NationStates Jolt Archive

Finally, a Canadian court confirms what we have suspected all along. That is that the Canadians are endangering themselves with the free public health system. A recent Supreme Court decision (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aVIH1kZG.S0M&refer=top_world_news) struck down a Quebec law that banned private insurance and private clinics. The court stated that the ban violates Quebec's constitution by denying people vital health care and endangering their lives.

Now that the "gold standard" in health care has been discredited, we are safe to abandon Hillarycare and pursue more effective means of reforming health care.

The New York Times had this (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/09/international/americas/09cnd-canada.html?hp&ex=1118376000&en=0b16373d15ab0917&ei=5094&partner=homepage) to add on the topic. They cleverly see the decision as "chipping away" at the National Healthcare System.

But in recent years, patients have been forced to wait longer for diagnostic tests and elective surgery, while the wealthy and well connected either seek care in the United States or use influence to jump ahead on waiting lists.

The court ruled that the waiting lists had become so long that they violated patients' "liberty, safety and security" under the Quebec charter, which covers about one-quarter of Canada's population.

"The evidence in this case shows that delays in the public health care system are widespread and that in some serious cases, patients die as a result of waiting lists for public health care," the Supreme Court ruled. "In sum, the prohibition on obtaining private health insurance is not constitutional where the public system fails to deliver reasonable services."


Where are the people that always tell me how awful U.S. healthcare is and how wonderful the Canadians have it? Tell me why your Supreme Court is wrong.

Technically, any province can have private health care at any time. Healthcare is under provincial jurisdiction. The trouble with that is, if they decide to have private health clinics, they will no longer receive any federal funds under the Canada Health Act. And since the federal government provides a sizable chunk of cash for healthcare, no province is willing to do it. AFAIK, the supreme court decision just says banning private clinics outright is illegal.

Finally, a Canadian court confirms what we have suspected all along. That is that the Canadians are endangering themselves with the free public health system. A recent Supreme Court decision (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aVIH1kZG.S0M&refer=top_world_news) struck down a Quebec law that banned private insurance and private clinics. The court stated that the ban violates Quebec's constitution by denying people vital health care and endangering their lives.

Now that the "gold standard" in health care has been discredited, we are safe to abandon Hillarycare and pursue more effective means of reforming health care.

Only one problem with all of that, Canadians still live longer than us in the USA.

Only one problem with all of that, Canadians still live longer than us in the USA.
I find it hard to draw a hard link between nationalized healthcare and life expectancy. I suspect there's something else at work that lowers our life expectancy. Maybe the large immigrant population? Maybe the gangs at work killing each other? Lots of factors to consider.

I find it hard to draw a hard link between nationalized healthcare and life expectancy. I suspect there's something else at work that lowers our life expectancy. Maybe the large immigrant population? Maybe the gangs at work killing each other? Lots of factors to consider.

Poverty.

Where are the people that always tell me how awful U.S. healthcare is and how wonderful the Canadians have it? Tell me why your Supreme Court is wrong.

As soon as you tell us where the Canadian Supreme Court said the current state of Canadian Health Care was worse than in the U.S.

I find it hard to draw a hard link between nationalized healthcare and life expectancy. I suspect there's something else at work that lowers our life expectancy. Maybe the large immigrant population? Maybe the gangs at work killing each other? Lots of factors to consider.

Maybe your high % of population who does'nt have acces to decent health care because they can't afford medical insurance. These people probably die younger.

Maybe your high % of population who does'nt have acces to decent health care because they can't afford medical insurance. These people probably die younger.

Well said. Well said.

I find it hard to draw a hard link between nationalized healthcare and life expectancy. I suspect there's something else at work that lowers our life expectancy. Maybe the large immigrant population? Maybe the gangs at work killing each other? Lots of factors to consider.

We do have a smaller infant death rate as the US.

Canada 4.95

USA 6.69

Anyway, the wait times have been exaggerated and were only because of cutbacks. Since the cutbacks are over with and the government has a budget surplus they have begun putting money back in, so expect the waits to decrease.

Allowing the private clinics outside the national system to take hold will rob the public sector of vital employees and may lead to the collapse of the public health care system. This would result in higher costs all around and all of the problems associated with an all-private sytem like we see in the US.

EDIT

Besides, the choice of words and tone hint that the author of the article may be on the side of a health company itching for Canada to drop its guard so the system can be exploited for financial gain like how the US is set up.

Finally, a Canadian court confirms what we have suspected all along. That is that the Canadians are endangering themselves with the free public health system. A recent Supreme Court decision (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aVIH1kZG.S0M&refer=top_world_news) struck down a Quebec law that banned private insurance and private clinics. The court stated that the ban violates Quebec's constitution by denying people vital health care and endangering their lives.

Now that the "gold standard" in health care has been discredited, we are safe to abandon Hillarycare and pursue more effective means of reforming health care.
Yup, US healthcare is so much better than Canada's:

Living and working without healthcare (http://money.cnn.com/2004/12/22/news/economy/poverty_healthcare/)

Jones's situation is not unusual. An estimated 45 million Americans, or 15.6 percent of the population, was uninsured in 2003, up from 15.2 percent in 2002, according to the U.S. Census Bureau's most recent data.

Not to mention that the US pays almost 3 times as much per capita as does Canada for medical care.

http://cthealth.server101.com/healthcare_bureaucracy_u_s__vs__canada.htm

http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/002333.html

http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for_universal_health_care_in_the_united_states.htm

We don't need nor want more expensive healthcare in Canada...thanks anyways.

I'm actually quite content that the Canadian Supreme Court pointed out mandatory National Healthcare for what it is. Inefficient, bureaucratic, and dangerous is not what I'd want my taxes to go.

As far as the half-truths attacking the U.S. system, well, if that's your best defense, I'm sorry for you.

*effective and concise rebuttal snip*

I can always depend on you, fellow Canuck :)

I need to bookmark those for later. I'm looking for testamonials from American health workers who work in Canada and vice versa to get their opinions on the differences between the two systems.

Could you TG me if should you find some?

I always hear 'merkans going "blah blah blah, Canada and their healtcare, what a bunch of Communists."

Did you know:

1. The US apart from South Africa (SOUTH AFRICA FOLKS!!!!) is the ONLY developed nation in the world that does not offer it's citizens universal healthcare.

2. The US spends the HIGHEST amount per capita of any developed nation on healthcare.


So don't tell me it's a waste of my tax money. More of yours is going to the same thing, and you're getting nothing from it.

I always hear 'merkans going "blah blah blah, Canada and their healtcare, what a bunch of Communists."

Did you know:

1. The US apart from South Africa (SOUTH AFRICA FOLKS!!!!) is the ONLY developed nation in the world that does not offer it's citizens universal healthcare.

2. The US spends the HIGHEST amount per capita of any developed nation on healthcare.


So don't tell me it's a waste of my tax money. More of yours is going to the same thing, and you're getting nothing from it.
I'm still waiting for a _defense_ of the bureaucracy that delays treatment so much that patients die. A defense that doesn't revolve around "Well the U.S. pays more" or "Your infant mortality rate is higher than ours". That doesn't defend the practice of banning private insurance, only shifts the argument to different ground. I'm probably waiting in vain, I know.

Yes... you have successfully proved that long waiting lists can harm people. Congratulations.

I would argue that NO HEALTH CARE AT ALL endangers patients health far more than the possiblity that there may be waiting lists.

There exist waiting lists for donations/really big procedures in the US as well, and they too endanger people when they get too long. But I'll bet you a silk pajama that given the option, many people would rather face the threat of waiting lists as opposed to living without healthcare.
Of course, maybe it's just me. I guess conversations like this -

Bill - Hey man, I don't feel so good, I think I need a doctor...
Ted - You know, you have no medical insurance...
Bill - Well, maybe national healthcare is the future? Give everyone medical care...
Ted - Yea, but there might be waiting lists.
Bill - Damn... didn't think of that. Well, never mind. I think I'll just just let this disease kill me.
Ted - Good call man, good call.

are taking place in poor neighbourhoods all accross America. :rolleyes:

Yes... you have successfully proved that long waiting lists can harm people. Congratulations.

I would argue that NO HEALTH CARE AT ALL endangers patients health far more than the possiblity that there may be waiting lists.

