NationStates Jolt Archive

Source article here. (http://counterpunch.com/lindorff04192005.html)

A few tasty nuggets:
Just two years ago, GM Canada's CEO Michael Grimaldi sent a letter co-signed by Canadian Autoworkers Union president Buzz Hargrave to a Crown Commission considering reforms of Canada's 35-year-old national health program which said, "The public health care system significantly reduces total labour costs for automobile manufacturing firms, compared to their cost of equivalent private insurance services purchased by U.S.-based automakers."
However:
"No American business can say they're in favor of socialized medicine," says Jon Erb, a senior manager for healthcare consulting at Deloitte Consulting LLP. "The whole idea of the government controlling prices on things, and essentially taking over such a huge sector of American business, is not something anyone will publicly endorse."
Despite:
Back in 1970, a year before Canada switched from an employer-based, insurance company-administered health system like that in the United States to a national single-payer model, both countries were devoting about 7 percent of GDP to health care. Today, Canada devotes 9.1 percent of GDP to health care, while the United States devotes a whopping 15.1. Meanwhile, Canada boasts better health statistics and all of its citizens are fully covered, even for catastrophic illnesses like cancer or AIDS. In the United States, some 15 percent of people have no insurance coverage at all and medical costs are the leading cause of bankruptcy (though that may change now that Congress and the president have made declaring bankruptcy far more difficult).
And:
Meanwhile, even Canadian executives are not so harsh on their own system. Stew Low, a spokesman for GM Canada, says stateside criticisms of the Canadian system are overblown and tend to come from people "with an axe to grind." He says, "Both the U.S. and Canadian systems have their challenges, and Canada's system clearly needs some improvement, especially in the form of higher investment, but in general, people here have ready access to healthcare. I can walk into any ER and get treated quickly. My kids are active in sports and get hurt, and they always get treated right away."

Again, the full article is here. (http://counterpunch.com/lindorff04192005.html)

So, does anyone want to state that free market dynamics are universally superior to collective (or at least centralised) solutions?

Look at the larger picture of the Canadian economy: 8-9% unemployment, slow GDP growth, wage controls, and high taxes. They sacrificed their economy to support these programs, and the system is very slow and bureaucratic.

Plus: GM is near bankruptcy because of its health care paln. It is definitely not a model for employee bnefits.

Look at the larger picture of the Canadian economy: 8-9% unemployment, slow GDP growth, wage controls, and high taxes. They sacrificed their economy to support these programs, and the system is very slow and bureaucratic.

Plus: GM is near bankruptcy because of its health care paln. It is definitely not a model for employee bnefits.

Your points are addressed in the article. It's not GM only champ. Try following the links that I posted.... twice.

Look at the larger picture of the Canadian economy: 8-9% unemployment, slow GDP growth, wage controls, and high taxes. They sacrificed their economy to support these programs, and the system is very slow and bureaucratic.

Plus: GM is near bankruptcy because of its health care paln. It is definitely not a model for employee bnefits.

8-9% based off of what calculations? The US's vaunted 5-6% unemployment rating is tremendously skewed by "exceptions" and "limits" on how long one is unemployed before they don't "count". Its rather disengenuous. Does Canada use that same method, or are they like Germany, who uses a different calculation method?

As for slow GDP growth; compared to what? China? Because aside from a few exceptions, Canada is on par with the growth levels most of Europe and Asia. Again, comparisons to the US don't seem to prove very accurate, since many of the growth indicators are being skewed by interventions.

2004 Canada all numbers in thousands.
Population, 15 years and over
Both sexes 25,432.
Men 12,510.8
Women 12,921.8
Labour force
Both sexes 17,183.4
Men 9,164.4 135.6
Women 8,019.0
Employed
Both sexes 15,949.7
Men 8,479.6
Women 7,470.1
Unemployed
Both sexes 1,233.7
Men 684.8
Women 548.9
Not in the labour force
Both sexes 8,249.3
Men 3,346.4
Women 4,902.8

%
Participation rate
Both sexes 67.6
Men 73.3
Women 62.1
Unemployment rate
Both sexes 7.2
Men 7.5
Women 6.8
Employment rate
Both sexes 62.7
Men 67.8
Women 57.8

souce. (http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/labor07a.htm)

Good. Statistical evidence. Now, what I'm having trouble finding on that site is an explnation of what they consider "Unemployed"...

In the US, unemployed people are no longer "unemployed" if they've been looking for longer than a certain period of time. They are now "Discouraged workers." Does Canada also have this policy?

The METHOD of getting that 7.2 percent unemployment number is in question here. That's harder to find out.

2004 Canada all numbers in thousands.
*snip*
%
Participation rate
Both sexes 67.6
Men 73.3
Women 62.1
*snip*

souce. (http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/labor07a.htm)
Compaired to the participation rate of the United States, 65.8%. Canada employs 2% more of their population and yet has a higher unemployment rate. Smells odd no?


(http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm)

Good. Statistical evidence. Now, what I'm having trouble finding on that site is an explnation of what they consider "Unemployed"...

In the US, unemployed people are no longer "unemployed" if they've been looking for longer than a certain period of time. They are now "Discouraged workers." Does Canada also have this policy?

The METHOD of getting that 7.2 percent unemployment number is in question here. That's harder to find out.

All descriptions of methodology are here. (http://www.statcan.ca/cgi-bin/imdb/p2SV.pl?Function=getSurvey&SDDS=3701&lang=en&db=IMDB&dbg=f&adm=8&dis=2#2)

Knock yerself out, I'm not reading it all. What I can say is that through my (admittedly radically) political readings, StatsCan's methodology is generally accepted as unbiased and rigorous. That's by both left, right and centrists.

So, I'm assuming unemployment rate is the number of actual employed people divided by the number of people participating (working or seeking work) in the workforce subtracted from 100% and doesn't exclude those who have been unemployed for an extended period like the states does.

What I think is interesting is that the stats don't track underemployment.

The METHOD of getting that 7.2 percent unemployment number is in question here. That's harder to find out.

From what I know of the Canadian methodology if you are not working but not actively looking for work you are not counted as unemployed. you are rather counted as "not in the labour force" (or something similar). If you are actively looking for work and are age 15 or over it doesn't matter how long you haven't been working, you're counted as unemployed.

