARY. That's the free system for you. Pay more, get more. Afterall, you get what you pay for.

I'm looking for a point and not really seeing it.

Zephyrus055

06-10-2009, 04:26 AM

If we had an entirely free-market health care system would:

1. Costs go down
2. Efficiency go up
3. At least 90% of the population would be able to afford it

Which of those do you think would be true?

Faust06

06-10-2009, 05:14 AM

jyng1

06-10-2009, 06:11 AM

My thoughts are that most health care *should* be universal, but any purposeful self-inflicted harm should not be answered with free health care.

Pay for your blackened tar-ridden lungs, pay for your fat ass and clogged heart.

Aside from that and a few other things, it should be free to everyone in the country. Health care isn't something to compete over.. I don't think they should ever make a business out of it. The superfluous stuff like liposuction, sure, everything else no.

"most" is probably the critical issue. Health is a gaping hole in the ground you just throw money into. The aging population in most western societies also means that there will be less people in the workforce to care for an aging population enjoying increased longevity.

Defining what should be provided by a universal health system is the most important thing as the advances in health care technology with the related spiraling increases in costs means that those countries that currently have it are rapidly finding that it is becoming increasingly unaffordable.

Here, if you want a hip replacement, you can get one almost immediately under a private scheme. If you are on the public waiting list this can take substantially longer. Not a critical issue for longevity as hip replacements are a relatively recent intervention, but they make a significant difference to quality of life/productivity.

Our investment in health has nearly doubled in the last ten years. Its still considered by some to be woefully inadequate but the reality is that it will never be enough. Currently our system is fundamentally socialist, with things such as government mass purchasing of medications and pharmaceuticals (Budget/Home brands) no fault employer funded accident insurance scheme (removed the right to sue), subsidised General Practitioner visits and prescriptions and a private insurer / hospital system for those that want a better service.

I like the system, I just hope we can continue to afford it.

HoneyCyclical

06-10-2009, 07:02 AM

My wife's father layed on a stretcher for 3 days in emergency before he was moved into a ward. Despite my wife informing them of the strange colour of his cold leg, they didn't notice he had blood clots until a week later. His leg is gone now. They also found him choking on his vomit a month or so later, the nurse was too busy to check in on him that day.

Now the incompetence parts could happen anywhere. My arguement would be, in a private hospital where people are paid better, where people have to do a good job or be fired, and a hospital that wants return customers and good word of mouth, the chances are less.

But laying on a stretcher for three days? We're not at war here, there is no excuse.

And this happens in the U.S. with private insurance.

My grandmother died in hospital just recently. She was very old and unhealthy. The pneumonia she caught at the hospital however helped finish her off. Do people usually catch pneumonia in hospitals? I'm not sure.

How many people died from SARS in the USA's terrible system? In Europe's mixed system? We had dozens die in Canada, right here in Toronto. We're not supposed to be a third world country. We have the best heath care in the world we are told.

And this happens in the U.S. with private insurance.

My friend's dad had chest pains years ago. Went to the doctor. I guess it was too much of a bother to get him checked out in our universal all access system. Doctor told him to go fishing. Ya, he died from a heart attack months later.

And this happens in the U.S. with private insurance....ad infinitum

That sounds like the U.S. Except for the, you know, whole "payment" thing at the end.

Exactly.