There exist waiting lists for donations/really big procedures in the US as well, and they too endanger people when they get too long. But I'll bet you a silk pajama that given the option, many people would rather face the threat of waiting lists as opposed to living without healthcare.
Of course, maybe it's just me. I guess conversations like this -

Bill - Hey man, I don't feel so good, I think I need a doctor...
Ted - You know, you have no medical insurance...
Bill - Well, maybe national healthcare is the future? Give everyone medical care...
Ted - Yea, but there might be waiting lists.
Bill - Damn... didn't think of that. Well, never mind. I think I'll just just let this disease kill me.
Ted - Good call man, good call.

are taking place in poor neighbourhoods all accross America. :rolleyes:
Sorry, it's more like
Bud: I don't feel well.
Lou: Well go to the doctor.
Bud: I can't afford it.
Lou: Tough. I guess you'll have to go to the Charity Hospital Emergency Room and wait around with all the other folks that can't afford a doctor's visit.
Bud: Yeah, but at least they won't give me a bill. And I'll get fixed up today.

Anyway, the wait times have been exaggerated and were only because of cutbacks. Since the cutbacks are over with and the government has a budget surplus they have begun putting money back in, so expect the waits to decrease.

I'm a big fan of our universal health system, and like you i think media have exaggerated a lot the situation about wait time. There will always be a unlucky person who will get stuck in bureaucracy, last time I went to the emergency, I was literally alone (I mean LITERALLY).

That being say, I fear the future. We will have trouble in 10-20 years because of the population age. The younger generation wont be able to pay the health care bills for all the baby boomer's because there will be more retired than working people.

I'm still waiting for a _defense_ of the bureaucracy that delays treatment so much that patients die. A defense that doesn't revolve around "Well the U.S. pays more" or "Your infant mortality rate is higher than ours". That doesn't defend the practice of banning private insurance, only shifts the argument to different ground. I'm probably waiting in vain, I know.

Will results from the CDC help you change your tune?

http://www.cbpp.org/9-23-03health.htm

(snippet from the long-ass report)

The data from the CDC survey show that private health insurance coverage declined substantially during the downturn of 2002 and remain low (in historical terms) in early 2003. But this was largely offset by increases in coverage from Medicaid and SCHIP. The net effect is that the overall number of uninsured low-income children actually has declined, while the number of uninsured adults rose, but much less than it would have otherwise. The CDC data indicate that about 2.5 million more children and 1.6 million more non-elderly adults had coverage because the percentage of people covered by public programs rose in 2002.

Meeting these higher health coverage needs costs more money but is a worthwhile investment. A recent report by the Institute of Medicine, part of the National Academy of Sciences, noted the value to the nation of health insurance coverage: “The economic vitality of the country is diminished by productivity lost as a result of the poorer health and premature death or disability of uninsured workers.” The report also points out that the poorer health of children and adults may contribute to higher expenditures for Medicare, Social Security Disability and the criminal justice system, because of the increased toll of poor physical and mental health that can occur when people lack health insurance coverage.[15]

BTW your 'bureaucracy' rant shows low little you know of how hospitals are set up and you're making it sound like people are being made to wait for malicious reasons (I promise you there is no cartoonish supervillany going on).

Hospitals/Clinics in Canada are all either:
1) privately owned,
2) owned by organizations (salvation army, catholics),
3) put together by community donations.

All government does is pay the bills.

Then the hospitals are monitored by Health Authorities to keep standards high and that emerging threats and other issues are dealt with. It's really an efficient system kept to a very high standard.

I'm a big fan of our universal health system, and like you i think media have exaggerated a lot the situation about wait time. There will always be a unlucky person who will get stuck in bureaucracy, last time I went to the emergency, I was literally alone (I mean LITERALLY).

That being say, I fear the future. We will have trouble in 10-20 years because of the population age. The younger generation wont be able to pay the health care bills for all the baby boomer's because there will be more retired than working people.

Yeah, that's a problem ALL western nations are having to deal with.

DO NOT FEAR! If the avian flu or SARS become a pandemic it'll kill off all the old people.

Problem solved :D

ok now i am gonna say anyone that thinks we wait a long time for service ought to check out new yorks non private hospitals oh sure if we live in a tiny town of 5000 we get quick service but anywhere else we are still quicker hell we had 5 years of gordon campbell and its still faster then most generals in the states so STFU morons and stop talking about what you dont understand canadians vote FOR health care at all costs and for free and universal sure plastic surgery private ok anything else go f yourself we only pay 30 bucks for 100 dollar in america medicines it works thank you

Hospitals/Clinics in Canada are all either:
1) privately owned,
2) owned by organizations (salvation army, catholics),
3) put together by community donations.

All government does is pay the bills.

Then the hospitals are monitored by Health Authorities to keep standards high and that emerging threats and other issues are dealt with. It's really an efficient system kept to a very high standard.
What part of the efficiency was the court defending when they said this?

"The evidence in this case shows that delays in the public health care system are widespread and that in some serious cases, patients die as a result of waiting lists for public health care," the Supreme Court ruled."

And I don't think the delays are malicious. They are institutional.

ok now i am gonna say anyone that thinks we wait a long time for service ought to check out new yorks non private hospitals oh sure if we live in a tiny town of 5000 we get quick service but anywhere else we are still quicker hell we had 5 years of gordon campbell and its still faster then most generals in the states so STFU morons and stop talking about what you dont understand canadians vote FOR health care at all costs and for free and universal sure plastic surgery private ok anything else go f yourself we only pay 30 bucks for 100 dollar in america medicines it works thank you

A suggestion? Punctuation, grammar and the shift key are your friends.

Sentences, paragraphs, appropriately capitalized words... use of all these things will inspire people to spend their time considering the merit of your ideas rather than trying to figure out what the heck they are.

A suggestion? Punctuation, grammar and the shift key are your friends.

Sentences, paragraphs, appropriately capitalized words... use of all these things will inspire people to spend their time considering the merit of your ideas rather than trying to figure out what the heck they are.
I figured he was just a product of American government schooling.

Why do you feel the need to attack the Canadian healthcare system? We're happy with it, and nothing you say can change that. So instead of going on a rant attempting to discourge your fellow Americans from the "socialist backwater" up north, you focus on your own problems. Like your wasteful healthcare system. We spend something like 9% of our GDP on healthcare, as opposed to 15% in the United States. Regardless of who gets it, the extra money will result in extra "quality".

Simply put, the universal healthcare system is better for the country as a whole as it allows less inefficiency and profit mongering. There is no healthcare bureacracy here, it's just the federal government using tax money to foot the bills.

The problem here isn't the non-existent bureaucracy, it's a lack of trained personnel, drawn to the United States by the prospect of higher wages and better employment opportunities. So really, most of our healthcare problems can be blamed on you.

What part of the efficiency was the court defending when they said this?

It wasn't criticising the efficiency of the public system. It was questioning the constitutionality of stopping access to health care, be it paid or not.

Apparently (from reading the article) the ruling means that even if you have to pay for it, a legit health service is a legit health service and in Canada you can't deny people health service. It doesn't criticize the public system but just points out that there is no LEGAL reason to block the establishment of private health clinics.

However, there are plenty of other non-legal reasons why the establishment of the two-tier system would lead to a lousy, more-expensive system with even LONGER wait times.


And I don't think the delays are malicious. They are institutional.

Fundng cuts have ended. More money into system now. Wait times will shrink.

The system isn't broke. The system is efficient, even with less money they managed to serve the public well.

Plenty of links have been provided with articles addressing the problems of the US system. I suggest you take care of the log in you eye before you begin fingering the speck in mine.

I blew out a knee 2 weeks ago and went to the Grey Nuns Hospital in Edmonton Alberta at 9:00 am. There were about 20 people ahead of me in line. (Most seemed to have colds or the flu) One elderly fellow was gasping and stumbled up to the triage nurse, begging her to let him see a doctor claiming he couldn't take the pain and was going to die. The nurse did not dignify him with a response.
I limped to the bathroom after the first hour of waiting and descovered 2 doctors having a casual conversation about fishing. The old man had still not been admitted.
To get an X-ray and be told to wait 3 weeks and stay off my knee took me 5-6 hours of waiting and about 2-5 minutes of actual interaction with a doctor. It was also hard to navigate the hospital as there were so many beds lining the hallways. Privacy is a curtain where you can be heard by a half dozon other patients while you describe your medical problems. That is if you are lucky enough to not be left in the hallway.

I was disgusted.

When I phone to make an appointment with my doctor I generally cannot get in for at least a week. I have been seeing this doctor for 20+ years and my wait time is much smaller than others I have met. When my doctor is on vacation (often) and I go to a walk in clinic I am told that they cannot fill prescriptions for more than a week as they are not my regular doctor. They also will not write me referals etc. The doctors are very careful to not steal money from one another as they are paid per visit. My doctor for example requires me to come see him every 3 months for a prescription for a medication I have taken for over 10 years. Abuse runs rampant in Canada.