I also believe the survey doesn't sample members of the armed forces, residents of Indian reserves, people who are institutionalized and residents of the northern territories... but all combined those make up a pretty small percentage of the total population.

Compaired to the participation rate of the United States, 65.8%. Canada employs 2% more of their population and yet has a higher unemployment rate. Smells odd no?

Not really. Participation rate refers to people actually looking for work. So, it's possible to have a higher participation rate and a higher unemployment rate.

Not really. Participation rate refers to people actually looking for work. So, it's possible to have a higher participation rate and a higher unemployment rate.
Nope. Participation rate is employed/total population (15+). Try it for the US.

I'll concede the point about relative employment rates, methodology, whatever. You are right.

It's all besides the point really. Despite the fact that we spend less of our GDP per capita than the US, speedy, appropriate healthcare is universally available here. Furthermore, support is provided for catastrophic health crisis like HIV/AIDS, cancer and accidents.

From what I know of the Canadian methodology if you are not working but not actively looking for work you are not counted as unemployed. you are rather counted as "not in the labour force" (or something similar). If you are actively looking for work and are age 15 or over it doesn't matter how long you haven't been working, you're counted as unemployed.

I also believe the survey doesn't sample members of the armed forces, residents of Indian reserves, people who are institutionalized and residents of the northern territories... but all combined those make up a pretty small percentage of the total population.

I know I just stated in my last post that I wanted to get away from labour statistics as they are irrelevant, but does "institutionalized people" include those in jail? If it's excluded then it would bring the US unemployment rate closer to Canada's as we have a MUCH lower rate of incarceration here. As does China and Russia for that matter.

Knock yerself out, I'm not reading it all. What I can say is that through my (admittedly radically) political readings, StatsCan's methodology is generally accepted as unbiased and rigorous. That's by both left, right and centrists.

So, I'm assuming unemployment rate is the number of actual employed people divided by the number of people participating (working or seeking work) in the workforce subtracted from 100% and doesn't exclude those who have been unemployed for an extended period like the states does.


StatsCan's methodology IS good, I've read into it and found none of the little "tricks" that are used to artificially lower the percentage of unemployed.

StatsCan's methodology was never part of my point; my point is that the US's methodology is skewed. That the numbers used by those who believe the US has a "better" economy are flawed, distorted through manipulation of data to seem better than they really are.

Problem is, too often nobody is willing to admit that, nor will they believe it if told by "outsiders". I'm trying to make others realize that the US unemployment numbers are falsified, and I use indirect methods, because they'll deny it if I just tell them that.

How many times will people with agenda's look facts in the face and deny them because it doesn't support their worldview? All the freaking time. Perhaps if they are allowed to stumble on the truth themselves, they won't feel threatened by the realization. Its a long shot, but I'm trying to reason with political idealogues, so I know the odds are against me.

StatsCan's methodology was never part of my point; my point is that the US's methodology is skewed. That the numbers used by those who believe the US has a "better" economy are flawed, distorted through manipulation of data to seem better than they really are.
Problem is, too often nobody is willing to admit that, nor will they believe it if told by "outsiders". I'm trying to make others realize that the US unemployment numbers are falsified, and I use indirect methods, because they'll deny it if I just tell them that.
I gotcha now, and I agree, I've read innumerable articles on skewed economic statistics released by the US gov't, wish I had the links at hand to add to your argument - I know, I know the ideologues are going to accuse me of making them up.
How many times will people with agenda's look facts in the face and deny them because it doesn't support their worldview? All the freaking time. Perhaps if they are allowed to stumble on the truth themselves, they won't feel threatened by the realization. Its a long shot, but I'm trying to reason with political idealogues, so I know the odds are against me.

I gave up on arguing with idealogues a long time ago. It doesn't matter what ideology it is, they're perfectly capable of calling black white, attacking a laughably fine distinction in your choice of words, or attacking your methodology whenever you quote statistics, even from reliable sources.

Finally, they're very cagey, after developing a worldview so out of touch with reality they are highly sensitive to any contradictory evidence -- indirect methods don't work, as soon as you approach the central matter the blinders go up.

I'll concede the point about relative employment rates, methodology, whatever. You are right.

It's all besides the point really. Despite the fact that we spend less of our GDP per capita than the US, speedy, appropriate healthcare is universally available here. Furthermore, support is provided for catastrophic health crisis like HIV/AIDS, cancer and accidents.
Part of the reason is quite simple, from what I know of canadian law litigation is much harder. There's also the fact that an organizations size does not have a direct linear relationship with how much money it spends. Instead it's slightly exponential. Also the programs we do have are horribly inefficient because the people setting them up didn't know jack shit about the medical profession.

Part of the reason is quite simple, from what I know of canadian law litigation is much harder. There's also the fact that an organizations size does not have a direct linear relationship with how much money it spends. Instead it's slightly exponential. Also the programs we do have are horribly inefficient because the people setting them up didn't know jack shit about the medical profession.

The argument about linearity doesn't hold. The provinces are responsible for the delivery of health care, the federal government merely sets the standard and provides equalization payments for provinces that aren't as economically robust as others. We have malpractice suits up here as well, medical professionals have to purchase liability insurance, now I'll admit that Canada isn't as litigious a society as the US but the disparity is nowhere near enough to justify the GDP imbalance. Especially when you consider that our health care is universal.

Some US CEOs support, some oppose, I don't feel like making a real statement here. I'm kind of tired feeling.

Some US CEOs support, some oppose, I don't feel like making a real statement here. I'm kind of tired feeling.

I'm sure the CEO's of Pharmaceutical companies would disagree, and voiciferously at that. I'm not sure if that means anything though. Read the full article, I left out lots of juicy bits as I didn't want the thread banned for copying an entire article.

Well it still intersting, because in most countries you have to rally the elites behind your cause to make it happens, like for example economical and political elites. So if the american economical elites see the benefits of public health care it mutch more likely to happen.

Australia's unemployment rate is officially 5.1% but it excludes people on special government programs (which basically are used to push people off the unemployment stats). I never trust goverment stats as they are.

I can see why CEOs would like this.
The company doesn't have to pay for any of it.
Taxes come out of the worker's paycheck to pay for it.

Nice.