In the United States at least you have a choice if you want health care or not. It is a matter of responsability. Those who are irresponsable will suffer the reprecussions of their decisions. Americans cannot claim it is too expensive for the insurance as they pay less than half of our income tax. (For a person making 50K+ tax bracket) That's alot of left over money for health care if you choose that road.
Canada is good for those who are poor. They pay low income tax and get the same medical care as the wealthy. In the end Canada is more socialist in how it runs health care. Equally bad treatment for all.

After that visit to the hospital I have only 2 things to say.
1) If you are a Canadian and need to see a doctor fast, DO NOT go to the emergancy room! Instead call an ambulance and go directly to a doctor. Odds are the care workers that drive the ambulance will save your life long before you ever see a doctor. You will have to pay the ambulance ride, but if it's life or death you will avoid dying in a chair while doctors chat about their weekend.
2) I am moving to the United States. I believe in capitalism and as a hard working person I would prefer receive the care I pay for. Freeloading natives and degenerates clogging up the hospitals when I need care and have paid hundreds of thousands more money into the system is just plain wrong. I would rather pay directly for the service I receive and have the option for better quality.

It would be nice if the United States could takes advantage of WTO and free trade to open their own hospitals in Canada and offer better care, better facilities and better equiptment. Unfortunately it would never work as our health care is not an option and comes directly out of our taxes. Moving to the United States is the only way a Canadian can improve their quality of care.
If statistics show the United States as having more deaths due to medical care it is likely because human nature is too irresponsable to maintain proper insurance. They should compare Americans WITH insurance to Canadians. Then we would see the true statistics on who offers better care.

Why do you feel the need to attack the Canadian healthcare system? We're happy with it, and nothing you say can change that. So instead of going on a rant attempting to discourge your fellow Americans from the "socialist backwater" up north, you focus on your own problems. Like your wasteful healthcare system. We spend something like 9% of our GDP on healthcare, as opposed to 15% in the United States. Regardless of who gets it, the extra money will result in extra "quality".

Simply put, the universal healthcare system is better for the country as a whole as it allows less inefficiency and profit mongering. There is no healthcare bureacracy here, it's just the federal government using tax money to foot the bills.

The problem here isn't the non-existent bureaucracy, it's a lack of trained personnel, drawn to the United States by the prospect of higher wages and better employment opportunities. So really, most of our healthcare problems can be blamed on you.
My worry is that we will adopt a similar plan. The flaws in the plan are well documented and this court case just confirms that it's a weak solution. There are better solutions that paying the government to manage healthcare. Tort reform would be a good start.

I'm tired of the fact that we pay more for healthcare being brought up again and again like it was important. We pay more because we are a wealthier country. The industry can sock it to us and we will pay. Then they can offer the same products in other countries for less. Saying it another way, we are subsidizing the healthcare costs of less wealthy nations like Canada.

I find it hard to draw a hard link between nationalized healthcare and life expectancy. I suspect there's something else at work that lowers our life expectancy. Maybe the large immigrant population? Maybe the gangs at work killing each other? Lots of factors to consider.
You don't think Canada has a high immigrant population?

I was a minority in my highschool.

I am white... in a country that is supposedly predominantly white.

I blew out a knee 2 weeks ago and went to the Grey Nuns Hospital in Edmonton Alberta at 9:00 am. There were about 20 people ahead of me in line. (Most seemed to have colds or the flu) One elderly fellow was gasping and stumbled up to the triage nurse, begging her to let him see a doctor claiming he couldn't take the pain and was going to die. The nurse did not dignify him with a response.
I limped to the bathroom after the first hour of waiting and descovered 2 doctors having a casual conversation about fishing. The old man had still not been admitted.
To get an X-ray and be told to wait 3 weeks and stay off my knee took me 5-6 hours of waiting and about 2-5 minutes of actual interaction with a doctor. It was also hard to navigate the hospital as there were so many beds lining the hallways. Privacy is a curtain where you can be heard by a half dozon other patients while you describe your medical problems. That is if you are lucky enough to not be left in the hallway.

I was disgusted.

When I phone to make an appointment with my doctor I generally cannot get in for at least a week. I have been seeing this doctor for 20+ years and my wait time is much smaller than others I have met. When my doctor is on vacation (often) and I go to a walk in clinic I am told that they cannot fill prescriptions for more than a week as they are not my regular doctor. They also will not write me referals etc. The doctors are very careful to not steal money from one another as they are paid per visit. My doctor for example requires me to come see him every 3 months for a prescription for a medication I have taken for over 10 years. Abuse runs rampant in Canada.

In the United States at least you have a choice if you want health care or not. It is a matter of responsability. Those who are irresponsable will suffer the reprecussions of their decisions. Americans cannot claim it is too expensive for the insurance as they pay less than half of our income tax. (For a person making 50K+ tax bracket) That's alot of left over money for health care if you choose that road.
Canada is good for those who are poor. They pay low income tax and get the same medical care as the wealthy. In the end Canada is more socialist in how it runs health care. Equally bad treatment for all.

After that visit to the hospital I have only 2 things to say.
1) If you are a Canadian and need to see a doctor fast, DO NOT go to the emergancy room! Instead call an ambulance and go directly to a doctor. Odds are the care workers that drive the ambulance will save your life long before you ever see a doctor. You will have to pay the ambulance ride, but if it's life or death you will avoid dying in a chair while doctors chat about their weekend.
2) I am moving to the United States. I believe in capitalism and as a hard working person I would prefer receive the care I pay for. Freeloading natives and degenerates clogging up the hospitals when I need care and have paid hundreds of thousands more money into the system is just plain wrong. I would rather pay directly for the service I receive and have the option for better quality.

It would be nice if the United States could takes advantage of WTO and free trade to open their own hospitals in Canada and offer better care, better facilities and better equiptment. Unfortunately it would never work as our health care is not an option and comes directly out of our taxes. Moving to the United States is the only way a Canadian can improve their quality of care.
If statistics show the United States as having more deaths due to medical care it is likely because human nature is too irresponsable to maintain proper insurance. They should compare Americans WITH insurance to Canadians. Then we would see the true statistics on who offers better care.


Go 'way troll.

My worry is that we will adopt a similar plan. The flaws in the plan are well documented and this court case just confirms that it's a weak solution. There are better solutions that paying the government to manage healthcare. Tort reform would be a good start.

I'm tired of the fact that we pay more for healthcare being brought up again and again like it was important. We pay more because we are a wealthier country. The industry can sock it to us and we will pay. Then they can offer the same products in other countries for less. Saying it another way, we are subsidizing the healthcare costs of less wealthy nations like Canada.
You pay more as a percentage of GDP. That has nothing to do with the wealth of the nation, it has all to do with spending priorities.

The flaws? Well, the "flaws" in the American system are far more glaring. I think you might find this little statistic a bit interesting: The American government spends 17.6% of it's revenue on health care. Fine. The Canadian government spends 16.2% on health care.

Honestly, stop stealing our doctors and we'll be fine. The system is well on its way to fully recovering from the minor hiccups in the '90s, because we (unlike some, who are at this point in time spending like meth users when their high has run down) made a concerted effort to pay down the deficit, and are now returning federal funding. If you don't live here, don't comment on it.

Our problems are mostly caused by lack of doctors, nurses and other medical staff, as well as an increasingly ageing population. This is unavoidable! The system functions well enough, and since the United States would have no problem in those respects, you would most likely have a better medicare system than us.

Seriously, try studying this instead of throwing out useless partisan comments.

As for the young poster from Alberta, his experience is most likely due to the fact that he's from Alberta, where government spending is far less and the provincial government has been toying with private clinics - and screwing up the system in the process. I live in Ontario and I have utterly no problem getting medical care, even in an emergency room.

If you blew your knee and go to emergency, prepare to wait because the guy that came in 4 hrs after you with a stroke will get priority.

And you shouldnt go to emergency for everything, there are clinics.

I blew out a knee 2 weeks ago and went to the Grey Nuns Hospital in Edmonton Alberta at 9:00 am. There were about 20 people ahead of me in line. (Most seemed to have colds or the flu) One elderly fellow was gasping and stumbled up to the triage nurse, begging her to let him see a doctor claiming he couldn't take the pain and was going to die. The nurse did not dignify him with a response.
I limped to the bathroom after the first hour of waiting and descovered 2 doctors having a casual conversation about fishing. The old man had still not been admitted.
To get an X-ray and be told to wait 3 weeks and stay off my knee took me 5-6 hours of waiting and about 2-5 minutes of actual interaction with a doctor. It was also hard to navigate the hospital as there were so many beds lining the hallways. Privacy is a curtain where you can be heard by a half dozon other patients while you describe your medical problems. That is if you are lucky enough to not be left in the hallway.
Funny, I went to the emergency room once and it was nothing like that. Maybe that's how things are in Alberta, but not Ontario.