Of course CEO's of major companies would like the Gov to pay for health care, profits would then go up for most of them

my few canadian friends would rather be under US style health care, they love those 6 month to 1 year waits for any type of medical procedure, my wait for surgury was 2 weeks after the doctor said I needed it and it was only that long because I delayed it so I could attend a day long event that I wanted to go to, my messed up knee was not exactly life threatening

and you have to wonder how much of trhe increase in medical costs in the US are because of "lifestyle" drugs (cialis, Viagra,celebrex, allegra, ETC) that just make life nicer and are not needed to stay alive

Of course CEO's of major companies would like the Gov to pay for health care, profits would then go up for most of them

my few canadian friends would rather be under US style health care, they love those 6 month to 1 year waits for any type of medical procedure, my wait for surgury was 2 weeks after the doctor said I needed it and it was only that long because I delayed it so I could attend a day long event that I wanted to go to, my messed up knee was not exactly life threatening

and you have to wonder how much of trhe increase in medical costs in the US are because of "lifestyle" drugs (cialis, Viagra,celebrex, allegra, ETC) that just make life nicer and are not needed to stay alive

Allegra and other antihistamines are not "lifestyle" drugs. Certainly, people who don't need them may take them. But for people with asthma, they are lifesaving drugs. Absolutely necessary.

My daughter would be in the hospital on a regular basis if it were not for Allegra and Singulair.

A very basic question for you people, just for perspectives' sake.

Why does it make sense to have an employer pay for medical care? Why is it assumed that only full-time working people get coverage? That the poor, the elderly, the non-working, students, most part-time workers, homemakers, etc...must pay out of pocket? Why is that inherantly desirable?

Why did we institutionalize the idea that no one but full-time and a few part-time workers are worthy of coverage?

That's the reality we are faced with today, but how did it come about? I'm afraid to say I know little about healthcare's history on a public level. I simply don't know HOW we got here.

Look at the larger picture of the Canadian economy: 8-9% unemployment, slow GDP growth, wage controls, and high taxes. They sacrificed their economy to support these programs, and the system is very slow and bureaucratic.
Yet Canadians have a better quality of life than Americans.

A very basic question for you people, just for perspectives' sake.

Why does it make sense to have an employer pay for medical care? Why is it assumed that only full-time working people get coverage? That the poor, the elderly, the non-working, students, most part-time workers, homemakers, etc...must pay out of pocket? Why is that inherantly desirable?

Why did we institutionalize the idea that no one but full-time and a few part-time workers are worthy of coverage?

That's the reality we are faced with today, but how did it come about? I'm afraid to say I know little about healthcare's history on a public level. I simply don't know HOW we got here.

Having seen several socialized medicine schemes, I can't say I like them. I do like the model that Kaiser Permanente does (their version of the HMO model), and if there was a way to make that the national system, I'd do it. But I feel that Kaiser only runs it as well as they do because they have to compete. Take away the competition, and within 6 months, they would suck.

I think that if we paid for universal health care by taxing corporations instead of individual incomes, and gave out yearly premium vouchers to be redeemed at the HMO of your choice, there would be competition as well as universal coverage, without socking it to the individual.

BTW, I don't feel that the quality of my life is worse than, say, the quality of life of my relatives in Toronto. They all feel I have it better down here.

slow GDP growth

Canada had the highest growth for all the G-7 countries (now G-8) countries last year and the year before. They have no trade deficits, in fact they have trade surplus for years now. As well they have had balanced budgets and have been deficit free with huge surplus for almost a decade. So, I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about. :confused:

Canada has 1/10th the population of the USA but has 1/6th the economic strength of the USA.

We're doing very well thank you.

Of course CEO's of major companies would like the Gov to pay for health care, profits would then go up for most of them
That's undoubtedly part of the reason, is that an argument for or against socialised health insurance?
my few canadian friends would rather be under US style health care, they love those 6 month to 1 year waits for any type of medical procedure, my wait for surgury was 2 weeks after the doctor said I needed it and it was only that long because I delayed it so I could attend a day long event that I wanted to go to, my messed up knee was not exactly life threatening
6 month to 1 year waiting period for "any type of medical procedure"? They must have some type of curse! Their experience is completely at odds with the experience anyone in my family or any of my friends have ever had. I do know one person who had to wait an extended period and that was because he was getting his third knee replacement surgery, he was grossly overweight and they had to design one specifically for him.
and you have to wonder how much of trhe increase in medical costs in the US are because of "lifestyle" drugs (cialis, Viagra,celebrex, allegra, ETC) that just make life nicer and are not needed to stay alive
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. We have all the "lifestyle" drugs that you mention for sale up here in Canada, so the cost argument kinda goes out the window.

Some US CEOs support, some oppose, I don't feel like making a real statement here. I'm kind of tired feeling.
It's a pretty logical idea that CEOs would support the total takeover of healthcare by the government. It translates directly into a lower burden on their companies. Same thing happened with the drug program for seniors. It freed up a large amount of money that would have had to go to buy drugs for their retirees.

That doesn't make it a good idea.

It's a pretty logical idea that CEOs would support the total takeover of healthcare by the government. It translates directly into a lower burden on their companies. Same thing happened with the drug program for seniors. It freed up a large amount of money that would have had to go to buy drugs for their retirees.

That doesn't make it a good idea.

Poor people with access to healthcare and seniors getting medication is sooooooooo revolting.

It's a pretty logical idea that CEOs would support the total takeover of healthcare by the government. It translates directly into a lower burden on their companies. Same thing happened with the drug program for seniors. It freed up a large amount of money that would have had to go to buy drugs for their retirees.

That doesn't make it a good idea.

I had to read this to make sure I was reading what i was reading.

You pretty much point out that it IS a good idea.

I really want to know why you think it is a bad idea.

I had to read this to make sure I was reading what i was reading.

You pretty much point out that it IS a good idea.

I really want to know why you think it is a bad idea.
It's a good idea for the XYZ Corp bottom line, not for the consumer.

There is nothing that the government does that is done well. Even national defense is wrought with cost over-runs and distribution problems. Why should we turn over a very important service to the government, only to have them screw it up too? Or, why do we think this will be different than every other program the government runs inefficiently?

The best thing that could happen is to get government completely out of health care. The mandates they slap on companies when they buy coverage are unreasonable. Why should I have to buy a policy that includes maternity benefits if I don't want any more children? Why should I buy a policy that includes drug and alcohol rehab when I don't abuse drugs and alcohol? Only because the government says my employer must offer those services in health plans.