I waited a long time, but I also came in at 4 am with minor injuries (severe stomach pain, clinics weren't open, it was too early in the morning). People who arrived after me on stretchers were seen right away.
I also never have any trouble with walk in clinics, I go in, usually wait about an hour (hell, I don't have an appointment) and am seen and if necessary, given a persription on the spot.
When I go to book my annual physical, it's less than a week waiting.

I'm sorry, but I really don't see any of the crap you're talking about. I've never had to wait an obscene amount of time for a doctor's appointment. I really don't see what the hell you're talking about at all over here.

My worry is that we will adopt a similar plan. The flaws in the plan are well documented and this court case just confirms that it's a weak solution. There are better solutions that paying the government to manage healthcare. Tort reform would be a good start.

*chortle*

Please read up on the linked articles posted in this thread before you criticize the public system. There are many more problems with the US system.


I'm tired of the fact that we pay more for healthcare being brought up again and again like it was important. We pay more because we are a wealthier country. The industry can sock it to us and we will pay. Then they can offer the same products in other countries for less. Saying it another way, we are subsidizing the healthcare costs of less wealthy nations like Canada.

Wrong, wrong. And Tort reform will do NOTHING. I guess you didn't read how health care costs didn't go up because of lawsuits but because of the fact that insurance companies just wren't making enough so they raised their rates.

I wish I could find that link again...

EDIT

Found it!

http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2005/06/01/rising_doctors_premiums_not_due_to_lawsuit_awards/

EDIT EDIT

Also this one which shows that Tort Reform has bad side effects

http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/06/01/malpractice.awards.ap/index.html

Funny, I went to the emergency room once and it was nothing like that. Maybe that's how things are in Alberta, but not Ontario.

I waited a long time, but I also came in at 4 am with minor injuries (severe stomach pain, clinics weren't open, it was too early in the morning). People who arrived after me on stretchers were seen right away.
I also never have any trouble with walk in clinics, I go in, usually wait about an hour (hell, I don't have an appointment) and am seen and if necessary, given a persription on the spot.
When I go to book my annual physical, it's less than a week waiting.

I'm sorry, but I really don't see any of the crap you're talking about. I've never had to wait an obscene amount of time for a doctor's appointment. I really don't see what the hell you're talking about at all over here.

Pay it no mind. Trolling. The over-dramatization gives it away.

I find it insulting the way the health professionals are depicted.

Something else you may want to read:

http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2001/0501frank.html

When Cynthia Herdrich visited her primary-care physician complaining of abdominal pain, the doctor scheduled an ultrasound for eight days later and sent her home. Shortly thereafter, Herdrich's appendix ruptured, causing a life-threatening infection and requiring emergency surgery. Only during the subsequent malpractice suit did Herdrich discover that her insurer, Carle Care HMO of Urbana, Illinois, instructed its doctors to delay, as a matter of course, diagnostic tests for seven days in the hope that either the symptoms or the patient would go away. Physicians who saved the plan money received year-end bonuses.

Herdrich's case, which became national news when the Supreme Court ruled that she could not sue the health maintenance organization (HMO), exemplified everything Americans have come to hate and fear about the medical system: the greedy insurers concerned more with saving money than saving lives; the deceitful providers secretly committed to withholding care to boost their own incomes; the maddening laws allowing insurance companies to dictate medical decisions, but shielding them from legal liability when things go wrong. Above all, though, Herdrich's case - in which the HMO allowed a serious but uncomplicated condition to progress to a dangerous situation requiring lengthy hospitalization and extensive surgery - highlights the sheer wastefulness of managed care.

I am moving to the United States. I believe in capitalism and as a hard working person I would prefer receive the care I pay for. Freeloading natives and degenerates clogging up the hospitals when I need care and have paid hundreds of thousands more money into the system is just plain wrong. I would rather pay directly for the service I receive and have the option for better quality.

Indians need healthcare too, just because some people are poor doesn't mean they're less entitled to decent healthcare.

I'm actually quite content that the Canadian Supreme Court pointed out mandatory National Healthcare for what it is. Inefficient, bureaucratic, and dangerous is not what I'd want my taxes to go.

As far as the half-truths attacking the U.S. system, well, if that's your best defense, I'm sorry for you.
You started this thread by attacking the Canadian healthcare system, so you should be prepared to have some cold hard "truth" about the US system thrown right back at you.

If you can suggest that the US healthcare system is superior than Canada's even though 45 Million of your fellow citizens lack basic healthcare, then I feel sorry for you.

If you can suggest that the US healthcare system is superior than Canada's even though lawyers, plan administrators, and insurance companies in the US drive up the cost per capita to 2 to 3 times higher than Canada's costs, then I feel sorry for you.

Neither system is perfect, but yours costs far more, and yet we live longer and have a lower infant mortality rate, and ALL Canadians are covered. If you can't see the facts, then I feel sorry for you.

Why is (was-?) private healthcare illegal. I know of no other country where this is the case. In the UK for example you can go privately or use the NHS. It's always been this way, and there is no-problem. Most people choose the NHS, because it is free.

True, there are problems with the NHS, but none of them would be fixed by outlawing private care. It would make them worse if anything.

I really cannot understand why there is even a discussion about this sort of thing? Free universal health care is a bad thing? Are these people crazy??

Maybe it's my socialist tendencies, or maybe it's the fact that I have lived in the UK all my life so I am used to it, but the idea of living somewhere without universal free health care is abhorrent.

I have said on a previous thread, I went to my doctor with abdominal pains, I was given an appointment within two hours of my call (called at around 1330, was given appointment for 1530), was sent to hospital two hours after that (arriving around 1730), had been xrayed two hours after that and was in theatre before midnight.
I work hard. I pay my taxes, I support my self and my family. But I can't afford health insurance. Had my circumstances been *exactly* the same but transplanted into the US, I don't know what would have happened to me.

The idea that someone wants to be treated ahead of other who were either there before him or are more seriously ill than him because he paid more than (he thinks!) they did appalls me.

Good on Canada! And I hope that the US sees sense and brings in universal health care soon.

Blessings
Cyber

I really cannot understand why there is even a discussion about this sort of thing? Free universal health care is a bad thing? Are these people crazy??
There is NO SUCH THING as "FREE" health care. You pay for it no matter what.

The question is: do you choose to pay for it yourself or does the government force you to pay for everyone else?

*chortle*

Please read up on the linked articles posted in this thread before you criticize the public system. There are many more problems with the US system.


Please summarize the links. I don't feel obligated to read something just because there is a link. It's a lot more compelling if the link supports a thought.




Wrong, wrong. And Tort reform will do NOTHING. I guess you didn't read how health care costs didn't go up because of lawsuits but because of the fact that insurance companies just wren't making enough so they raised their rates.

I wish I could find that link again...

EDIT

Found it!

http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2005/06/01/rising_doctors_premiums_not_due_to_lawsuit_awards/

EDIT EDIT

Also this one which shows that Tort Reform has bad side effects

http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/06/01/malpractice.awards.ap/index.html
There is no one better than lawyers for creating reasons why we shouldn't change their business practices. Both of these articles include comments by insurance and medical professionals that reflect doubt on the study because various things are omitted.

Tort reform is just a start. As I said, medical products are far more expensive here, because we can afford them. We do tend to subsidize medical development and sales for the rest of the world because we can pay for it. Without a profit center like the U.S., you would have a hard time finding the quality of medical care that exists today. Don't know that there is a magical fix for any of this, but at least our Supreme Court hasn't said there are people dying because they can't see a doctor in a timely manner.

Don't know that there is a magical fix for any of this, but at least our Supreme Court hasn't said there are people dying because they can't see a doctor in a timely manner.

No, our people are just dying because they can't pay for the medical care.

There is NO SUCH THING as "FREE" health care. You pay for it no matter what.

The question is: do you choose to pay for it yourself or does the government force you to pay for everyone else?
Did you miss the part about you paying more for health care through your taxes than us? The difference is that you have to pay twice. YOu have ot pay more to the taxman than us for your health care, and then you get to pay for the insurance and the deductable.

There is no one better than lawyers for creating reasons why we shouldn't change their business practices. Both of these articles include comments by insurance and medical professionals that reflect doubt on the study because various things are omitted.

If lawyers had their way the talk about the tort reforms you love would not be happening. Less money from settlements means less money for them.

Lawyers do not care about the economy. They care about getting paid. I can tell you have not heard of Copyfight or Downhill Battle, two groups that are fighting against excessive copyrighting that is hurting industry and destroying culture. You can read up a lot on this phenomenon on http://boingboing.net


Tort reform is just a start. As I said, medical products are far more expensive here, because we can afford them.

No. They are more expensive because the companies are charging more. What point is it to make health care even harder to obtain by having the cost increased? It is increasingly obvious that Americans CANNOT afford the costs of health care.


We do tend to subsidize medical development and sales for the rest of the world because we can pay for it. Without a profit center like the U.S., you would have a hard time finding the quality of medical care that exists today.

Wrong. I promise you the government subsidizes a lot of stuff in Canada. Usually rapid tests and general lab equipment like test tubes all come from Canadian places as well as some equipment. There are plenty of health sector companies in Canada and it is one of the fastest growing sectors in the nation.

And lets not forget that the Canadian government subsidizes drugs to make them cheaper for the public and this draws lots of people from the US to Canada who come to fill their prescriptions. Which government is subsidizing what to benefit which foreign country, again?


Don't know that there is a magical fix for any of this, but at least our Supreme Court hasn't said there are people dying because they can't see a doctor in a timely manner.

Another good article.

http://www.drs.org.au/wwwboard/messages/672.html

And BTW, the Canadian Supreme Court DID NOT say anyone was dying due to their being a public-only system.

There is NO SUCH THING as "FREE" health care. You pay for it no matter what.

The question is: do you choose to pay for it yourself or does the government force you to pay for everyone else?

I never hated other people so much that I would be outraged that I was helping them live longer. They support me, I support them. I'm surprised that a group of people who usually support and praise soldiers (who have that exact same support system between each other) would be outraged to see a country of 30+ million people who share the same wonderful mindset.

Charity. Cooperation. Fidelity. Trust. These things build a better country, all brought about by the institution of national health care, a system that unified a nation.

No, our people are just dying because they can't pay for the medical care.
But our Supreme Court has not put the government on notice that they are. That is exactly what my point is in this thread. The Canadian Supreme Court has said that the system of healthcare required by Quebec results in patient deaths. Period. You, nor have any others, given any evidence that this is true in the U.S.

That's not important because it's a different argument. The active argument is and should be "What should Canada do to reform it's failing healthcare system?" Clearly, the court thinks that private health insurance and private medical care is the answer. All I've seen so far in defense of the current Canadian system are attacks on the high prices and relatively small differences in mortality rates compared to the U.S.

If I had wanted a discussion on the comparative failings of the two health systems, I would have proposed a different topic. I wanted to see a discussion on why mandatory national healthcare was a good idea, when confronted with the facts in the court decision. The closest I've seen is just some blurb about two-tier systems being bad. Tough. Single payer systems that are run by the government are worse. Your court says so.

So, which is it? Single payer government, or two tier?

But our Supreme Court has not put the government on notice that they are. That is exactly what my point is in this thread. The Canadian Supreme Court has said that the system of healthcare required by Quebec results in patient deaths. Period. You, nor have any others, given any evidence that this is true in the U.S.

That's not important because it's a different argument. The active argument is and should be "What should Canada do to reform it's failing healthcare system?" Clearly, the court thinks that private health insurance and private medical care is the answer. All I've seen so far in defense of the current Canadian system are attacks on the high prices and relatively small differences in mortality rates compared to the U.S.

If I had wanted a discussion on the comparative failings of the two health systems, I would have proposed a different topic. I wanted to see a discussion on why mandatory national healthcare was a good idea, when confronted with the facts in the court decision. The closest I've seen is just some blurb about two-tier systems being bad. Tough. Single payer systems that are run by the government are worse. Your court says so.

So, which is it? Single payer government, or two tier?

For the love of God read some of the articles we posted. Expecially the last one I did which tackles the Two-Tier idea by comparing it to the Aussie system.

For the last time: the Supreme Court DID NOT say the public system was inferior. We have posted numerous articles that it is superior to the two or multi-tier systems.

Again: Clear the log out of your eye before you try and pick the speck from mine.

No. They are more expensive because the companies are charging more. What point is it to make health care even harder to obtain by having the cost increased? It is increasingly obvious that Americans CANNOT afford the costs of health care.



Wrong. I promise you the government subsidizes a lot of stuff in Canada. Usually rapid tests and general lab equipment like test tubes all come from Canadian places as well as some equipment. There are plenty of health sector companies in Canada and it is one of the fastest growing sectors in the nation.

And lets not forget that the Canadian government subsidizes drugs to make them cheaper for the public and this draws lots of people from the US to Canada who come to fill their prescriptions. Which government is subsidizing what to benefit which foreign country, again?

This all fits together. Drug companies, medical instrument manufacturers, and the like all charge more in the U.S. That's because we will pay the price. They can charge less in other countries that won't pay the prices. That's a kind of subsidy. They need to be profitable, but can't at the prices they charge in countries like Canada.

Next, the government doesn't produce anything. It is a middleman between the patient and the service. All the government can do is add cost to the system. It can also force you to pay for those costs, so it doesn't matter how inefficient it becomes. The govenment can always recoup the costs. The government can use it's purchasing power to bargain for reduced prices, though, and that's another reason why you see higher prices for similar goods in the U.S.



Another good article.

http://www.drs.org.au/wwwboard/messages/672.html\

And BTW, the Canadian Supreme Court DID NOT say anyone was dying due to their being a public-only system.

The link doesn't work, too bad you didn't summarize it in a couple words like I suggested.

And last, yes the court did say that patients were dying because of systemic delays. The NY Times article in the second post quoted the court, saying "The evidence in this case shows that delays in the public health care system are widespread and that in some serious cases, patients die as a result of waiting lists for public health care," the Supreme Court ruled. Then the court went on to say "In sum, the prohibition on obtaining private health insurance is not constitutional where the public system fails to deliver reasonable services." Put the two together and you have a massive indictment against public-only healthcare.

That doesn't happen here.

Why do you feel the need to attack the Canadian healthcare system? We're happy with it, and nothing you say can change that. So instead of going on a rant attempting to discourge your fellow Americans from the "socialist backwater" up north, you focus on your own problems. Like your wasteful healthcare system. We spend something like 9% of our GDP on healthcare, as opposed to 15% in the United States. Regardless of who gets it, the extra money will result in extra "quality".

Simply put, the universal healthcare system is better for the country as a whole as it allows less inefficiency and profit mongering. There is no healthcare bureacracy here, it's just the federal government using tax money to foot the bills.

The problem here isn't the non-existent bureaucracy, it's a lack of trained personnel, drawn to the United States by the prospect of higher wages and better employment opportunities. So really, most of our healthcare problems can be blamed on you.

Yes, I'm share the fact that people are DYING in waiting rooms and the shortage of doctors are traits of a 'successful healthcare'

I'm also paying for someone else's health problems. I've never been to the hospital in my life and I don't go to the doctors except for yearly check ups. Why should I pay for YOUR problems?

For the love of God read some of the articles we posted. Expecially the last one I did which tackles the Two-Tier idea by comparing it to the Aussie system.

For the last time: the Supreme Court DID NOT say the public system was inferior. We have posted numerous articles that it is superior to the two or multi-tier systems.

Again: Clear the log out of your eye before you try and pick the speck from mine.
Okay, I did get the link to work. Seems the only complaint they have is that people actually have to pay for the service they receive. That and the doctors are capitalistic in the sense that they would prefer to be paid what they are worth, rather than what the government thinks they deserve. About it?

This all fits together. Drug companies, medical instrument manufacturers, and the like all charge more in the U.S. That's because we will pay the price. They can charge less in other countries that won't pay the prices. That's a kind of subsidy. They need to be profitable, but can't at the prices they charge in countries like Canada.

You are confusing the manufacturing costs with that of profit making. All that extra stuff you pay in the US is pure profit. They still make profit from the ones the sell in Canada (else, why sell them there) but they milk the American system because they can. It doesn't have the bearing on what they sell to other countries that you think it does.

It isn't that they 'won't' pay the prices, its because the government takes steps that they won't get fleeced and will often arrange deals with the medical companies to this effect. Companies just won't sell where there is no profit. Deals are made so the company and government benefit.

Would you think paying $5K extra on a new car would affect the price on the one I'm buying in my country? It won't. They always charge as much as they can that will allow them to get the maximum profit for units sold.

Meanwhile, hospitals are going bankrupt in the US all the time due to skyrocketting operational costs.


Next, the government doesn't produce anything. It is a middleman between the patient and the service. All the government can do is add cost to the system.