Poor people with access to healthcare and seniors getting medication is sooooooooo revolting.
Look Pal, poor people clog up the emergency rooms at charity hospitals. Seniors were always able to get drugs. No one has ever died in the U.S. for lack of drugs or emergency medical care.

Look Pal, poor people clog up the emergency rooms at charity hospitals. Seniors were always able to get drugs. No one has ever died in the U.S. for lack of drugs or emergency medical care.

No but they have died when they couldn't afford neither.

Maybe the poor people wouldnt clog up the charity hospitals if they were more likely to be served in the larger hospitals.

It's a good idea for the XYZ Corp bottom line, not for the consumer.

There is nothing that the government does that is done well. Even national defense is wrought with cost over-runs and distribution problems. Why should we turn over a very important service to the government, only to have them screw it up too? Or, why do we think this will be different than every other program the government runs inefficiently?

The best thing that could happen is to get government completely out of health care. The mandates they slap on companies when they buy coverage are unreasonable. Why should I have to buy a policy that includes maternity benefits if I don't want any more children? Why should I buy a policy that includes drug and alcohol rehab when I don't abuse drugs and alcohol? Only because the government says my employer must offer those services in health plans.

Government-run health care is cheaper, has the same services and has less problems than the American system.

Having it government-run allows it to be held accountable in ways that private health cannot.

You are committing an error by believing private health is more efficient than public. It costs MORE for the private system and it hardly serves all. Also, the infant death statistics should give you a hint towards the efficacy of the private system.

You are dreaming if you think the government will do anything about what the insurance companies are charging you for services and coverage you won't need. I assume that's why the CEO's mentioned in the article want a public system: because they are being screwed on purpose under the guise of "total coverage".

No but they have died when they couldn't afford neither.

Maybe the poor people wouldnt clog up the charity hospitals if they were more likely to be served in the larger hospitals.
I think you would have a hard time documenting a significant number of deaths by those that actually sought medical care or pharmaceuticals. I still don't know why people are so anxious to have the government ration out medical care...

I think you would have a hard time documenting a significant number of deaths by those that actually sought medical care or pharmaceuticals. I still don't know why people are so anxious to have the government ration out medical care...


Erm... you do realize that when poor people go to the hospital for ‘free’, the hospital does get paid for it, don’t you? When your health insurance company pays a hospital bill, part of that payment goes into an indigent pool of funds to pay for that care. They don’t just pay your claim based on what is billed to them on a line item basis. So, in fact, if you’re insured, part of your premiums go for that 'free' care.

We’re duping ourselves if we think that if we’re not being taxed for it, someone else is paying for it. Think of that next time your insurance rates go up, or god forbid, you have to pay for a hospitalization out of pocket.

I think you would have a hard time documenting a significant number of deaths by those that actually sought medical care or pharmaceuticals. I still don't know why people are so anxious to have the government ration out medical care...

The government does not 'ration out' medical care.

You sick. You go to hospital. They pay the bill.

There is not a limited amount of cures out there. The goverment does not decide who lives or dies. Insurance companies in America do that when they refuse to pay for an operation they should be covering.

As soon as I heard 'ration out medical care' I understood your opinion on free health care is based on misinformation on what 'socialized' health care means.

You are committing an error by believing private health is more efficient than public. It costs MORE for the private system and it hardly serves all. Also, the infant death statistics should give you a hint towards the efficacy of the private system.

Correlation without causation. You need to look at a lot more factors for this argument. Reasoning Here! (http://www.techcentralstation.com/041505B.html)

Infant Mortality

I also believe that it is beyond reasonable doubt that the United States does not enjoy a significantly lower measured infant mortality rate than other countries. However, it is likely that the numbers are sensitive to the treatment of pre-term infants. In the United States, it is not uncommon for a baby to be delivered three or four months before the due date, where otherwise there would be a miscarriage. It is not uncommon for these low birth-weight babies to die.

Health care economist David Cutler devotes a chapter in his recent book to the costs and benefits of U.S. treatment of pre-term infants. He points out that "Mortality for the smallest infants...roughly two pounds, fell from 90 percent in 1950 to about 40 percent today." Cutler argues that although saving these infants is very expensive -- he cites a typical cost of $100,000 -- we are getting our money's worth, based on standard economic measures of the value of life.

Cutler does not make any international comparisons. However, one can imagine that in other countries a larger share of high-risk pregnancies end up as miscarriages. Those countries will have higher fetal death rates, but probably will have lower measured rates of infant mortality.

One international comparison suggests that indeed the United States is near the top of the advanced world in the proportion of low birthweight infants. The cabal cites this data, but not to suggest that infant mortality statistics are not comparable. Instead, they want to argue that this shows how poorly we do at providing prenatal care.

One way to sort this out would be to conduct a statistically valid comparison of fetal survival rates across countries. In each country to be studied, take a random sample of pregnancies that are normal as of three months. Try to control for age of the mother and other risk factors. Then measure the proportion of babies that live to age one.


Direct comparisons of infant mortality are relatively worthless.


EDIT - Also, the rest of that article brings up some interesting points on why our healthcare costs so much.

The government does not 'ration out' medical care.

You sick. You go to hospital. They pay the bill.

There is not a limited amount of cures out there. The goverment does not decide who lives or dies. Insurance companies in America do that when they refuse to pay for an operation they should be covering.

As soon as I heard 'ration out medical care' I understood your opinion on free health care is based on misinformation on what 'socialized' health care means.
I think the difference between free health care, which can't exist, and socialized medicine is such a fine line that these old eyes can't see it. When the government takes my property and decides who can better use it, that's socialism. When the government is the sole insurer for all the nations health needs, they are, in fact, the provider of healthcare.

Rationing a scarcity of healthcare is a very accurate description of socialized healthcare. There are only so many appointments available and when the government is paying the bills, all of these visits are going to be taken. Then a rationing scheme needs to be adopted to make sure the critically ill aren't overlooked. When the government does that, you can be sure the critically ill WILL be overlooked. As I've stated before, there is _nothing_ that the government can do better than private industry.

Here's an example of what I think is good practice. My wife has had a knee problem for a while. She usually just wraps it and goes on to play tennis. One day, she really was suffering so she decided it was time to go to the doctor. This was Sunday, she got the appointment on Monday with an Orthopod, not a GP mind you, but a specialist. He recommended an MRI and she had that on Tuesday. She has decided to forgo surgery for the time being, but on a week's notice she can have the orthoscopic surgery that the MD recommends.

From injury to surgery in a week! That would never happen in the wonderful world of "free" medical care.

I think the difference between free health care, which can't exist, and socialized medicine is such a fine line that these old eyes can't see it. When the government takes my property and decides who can better use it, that's socialism. When the government is the sole insurer for all the nations health needs, they are, in fact, the provider of healthcare.

Rationing a scarcity of healthcare is a very accurate description of socialized healthcare. There are only so many appointments available and when the government is paying the bills, all of these visits are going to be taken. Then a rationing scheme needs to be adopted to make sure the critically ill aren't overlooked. When the government does that, you can be sure the critically ill WILL be overlooked. As I've stated before, there is _nothing_ that the government can do better than private industry.

Here's an example of what I think is good practice. My wife has had a knee problem for a while. She usually just wraps it and goes on to play tennis. One day, she really was suffering so she decided it was time to go to the doctor. This was Sunday, she got the appointment on Monday with an Orthopod, not a GP mind you, but a specialist. He recommended an MRI and she had that on Tuesday. She has decided to forgo surgery for the time being, but on a week's notice she can have the orthoscopic surgery that the MD recommends.

From injury to surgery in a week! That would never happen in the wonderful world of "free" medical care.

How do you know? Do you have any direct experience to support your contention, or are you relying on some other source?

Hey, I went into hospital once with what turned out to be a serious, but operable condition, and went from ER to surgery in less than twelve hours. I was on homecare two days later. And I live in a country with socialized medicine.

In fact, I have no idea what you're talking about as far as this 'rationing' business is concerned. I've always been able to see an MD on demand, and the services of specialists have always required appointments. I wouldn't expect to be able to walk into an opthamologists' office and have an examination on the spot, but I certainly would expect to be able to see a GP at a medical centre or clinic, or have an X-Ray technician available to photograph a broken elbow.

You think it's like some sort of 'health gulag' up here or what?

As I've stated before, there is _nothing_ that the government can do better than private industry.

From injury to surgery in a week! That would never happen in the wonderful world of "free" medical care.

1) Actually, in BC, where I live, the govt.-run car insurance agency makes money and offers lower premiums (by about 300%) than the Alberta, which has a privatized insurance scheme.
2) No, it doesnt. The reason being, people who otherwise would have been rejected from hospital because they can't afford it also get in there and have appointments.

From injury to surgery in a week! That would never happen in the wonderful world of "free" medical care.

I beg to differ. I have had a number of friends and family that have had surgeries performed even faster than that on the Canadian system. I grant that none of them were knee surgeries.

Myrmidonisia, healthcare in Canada is not rationed. The government in Canada does not cap the number of visits that its citizens can make to doctor or hospital. There is not some magical number that cannot be exceeded. Hospitals, doctors offices, and clinics do not shut down in the fall because your magic number has been met.

Please, if you truly believe that our system is rationed and we are all brainwashed into believing that it is not, come up with some proof.

We, for example, can point to instances where HMOs and hospitals refused to pay for surgeries that were well outside the ability of the individual to pay. Furthermore, there are plenty of recent statistics about the number of people who have gone bankrupt in the US because of overwhelming medical bills.

And just in case you think your taxes don't already go towards subsidized healthcare for others, please consider this excerpt by an article by Paul Krugman of the NY Times:

In 2002, the latest year for which comparable data are available, the United States spent $5,267 on health care for each man, woman and child in the population. Of this, $2,364, or 45 percent, was government spending, mainly on Medicare and Medicaid. Canada spent $2,931 per person, of which $2,048 came from the government. France spent $2,736 per person, of which $2,080 was government spending.

So, Canadian taxpayers pays $2,048 per person to provide health care for everyone, and in some provinces, we pay for additional user fees. American taxpayers pay $2,364 per person to provide health care to a fraction of its population. And then you Americans still have to shell out thousands more to HMOs etc for your personal healthcare.

I'll stick with our system, thanks.

I'll stick with our system, thanks.
I'm glad y'all are happy with what you have. Too bad the doctors aren't. I see articles all the time about towns giving all sorts of in-kind stuff to docs because they can't get them to practice for the low government wages.

Anyhow, y'all keep what you have and don't let it across the border, okay?

I see that you have chosen to concede the points I was making to refute your claims.

As for the brain drain, surely you are aware that it occurs in both directions? American professionals move to Canada as much as Canadians move to the US. However, the percentage of Canadians who move south is higher, because our population is 1/10th of yours.

As for the rural/remote areas and small towns have trouble keeping doctors:

The doctors aren't complaining about their salaries, they're complaining that they don't have enough colleagues in the small town and rural areas. Not surprisingly, most young doctors prefer to practice in large cities. Surely you're not advocating that we force doctors to live and practice in specific areas? As a result, if only one doctor services the small population, then they can be overworked, or not have time for vacations. So they get extra incentives to encourage them to stay. And if you think that this situation is any different for small towns and rural communities in the US, you haven't been paying attention.

I think the difference between free health care, which can't exist, and socialized medicine is such a fine line that these old eyes can't see it. When the government takes my property and decides who can better use it, that's socialism. When the government is the sole insurer for all the nations health needs, they are, in fact, the provider of healthcare.

Rationing a scarcity of healthcare is a very accurate description of socialized healthcare. There are only so many appointments available and when the government is paying the bills, all of these visits are going to be taken. Then a rationing scheme needs to be adopted to make sure the critically ill aren't overlooked. When the government does that, you can be sure the critically ill WILL be overlooked. As I've stated before, there is _nothing_ that the government can do better than private industry.

Here's an example of what I think is good practice. My wife has had a knee problem for a while. She usually just wraps it and goes on to play tennis. One day, she really was suffering so she decided it was time to go to the doctor. This was Sunday, she got the appointment on Monday with an Orthopod, not a GP mind you, but a specialist. He recommended an MRI and she had that on Tuesday. She has decided to forgo surgery for the time being, but on a week's notice she can have the orthoscopic surgery that the MD recommends.

From injury to surgery in a week! That would never happen in the wonderful world of "free" medical care.

1) A simple knee injury is hardly a vital organ needing immediate surgery. I was willing to forgo an ankle operation for months because others more in need of the operation needed to go before me.