The government produces SERVICES. Economics is pretty much based on the concept of producing goods and services.

We keep posting links that clearly point out that it is a cheaper system. Please READ ONE. They end up paying for the equipment so it would be a good idea to get the best for their buck. They aren't really 'middlemen' since they are the one paying in the end and they DO NOT CHARGE HOSPITALS for their price negotiations with companies when they hammer out contracts (I can't remember if it the federal or provincial governments that do this though. Doesn't matter I guess. Government is government). The theoretical 'cost' due to the middleman activity is non-existant. It is one of the duties of the various health ministries and health authorities to do just this.


It can also force you to pay for those costs, so it doesn't matter how inefficient it becomes. The govenment can always recoup the costs. The government can use it's purchasing power to bargain for reduced prices, though, and that's another reason why you see higher prices for similar goods in the U.S.

They are always improving efficiency. It was posted earlier by someone that administrative costs in the US are much higher (~12% total spending) compared to Canada's (~1% total spending).

The part about purchasing power (and the fact they make the nation's laws) are true as far as I know. Helps keep costs down.

It is puzzling how some people view taxes. Conservatives think getting a deal from someone they can't see (taxes through government) is worse than getting screwed by someone they can go up and talk to (fees from business). Contrary to what the private industry lobbyists have propagandized, government programs ARE more efficient.

The only reason why they suck in the US is because they aren't using a single-payer system and are constantly giving into the lobbyists who pay for influence in the government. Government, as it is in the US, is more worried about businesses than you.


The link doesn't work, too bad you didn't summarize it in a couple words like I suggested.


My bad I typo'd it.

http://www.drs.org.au/wwwboard/messages/672.html

I'll double check if it works. Basically it list out in great detail, with quotes from health professionals from Australia how their two-tier system is a shambles and it is warning Canada not to go down that path.

It's long so it does it a disservice to quote one part. It's a pretty thorough bashing of the two-tier system.


And last, yes the court did say that patients were dying because of systemic delays. The NY Times article in the second post quoted the court, saying "The evidence in this case shows that delays in the public health care system are widespread and that in some serious cases, patients die as a result of waiting lists for public health care," the Supreme Court ruled. Then the court went on to say "In sum, the prohibition on obtaining private health insurance is not constitutional where the public system fails to deliver reasonable services." Put the two together and you have a massive indictment against public-only healthcare.

People can die if they wait, this is true. They will die in greater numbers if the two-tier system is activated because they will have to WAIT LONGER. It's all in the article I posted (which is really long) which should work now (I had an extra slash at the end by accident). And if the pay-as-you-go American system is enacted then EVEN MORE people will die due to the fact that they cannot pay. The cost in money and life of the private or two-tier systems is much greater than the public single-payer. This is a FACT.

That doesn't happen here.

Yes, it does. Inability to pay + no insurance = death.

EDIT: Also, even if they cannot be refused treatment, they still have to pay. Which may cause them to become bankrupt. Which means they are now poor and will likely live on subsidized housing on the government's bill. This also means they cannot afford any follow up treatment (medication) and poverty doesn't exactly make you healthier.

The only reason why less people died than they should have during the economic downturn of the last few years in the US was because they threw a lot of money behind the medicare/medicaid programs. There was another link posted earlier that explained this.

Canada City']Yes, I'm share the fact that people are DYING in waiting rooms and the shortage of doctors are traits of a 'successful healthcare'

I'm also paying for someone else's health problems. I've never been to the hospital in my life and I don't go to the doctors except for yearly check ups. Why should I pay for YOUR problems?

1) No one 'plans' to be sick. You could get cancer any day now.

2) There is a shortage of medical professionals EVERYWHERE. Even in the US.

3) Because they are also paying for your health care and if point 1 should ever happen you should be thanking your lucky stars that they are.

4) The whole reason people buy insurance is in case something bad happens. The Canadian system is cheaper than insurance (YES IT IS!) and it covers everything in case something bad happens while insurers can and have denied people expensive treatments in hopes the symptoms would go away. No lie. A link to an article presenting this fact was posted earlier (I think by me). They will also often avoid paying out from some cheaper stuff too and make you pay because it is cheap and you can afford it. They don't care if you PAY TWICE. More money for them.

Yes, it does. Inability to pay + no insurance = death.

In actual fact, US hospitals HAVE to give treatment to anybody who turns up, and only ask for the money later.

Some facts that got no play here:

1. The American Murder rate is 3 times that of Canada, and most of the victims are 17-24 years old. Sure that won't bring the average down?

2. The average per capita healthcare cost in the US are so high because of two reasons:

a) The US spends incredible amounts of money on medical R&D, more than any nation in the world

b) Lax tort laws and as a result high lawsuit payouts.

There is NO SUCH THING as "FREE" health care. You pay for it no matter what.

The question is: do you choose to pay for it yourself or does the government force you to pay for everyone else?

Ah, the pedantry *grins*.
I have *no* problem with paying money in my taxes to cover the healthcare costs of others.
The difficulty with a system with no universal health care (and obviously, when I say free, I mean that I don't get billed form my Doctors or from the hospital) is that it is probably fine and dandy for those who can afford it. But what about those that can't? And, to be honest, people on a low income are more likely to become ill. So they are penalised on every level.
I don't know where you live, and I don't know what kind of tax system you have or how it works. But here, our taxes go into a national 'pot' and are then used to pay for running the country. I currently have no children, but I have no complaints about my taxes being spent to pay for free education for all. I am no in receipt of benefits, but I have no problem with my taxes being used to help support those who need them. It's the same system with health care as it is for education.

A country costs money to run. And our taxes are almost always going to be partially used to fund things we are not using at the moment. That's not a bad thing. Think of it as social responsibility.

Blessings
Cyber

In actual fact, US hospitals HAVE to give treatment to anybody who turns up, and only ask for the money later.

True. But they still have to pay. Half of all bankruptcies in the US were because people couldn't pay their medical bills as I recall.


Some facts that got no play here:

1. The American Murder rate is 3 times that of Canada, and most of the victims are 17-24 years old. Sure that won't bring the average down?

I may be being nearsighted here but if the people are murdered what is the point of giving them health care? They are DEAD.


2. The average per capita healthcare cost in the US are so high because of two reasons:

a) The US spends incredible amounts of money on medical R&D, more than any nation in the world

http://www.mercola.com/2003/may/24/health_care.htm

Researchers suggested a number of factors that could contribute to the increased health care spending in the United States including higher salaries for health care workers, more expensive medical equipment and pharmaceuticals, and more "service-intensive" hospital visits.

Health CARE costs are compared. Not medical RESEARCH.


b) Lax tort laws and as a result high lawsuit payouts.

Rising doctors' premiums not due to lawsuit awards

http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2005/06/01/rising_doctors_premiums_not_due_to_lawsuit_awards/

Re-igniting the medical malpractice overhaul debate, a new study by Dartmouth College researchers suggests that huge jury awards and financial settlements for injured patients have not caused the explosive increase in doctors' insurance premiums.

The researchers said a more likely explanation for the escalation is that malpractice insurance companies have raised doctors' premiums to compensate for falling investment returns.


Those 'high payouts' that get so much press are a rarity and they always come down to a more acceptable level.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0122-11.htm

79 year old Stella Liebeck suffered third degree burns on her groin and inner thighs while trying to add sugar to her coffee at a McDonalds drive through. Third degree burns are the most serious kind of burn. McDonalds knew it had a problem. There were at least 700 previous cases of scalding coffee incidents at McDonalds before Liebeck's case. McDonalds had settled many claim before but refused Liebeck's request for $20,000 compensation, forcing the case into court. Lawyers found that McDonalds makes its coffee 30-50 degrees hotter than other restaurants, about 190 degrees. Doctors testified that it only takes 2-7 seconds to cause a third degree burn at 190 degrees. McDonalds knew its coffee was exceptionally hot but testified that they had never consulted with burn specialist. The Shriner Burn Institute had previously warned McDonalds not to serve coffee above 130 degrees. And so the jury came back with a decision- $160,000 for compensatory damages. But because McDonalds was guilty of "willful, reckless, malicious or wanton conduct" punitive damages were also applied. The jury set the award at $2.7 million. The judge then reduced the fine to less than half a million. Ms. Liebeck then settled with McDonalds for a sum reported to be much less than a half million dollars. McDonald's coffee is now sold at the same temperature as most other restaurants.

Don't buy into the tort nonsense.

I may be being nearsighted here but if the people are murdered what is the point of giving them health care? They are DEAD.

And them dying young affects the average lifespan.



Health CARE costs are compared. Not medical RESEARCH.

R&D costs bring up health care costs.