2) If your wife didn't have to pay for the specialist, operation, etc. she would have went to have her ankle looked at long before it started causing her major discomfort. Had she had something serious that was causing the pain, like cancer, she would be dead (or at least amputated) by now because she decided to wait until it was serious.

3) Seeing a doctor in Canada is like seeing any other professional (legal, financial, etc). You make an appointment and go. The only difference is the government pays any fees incurred.

You still demonstrate a complete misunderstanding on how the system works.

1) A simple knee injury is hardly a vital organ needing immediate surgery. I was willing to forgo an ankle operation for months because others more in need of the operation needed to go before me.

This is my point. We can get the care we want, when we want it. It doesn't have to be an emergency to be treated in a timely fashion.

2) If your wife didn't have to pay for the specialist, operation, etc. she would have went to have her ankle looked at long before it started causing her major discomfort. Had she had something serious that was causing the pain, like cancer, she would be dead (or at least amputated) by now because she decided to wait until it was serious.

I'm thankful to find someone who understands why my wife does things the way she does. If you would contact me by email, I've got a bunch of other things to ask you about.

3) Seeing a doctor in Canada is like seeing any other professional (legal, financial, etc). You make an appointment and go. The only difference is the government pays any fees incurred.

You still demonstrate a complete misunderstanding on how the system works.
Look, I know how it works here and it suits me. I couldn't care how it works in Canada, Great Britain, or Pago-Pago. I don't live there. I don't want a bunch of reformers to screwing up an acceptable system by making the government responsible for my medical care in any way.

Reminds me of when we lived in California. We went house hunting and we couldn't find anything that we liked for the money we were willing to spend. So we asked the agent where the $150K houses were. She pointed to a pile of bricks and some sand and pretty much told us if we were going to buy a house for that much, we'd have to build it ourselves. Pretty much every native Californian we met was happy with the price of housing. They were content with the idea of zero lot lines, too.

They had convinced themselves that everyone else lived like that and it wasn't so bad. They had also built up the idea that what they overspent on housing, they made up by saving on utilities and food. They were wrong, of course, or this wouldn't have much of a point. Most of the country doesn't live like they do in the People's Republic of California and doesn't want to.

Most of the country doesn't live like they do in the People's Republic of California and doesn't want to.

:D I'm sure Schwarzenegger would be surprised to hear that he runs a communist state!

Might make it a bit difficult for him to run for president even if his supporters manage to amend the amendment.

Anyhow, y'all keep what you have and don't let it across the border, okay?

Make you a deal: we'll keep what we have and promise not to let it across the border if you promise to keep your illegal firearms from crossing our border. Deal?

We don't need more visits to the emergency rooms because of illegal gunplay, now do we?

:D I'm sure Schwarzenegger would be surprised to hear that he runs a communist state!

Might make it a bit difficult for him to run for president even if his supporters manage to amend the amendment.
SoCal is the biggest cesspool in North America. The sensible, northern part of the state wants to secede because they are tired of footing the bills the south incurs. Never thought I'd sing the praises of Northerners, but there it is. California is losing population to the rest of the U.S. at an even faster rate than Canada.

The amendment won't happen in Arnold's lifetime. Takes way too long to amend the Constitution.

1) Actually, in BC, where I live, the govt.-run car insurance agency makes money and offers lower premiums (by about 300%) than the Alberta, which has a privatized insurance scheme.
2) No, it doesnt. The reason being, people who otherwise would have been rejected from hospital because they can't afford it also get in there and have appointments.


And health care is also the largest swing issue in the province. Who do you want to win the election Ubiqtorate, Liberals or NDP.

1) Actually, in BC, where I live, the govt.-run car insurance agency makes money and offers lower premiums (by about 300%) than the Alberta, which has a privatized insurance scheme.
2) No, it doesnt. The reason being, people who otherwise would have been rejected from hospital because they can't afford it also get in there and have appointments.
Apparently, there is a little dissent in BC about how profitable a government agency should be. Thompson's (http://www.thompsonsnews.com/story.asp?story=552) carries this little story where the ICBC is accused of charging good drivers higher rates than needed, in order to show a profit. Insurance is a tricky business. Assuming risk and staying profitable would be a lot easier if you can always fall back on a tax hike to fulfill your operating needs. If you're the only game in town and you don't have to provide a rate structure that rewards or punishes driving ability, you stand to make a lot more, too. I'm sure with a little investigation, there is a dearth of information about how well or poorly the ICBC is run. I just have better things to do.

Apparently, there is a little dissent in BC about how profitable a government agency should be. Thompson's (http://www.thompsonsnews.com/story.asp?story=552) carries this little story where the ICBC is accused of charging good drivers higher rates than needed, in order to show a profit. Insurance is a tricky business. Assuming risk and staying profitable would be a lot easier if you can always fall back on a tax hike to fulfill your operating needs. If you're the only game in town and you don't have to provide a rate structure that rewards or punishes driving ability, you stand to make a lot more, too. I'm sure with a little investigation, there is a dearth of information about how well or poorly the ICBC is run. I just have better things to do.

Oh good god. Average car insurance rates in BC are the lowest in Canada. You're just hearing crap stories from private insurers who want to get rid of ICBC so they can raise our insurance rates by 70% to meet the rest of the country.

All this stuff about waiting lines is complete bogus. Take my word for it, as someone who has grown up with socialised health care.

The Canadian system, which provides coverage for all and functions perfectly fine as compared to the United States, costs less. The United States spends 15% of it's GDP on health care as opposed to the Canadian 9%. If we spent that much on health care, our health care system would be the very best in the world.

All your blathering about the Canadian system being less effective should take into mind that we spend less. And everyone gets the same, adequate treatment. How is this an evil that must be avoided like the plague?

The last time I went to the hospital (I broke my hand) I went to the ER, got an X-ray the next day, and got that put in a cast that same time. Simple, wasn't it? No waiting times, nothing - but yet, we didn't pay a cent.

American drugs and weaponry have caused far more harm than anything Canadian has ever done to the U.S. - so don't tell us what to keep in our country, you bloody hypocrite.

All your blathering about the Canadian system being less effective should take into mind that we spend less. And everyone gets the same, adequate treatment. How is this an evil that must be avoided like the plague?

The last time I went to the hospital (I broke my hand) I went to the ER, got an X-ray the next day, and got that put in a cast that same time. Simple, wasn't it? No waiting times, nothing - but yet, we didn't pay a cent.