The researchers said a more likely explanation for the escalation is that malpractice insurance companies have raised doctors' premiums to compensate for falling investment returns.

Which is another way to say the same thing.

You don't think Canada has a high immigrant population?

I was a minority in my highschool.

I am white... in a country that is supposedly predominantly white.

From what I understand Canada takes in more immigrants per capita than the United States does.

And them dying young affects the average lifespan.


But how does it affect cost?


R&D costs bring up health care costs.


How?


Which is another way to say the same thing.

No. it is saying that the premiums are going up because the insurance companies want to make more money.

They are not going up because of large lawsuit awards.

Read the first part of that quote over again.

Re-igniting the medical malpractice overhaul debate, a new study by Dartmouth College researchers suggests that huge jury awards and financial settlements for injured patients have not caused the explosive increase in doctors' insurance premiums.

Greed is the factor. Not them trying to make up what they are losing in a supposed flurry of large settlements. Large settlements are rare and always come down to acceptable levels. Hence, the reason why I included the quote from the famous McDonalds lawsuit.

From what I understand Canada takes in more immigrants per capita than the United States does.

I'm not sure of the stats either but I know we're much more immigrant friendly. :)

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/imm_net_mig_rat

We do rather well actually. We beat a lot of western countries.

Canada 21st for migration.
US 30th for migration.

I'm gonna summarize this quote heavily to keep it readable. Especially to me. The little bitty box that jolt provides to type text into is very bad for lengthy messages.

What I read is that
1. Care in Canada costs less.
a) The government in Canada doesn't add any extra cost to healthcare for the services they provide.
b) Medical products are overpriced in the U.S. but not in Canada

2. Two tier systems in Australia suck.
I read the article and it doesn't quite say that.

3. Efficiency is measured in adminstrative costs

4. People don't die in U.S. hospitals but they go bankrupt.

Let's look at these things and see if the story is really as rosy as you would want us to believe.

First, governments obtain the resources used to provide medical care by taking them away from the private sector through taxation. Since the government is only acting as a middleman to this process, there is no net reduction in the cost of providing care to the sick, as opposed to the sick paying the doctors directly. Pushing money through a government institution often makes it appear that some good or service is being provided more efficiently or for free, but this is simply an example of economic ignorance.

Why you ask?
The problem here is that governments do not pay for healthcare services at market equilibrium prices. Supply and demand is a balance of what producers and consumers are willing and able to provide and purchase. When something costs nothing, people will demand an unlimited amount of services, as there is no longer an incentive to stay out of the market. Analogously, what would one expect to happen if one were to set up a table with food accompanied by a sign that said, “Free food?” The food would disappear quickly and would not be efficiently allocated to those who value it most.

But it's still zero cost to the consumer, you say.
Now we can now see the effects of legislation. The price received by producers can be infinitely high, as the quantity available in the market is only limited by what a supplier is willing and able to supply. Obviously, the government, with a limited budget, is unable to pay the actual market price, so governments often impose price controls to keep this cost down.

One reason for the political popularity of price controls is the fact that they conceal the true costs – initially. Artificially lower prices created by this government control encourage consumption while discouraging production at the same time. In economics, a situation where the quantity demanded exceeds the quantity supplied is called a shortage.

But we don't have shortages in Canada, do we?
In countries where government pays for healthcare, the time to wait for treatment increases exponentially. In Canada, for example, The Fraser Institute, a Vancouver, British Columbia-based think tank, released reports (http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=nr&id=550) quantifying the average wait times for a patient to see a general practitioner. The shortest average wait time in Ontario is 14 weeks. In Saskatchewan, the number is alarmingly worse with an average of a 30 week waiting period.

But it gets worse. The deterioration of quality most often accompanies a reduction in production caused by government control. This is very apparent in considering the former Soviet Union or rent control in many large cities. The issue of healthcare is no exception. One way this deterioration of quality reveals itself is in the amount of time doctors spend with patients.

Let's sum up this whole argument. Free market prices, paid for by the consumer, tend to decrease costs by providing incentive to the consumer to only use any given good to the extent that its marginal benefit to that individual is greater than its marginal costs. Therefore, when third parties like the government pay patient costs, marginal costs become irrelevant. With no regard for costs, patients consume finite heath care resources beyond the efficient market equilibrium.

Now what? Okay, look at two-tiered systems from a less emotional point of view that that article provided. I think I summed it up pretty well in an earlier post. What I said was

Okay, I did get the link to work. Seems the only complaint they have is that people actually have to pay for the service they receive. That and the doctors are capitalistic in the sense that they would prefer to be paid what they are worth, rather than what the government thinks they deserve. About it?

Two-tier systems fail because price controls are flawed. People will opt out of public health care if they are given the opportunity. According to a 2003 news story by Canada News (http://www.nassauinstitute.org/wmcomments.php?act=vi&CmID=35&ArtID=454) , roughly 10,000 doctors left in the 1990’s. Canada dealt with this opting out by legislating against it. Simply put, people want to get treated when they are sick and they will pay for the privilege.

Let's slip in one quote from that article that illustrates how badly the public-only system is failing.

As reported in a December 2003 story by Kerri Houston for the Frontiers of Freedom Institute titled "Access Denied: Canada's Healthcare System Turns Patients Into Victims" (http://ff.org/centers/ccfsp/pdf/CCSFP-1203-PP.pdf), in some instances, patients die on the waiting list because they become too sick to tolerate a procedure. Houston says that hip-replacement patients often end up non-ambulatory while waiting an average of 20 weeks for the procedure, and that's after having waited 13 weeks just to see the specialist. The wait to get diagnostic scans followed by the wait for the radiologist to read them just might explain why Cleveland, Ohio, has become Canada's hip-replacement center.


Where are we? Too much writing and not enough lunch.

Okay, I'm tired of writing. Just a little bit of philosophy here.

America was founded on individual liberty and seeks to provide the equality of opportunity not afforded by other countries. Doctors and patients reach mutually beneficial agreements as to how much and when healthcare is to be provided. Just because some cannot pay for it does not give the government moral justification to enact legislation forcing doctors to treat patients that are unable to reach a sufficient agreement. Furthermore, the free market is the best and most socially efficient way to maximize total producer and consumer surplus. It's arrogant and economically ignorant to assume that the government can do a better job of providing services than can a group of people making individual free exchanges.

[summarized very briefly above

Okay, I did get the link to work. Seems the only complaint they have is that people actually have to pay for the service they receive. That and the doctors are capitalistic in the sense that they would prefer to be paid what they are worth, rather than what the government thinks they deserve. About it?

(Jolt. Behave and let me post this one, okay? Twice is enough! :D )

Rhetoric. You either didn't read the article or you lack basic comprehension skills.

I will do as you said and break it down for you. I'm a nice guy after all and I just missed my damn bus anyway so "What the Hell", eh? :)


1) They say their own system sucks

`Don't do it. I would argue very strongly against Canada going
down our path' - Gavin Mooney University of Sydney health economist


When people here are told that some Canadians, like
Alberta's Klein, are looking to copy Australia's hybrid
system, they are at the very least bemused.

``How strange,'' says AMA chief Brand. ``We copied
our system from you, and now you're looking to us?''

``Why on earth would you change what you've got; it
sounds much better than ours,'' says Robyn Green, a
Brisbanite who has had some rough experiences with
her own country's health system.

``Don't do it,'' says University of Sydney health
economist Gavin Mooney. ``I would argue very strongly
against Canada going down our path.''

Most experts here say that the hybrid public-private
Australian system - with jurisdiction divided between
state and federal governments - is neither particularly
efficient nor fair. Even supporters of private medicine
say that Australia's two-tier system doesn't work very
well.

``If I was going to invent a system that was efficient, I
wouldn't invent the Australian system,'' says the AMA's
Brand. ``The system is crazy. But it protects us
(doctors).''

2) Everything you spout as a benefit to a private system (shorter wait lines, easing pressure off the public system, cheaper) is wrong.

What I found was not an unalloyed horror story.
Two-tier medicine has not destroyed Australia's public
medicare system, at least not yet. Australia is not the
U.S., where only the well-to-do get good care and the
middle classes have to scramble.

But at the same time, private medicine has not been
without cost. By diverting resources, it has weakened
the public system - some say fatally. Certainly, it has not
produced the benefits claimed by its Canadian
adherents. In particular:

It has not eased pressure on the public system; in fact,
it has made waiting lists in the public hospitals longer.

It has not saved money. Hospital privatization
schemes, along the lines suggested by Alberta's Klein,
have been financial disasters.