Why did you have to wait a day to get an X-ray? They have those machines at almost every doctor's office I've been to. I've never had to wait more than an hour or so at an office visit I've scheduled on the same day as I called for an appointment.

So a friend at work tells me a story about growing up in BC. He's served his time in purgatory and is now eligible for US citizenship. Back to the story. He goes to the GP with a problem. GP sees something that isn't quite right and says he needs a biopsy. Doc says come back in three weeks and we'll fix you up.

Three weeks! Can you imagine what would go through your mind if you or one of your kids had to wait three weeks to find out whether this glandular lump was something serious?

Back to the friend. Three weeks go by, he gets the biopsy. A couple weeks later he finds out that it's Hodgkin's. Another two months go by before he starts getting treatment.

Two months, this time! Maybe this is adequate and equal, but I certainly prefer spending a couple more dollars and getting timely treatment.

It doesn't much matter though, we'll have government health care before I'm dead. Maybe we'll cast it off before it kills my kids.

:D <waves to International Terrans> Thank God for red Tories.

I still can't vote Conservative though. Too many blue ones.

So a friend at work tells me a story about growing up in BC. He's served his time in purgatory and is now eligible for US citizenship. Back to the story. He goes to the GP with a problem. GP sees something that isn't quite right and says he needs a biopsy. Doc says come back in three weeks and we'll fix you up.

Three weeks! Can you imagine what would go through your mind if you or one of your kids had to wait three weeks to find out whether this glandular lump was something serious?

Back to the friend. Three weeks go by, he gets the biopsy. A couple weeks later he finds out that it's Hodgkin's. Another two months go by before he starts getting treatment.

Two months, this time! Maybe this is adequate and equal, but I certainly prefer spending a couple more dollars and getting timely treatment.

It doesn't much matter though, we'll have government health care before I'm dead. Maybe we'll cast it off before it kills my kids.

Ah yes, the friend anecdote. Do you really think they bear more weight than personal experience? Besides, you need to get appointments with US specialists too. You can't just walk in off the street and say howdy.

And it seems strange that he had to wait 2 months before getting treatment for Hodgkins. What part of BC did he come from? A remote northern community? Or perhaps there were complications for his treatment that had to be worked out before the treatment began?

The BC Cancer clinics are some of the best in the world, pioneering special projects to localize radiation treatments, for example. As a donor to the Cancer Society, I recently went on a tour of the Victoria clinic, and found out that there radiation center has no waiting lists at all -- but you still have to have an appointment.

Why did you have to wait a day to get an X-ray? They have those machines at almost every doctor's office I've been to. I've never had to wait more than an hour or so at an office visit I've scheduled on the same day as I called for an appointment.

*SNIP*

Two months, this time! Maybe this is adequate and equal, but I certainly prefer spending a couple more dollars and getting timely treatment.

It doesn't much matter though, we'll have government health care before I'm dead. Maybe we'll cast it off before it kills my kids.
I went to an ER, not a doctor's office. This was at about 9:00 PM - my doctor was at home. We got the appointment the day before, that's what I'm saying.

Maybe you have the money to pay for health care of that kind - I know my family certainly does, we're luckier than many. But the thing is, 15% of the American population has no health coverage. That means, if one of those people gets sick, they either go bankrupt or die. If it meant saving the life of someone else, I'd gladly wait.

The main problem with Canada's healthcare system is the lack of personnel because of the brain drain. Lured by the promise of higher salaries, our hospitals are not underfunded, they are understaffed. We are not killing our people with longer waiting lists - you are.

:D <waves to International Terrans> Thank God for red Tories.

I still can't vote Conservative though. Too many blue ones.
Oh yes, I decided to be a Red Tory after the Liberals disgusted me and the NDP failed me.

I still can't vote Conservative - 16 years old.

Oh yes, I decided to be a Red Tory after the Liberals disgusted me and the NDP failed me.

I still can't vote Conservative - 16 years old.

Well then, how do you feel about the red Tories having little to no say in Conservative policy making? Sure, the reds get trotted out a lot in public to make the party appear more moderate, but the blues have the control.

Do you feel you can change the party from the inside?

This is my point. We can get the care we want, when we want it. It doesn't have to be an emergency to be treated in a timely fashion.
So, to clarify, you dislike the Canadian Healthcare system because some people don't have timely access to it (whether or not this is true is debatable, but for the purposes of debate I'll accept this) but you like the American Healthcare system in spite of some people not having timely access to it?

Ah yes, the friend anecdote. Do you really think they bear more weight than personal experience? Besides, you need to get appointments with US specialists too. You can't just walk in off the street and say howdy.

And it seems strange that he had to wait 2 months before getting treatment for Hodgkins. What part of BC did he come from? A remote northern community? Or perhaps there were complications for his treatment that had to be worked out before the treatment began?

The BC Cancer clinics are some of the best in the world, pioneering special projects to localize radiation treatments, for example. As a donor to the Cancer Society, I recently went on a tour of the Victoria clinic, and found out that there radiation center has no waiting lists at all -- but you still have to have an appointment.
Take it for what it's worth. I don't have anything to gain from lying and I don't think my pal does either. He grew up in Vancouver and can't bear what has become of Taxanada.(His nickname, not mine).

And you can make same day, or at least next day appointments with specialists. My wife has done that more than once with orthopedic surgeons, oncologists, and dermatologists. Walk-in is very widely done with an array of urgent care clinics that will X-ray a broken hand without requiring an overnight wait. Which is unlike the hospital emergency room visit example that Int'l Terrans relayed.

Take it for what it's worth. I don't have anything to gain from lying and I don't think my pal does either. He grew up in Vancouver and can't bear what has become of Taxanada.(His nickname, not mine).

And you can make same day, or at least next day appointments with specialists. My wife has done that more than once with orthopedic surgeons, oncologists, and dermatologists. Walk-in is very widely done with an array of urgent care clinics that will X-ray a broken hand without requiring an overnight wait. Which is unlike the hospital emergency room visit example that Int'l Terrans relayed.

<sigh> We can get same day X-Rays too. However, if the body part that needs to be X-Rayed and cast is too swollen, you have to wait until the swelling goes down. That holds true for whatever country you happen to be in.

As for your same day appointments to specialists. Well, congratulations. I'm very glad that you and your wife have timely access to health care.

Too bad millions of your compatriots do not.

StatsCan's methodology IS good, I've read into it and found none of the little "tricks" that are used to artificially lower the percentage of unemployed.

StatsCan's methodology was never part of my point; my point is that the US's methodology is skewed. That the numbers used by those who believe the US has a "better" economy are flawed, distorted through manipulation of data to seem better than they really are.

Problem is, too often nobody is willing to admit that, nor will they believe it if told by "outsiders". I'm trying to make others realize that the US unemployment numbers are falsified, and I use indirect methods, because they'll deny it if I just tell them that.

How many times will people with agenda's look facts in the face and deny them because it doesn't support their worldview? All the freaking time. Perhaps if they are allowed to stumble on the truth themselves, they won't feel threatened by the realization. Its a long shot, but I'm trying to reason with political idealogues, so I know the odds are against me.
Thanks for looking into this matter. I have been saying on these boards for over a year now, that the US unemployment is actually higher than in Canada, when you factor in all those little "tricks" as you so aptly named them. However, people want to live in denial and that is their choice.

I have also posted countless comparisons between the US and Canada's healthcare models and the fact is that the US pays anywhere from two to three times as much money for basically inferior services, considering that 45 million Americans do not even have basic health insurance. Once again, the denial kicks in and all kinds of excuses are made but the facts speak for themselves.

The other fact is that the amount of tax dollars that go to healthcare out of my pocket are far less than the cost of premium healthcare insurance in the US.

Other facts that seemed to get ignored is that Canadians live an average of two years longer than Americans and Canada has a lower infant mortality rate.

Other facts that seemed to get ignored is that Canadians live an average of two years longer than Americans and Canada has a lower infant mortality rate.

Cuba (!) has a lower infant mortality rate than the US. In fact, 41 countries have a lower infant mortality rate than the US. Women are 70% more likely to die of childbirth in the US than in Europe. Last year, a study by the Institute of Medicine, a branch of the National Academy of Sciences, estimated that in the United States, the lack of health insurance coverage causes 18,000 unnecessary deaths a year.

Yes, the US has some of the best health care in the world, but only for those who can afford it.

That's why I support universal health care. I can't imagine living in a country that doesn't provide health services for all its people, rich, middle class, or poor.

Yep it is just to look on www.cia.gov (atleast they can't be seen having a leftist bias). Took my crazyleftist country Sweden the good capitalistic USA and the evil and ineffecient communist cuba
Infant mortality rate:
Sweden
total: 2.77 deaths/1,000 live births

Usa
total: 6.63 deaths/1,000 live births

Cuba
total: 6.45 deaths/1,000 live births

Life expectancy at birth:
Sweden
total population: 80.3 years

USA
total population: 77.43 years

Cuba
total population: 77.04 years

Oh yes, I decided to be a Red Tory after the Liberals disgusted me and the NDP failed me.

I still can't vote Conservative - 16 years old.

Your still too young to remember Mulroney and why he's the most reviled politician in Canadian history.

Don't worry, once the Tories get in power (unlikely now) they'll disappoint you as well and then you'll realize THEY ALL DISAPPOINT AT ONE POINT OR ANOTHER.

I find it best to stick with a party and give it hell when it does something stupid. But I'm not a stickler for party loyalty either.

Personally, I would not choose a right-wing party if you like health care. Under Mulroney the federal contribution to health care was slashed dramatically and they extended drug patents from 5 to 20 years so they'll remain expensive longer.

Look at the larger picture of the Canadian economy: 8-9% unemployment, slow GDP growth, wage controls, and high taxes. They sacrificed their economy to support these programs, and the system is very slow and bureaucratic.

Plus: GM is near bankruptcy because of its health care paln. It is definitely not a model for employee bnefits.

ever heard of a trade cycle?

Didn't want y'all to think I'd abandoned you. There are a couple things I want to sum up and then that will be it. I'm not trying to persuade anyone that the Socialist tendencies in Canada are bad. I think you will come to curse them on your own.

Anyhow, let me make some observations that I'm not going to back up with anything more than the empirical evidence of my own experience. I'm not on a debating team and I don't care to get bogged down in facts and figures when I'm just trying to waste time.

First, no government can do anything well. Sure, maybe there is an exception or two, but as a general rule, this statement is true. Just a peek at how legislative bodies work should be enough to scare anyone away from allowing the government to take any important responsibilities.

Second, price controls don't work either. They certainly stifle economic competition. They also cause shortages. Look at Florida's anti-gouging laws that fix prices on goods that are used in the reconstruction after the hurricanes last year. There are shortages of plywood, generators, shingles, labor...All because the state has said no one can profit from the reconstruction. There's a Hilton hotel near Cape Canaveral that has been closed for nearly a year because they can't get the materials and labor to pay for it. You know Hilton would pay any price to get a hotel on the beach operating for the summer, but it isn't going to happen.

Last, encouraging the population to depend on the government for all it's daily needs is only going to bring down the economy. After that fails, trying to become self-sufficient again is going to be overwhelming. I think all we need to do is look at the USSR to realize that when the government provides everything, everything is going to be screwed up.

That being said, good luck to you. I know we'll be following down the path of government provided everything pretty soon and I hope that you will have cast off the government security blanket by that time. That's a selfish hope; I want somewhere to retreat after we allow, no, after we demand that our politicians screw up our country.

no one objects to people making a profit, it was just during the last big storm, the store immediatly raised the price of a 10 dollar piece of plywood to 40 dollars
and if hilton really wanted that hotel open, they are big enough to rent a few trucks and bring the stuff in from other places, like up here in ohio where they is no shortage right now

This is my point. We can get the care we want, when we want it. It doesn't have to be an emergency to be treated in a timely fashion.
I notice that you are from Georgia? Georgia's infant mortality rate (IMR) is 8.5 (ranked 43rd in the US), yet here in Canada, it is 5.2.

BTW, the People's Republic of California (ranked 4th in the US), as you like to call it, has an IMR of 5.4

Are you sure that you are getting the care you want, when you want it?

Oh yes, I decided to be a Red Tory after the Liberals disgusted me and the NDP failed me.

I still can't vote Conservative - 16 years old.

I fail to see how the NDP could possibly have 'failed you' considering you haven't voted. Even once.

Perhaps your parents feel the NDP failed them. Presumably they're of voting age. In any event, you're full of it.