More tellingly, two-tier health care has actually cost
more money. In Australia, the federal government has
been forced to subsidize the private health industry, to
the tune of $2.2 billion a year, just to keep it alive.

3) Public actually has more success

Ironically, the real success story in the Australian
health system - both financially and medically - has not
been private medicine. It has been pharmacare, a
universal, publicly-funded drug benefit program.

4) Private is redundant and unethical

If she were to get them removed in a public hospital, she
wouldn't incur any out-of-pocket costs. But she would
face an 18-month wait.

``I can't wait that long,'' she explains. ``I can't drive.
And I have to go back to school.''

So McLean ``went private.'' She arranged with her eye
surgeon to do the operation outside of medicare. The
wait will be only four weeks and the cost - to her - will
be $900.

What's peculiar is that she is getting the fast-track
private surgery from the same doctor who would have
made her wait 18 months, had she used his services
through the public system.

And she's getting it done in the same public hospital.

Same doctor. Same equipment. Same operating room.
The only difference is that her eye surgeon is getting paid
$900 more than he would have under medicare.

In effect, McLean is being held to ransom. She is being
forced to pay extra for treatment that by rights she
should get under medicare.

Dr. Tracy Schrader, a Brisbane physician, recalls the
time her 54-year-old father experienced serious heart
problems.

``He saw a cardiologist who said `You can wait six
months and get an operation in the public system or I'll
do it for you tomorrow privately.'

``My father was in a panic; he was out getting bank
loans to raise the money. And he was in bad way. He
couldn't work. He couldn't even walk.''

His experience, and that of Eileen McLean, points to
one of the fundamental weaknesses of the two-tier
system: While there may be two tiers of health care,
there is only one set of physicians

And these physicians - particularly in high-demand
specialities - are free to arrange their time between the
private and public systems as they see fit.

(Note from me. Doctors are supposed to treat the sick.
Not the ones with the money.)

5) The waiting list just gets longer

Yet the more these specialists work in the private tier,
the less time they have to work in the public - and the
longer the public waiting lists get.

6) Private facilities are not the best

In Australia, the most prestigious hospitals - the
so-called teaching hospitals, where the sexiest and most
adventurous medicine takes place - are virtually all
public. In North Sydney, for example, the big public
teaching hospital is Royal North Shore.

7) Private operating rooms are assholes

To take advantage of Royal's staff and state-of-the-art
equipment, North Shore Private set itself up right next
door. It offered Royal's roster of specialists luxurious
offices in its brand new building, and encouraged them
to do their elective surgery - at top dollar - in its brand
new operating rooms.

8) Private doesn't take up enough people to compensate for the increase in public wait times that it creates because it steals doctors (I.E. - private is inefficient).

But if Australian policy makers had hoped that North
Shore Private would take some of the load off the
adjoining public hospital, they were wrong.

``There was some fear that we'd steal business from the
public hospital,'' says North Shore Private's director of
clinical services, Catherine Lambert. ``But no. About 92
per cent of our patients are in for elective surgery. And
even of those, we've taken very few from Royal North
Shore. Most seem to have come from other, smaller
private hospitals in the area.''

9) Private costs more

Unlike most private hospitals, which concentrate on
relatively simple procedures, North Shore Private prides
itself on doing high-status cardiac and neurosurgical
operations. A cardiac bypass operation, for example,
will earn the hospital about $25,000 to $30,000 from
the patient. On top of this, the surgical team of doctors
will probably get from $15,000 to $20,000.

A patient who chooses to have his bypass done at
North Shore Private rather than Royal North Shore
Public will get some of the doctors' fees back from
medicare. His private insurance, if he has it, may cover
another portion of the physicians' fees as well as part, or
in a few cases all, of the hospital fees.

But, says Lambert, the patient will almost surely have to
pay an additional $2,000 to $6,000 out of his pocket to
cover that portion of the physicans' fees that are not
picked up by any insurance.

Why would anyone pay all of that - private insurance
premiums plus extra top-ups totalling thousands of
dollars - when he could have had the same doctor
perform the same operation in a state-of-the-art public
hospital next door?

(Note: Convenience is the reason those who can pay, pay, but it hurts everyone who can't afford the thousands of dollars, plus insurance)

10) People are buying insurance for the tax break and using the public system anyway which creates a loss of income and higher expense for the government.

John O'Dea, the AMA's director of medical practices is
equally blunt. While he firmly supports two-tier
medicine, he himself buys private health insurance only
to win a tax break. ``I have no intention of using it. . . .
There's no good reason to go to a private hospital.''

11) Private companies are failing and are turning into more expensive versions of the public system because of government bail-outs.

Yet while specialists can make a good living from the
private system, the private hospital companies
themselves are not doing well. Profits are down; share
prices are plummeting.

Ian Chalmers, executive director of the Australian
Private Hospitals Association, says that his members are
squeezed between a public unwilling to pay the high
costs of private medicine and a health insurance industry
trying to ratchet down costs.

As for the private insurers, they are making money now
but only because the government is, in effect, subsidizing
them.

In late 1998, the federal Liberal-National government, a
conservative coalition, passed legislation giving any
Australian with private health insurance a tax rebate
equal to 30 per cent of any premiums paid.

The rebate is expected to cost the national treasury a
staggering $2.2 billion this year.

12) Insurance is too expensive to afford for most

Still, the idea of two-tier medicine remains remarkably
popular in the country. Only 30 per cent of the
population takes part in the private system; with
premiums running at about $1,500 for the average
family, it is too expensive for most.

13) Private aren't going to help you in an emergency because it isn't profitable

Wakely herself has private health insurance. Except for
the birth of one of her children, she has never used it.
``But what would happen if I got in a car accident?''

In fact, if she got in a car accident, according to David
Brand, she'd be wise to go to a public hospital. ``I'd
probably be happier going to a public hospital if I were
in a major accident,'' says the AMA head. ``They're
used to doing it.''

The same point is made by almost everyone familiar with
the health system.

``I'd never advise anyone to use a private hospital when
they're ill,'' says Dr. David Henry, head of clinical
pharmacology at Newcastle's Mater Hospital, a public
institution.

For one thing, most private hospitals don't have doctors
on duty at night or weekends. ``Patients are sent here
(to Mater) on weekends from local private hospitals
because the doctors are off-duty,'' says Henry.

Most private hospitals don't have emergency rooms;
those which do, explains Tracy Pilatti, a public relations
spokeswoman for the country's largest private hospital
chain, Health Care of Australia, rarely make money on
them, preferring to use them as loss leaders that will
draw in new business.

Even the more sophisticated private hospitals are
reluctant to take up the burden of Australia's
overcrowded public emergency rooms. Gavin O'Meara,
general manager of Greenslopes Private Hospital in
Brisbane, says that if he had to choose between closing
his money-losing emergency room for a day or
postponing lucrative elective surgery, he would not
hestitate.

``I'd shut the emergency . . . it's our business if we do
that, not the government's.''

14) People are dumb


Yet many Australians firmly believe - contrary to all
evidence - that medical care is better in the private
system. Robyn Green says her health was ruined by a
privately-paid specialist performing what was supposed
to be a routine gynocolocigal operation in a private
hospital, an operation which left her with masses of
interenal scars called adhesions, and in chronic pain.

Even so - and even though she has been unemployed for
seven years - she still scrapes together enough to pay
her private health insurance premiums.

Asked why, she appears suprised that anyone would
ask. ``The public system's much worse,'' she says. ``It
must be. It's free.''

Two tiered systems DO provide timely service for those who want to pay for the care. I didn't see that contradicted in the article. The only complaint I saw was that the folks who want "free" care are going to have to wait in line. The old fairness argument again.

The artificiality of price controls forces the doctors to choose who they are going to treat. Thus the legislation that bans opting out is introduced. And then found unconstitutional. I love it when it all makes sense.


This is just one more model that we shouldn't adopt in the U.S. in a panic to do _something_.

You know, the only constant in the health-care debate is that everyone seems to think that theirs is the worst system in the Western world. Either all these people are truly getting royally shafted, or the "grass is greener" syndrome is working overtime.

I don't think we can prove, one way or the other, that a particular health-care system is superior within the constraints of this thread. Be it private insurance, state-owned, single-insurer or two-tiered, it's probably all pretty good anyhow.

I'm reading this forum on my lunchbreak, and sadly haven't got through all the posts. The American/Canadian bashing never ceases to amaze me. (Note, I'm Canadian myself).

Anyway, to my point:

Is it better to:

Die of an illness while waiting for treatment on a long (but Government funded) waiting list, or...
Die of an illness which you couldn't afford to seek treatment for privately?


Neither of us have it perfect, on either side of the border.

What?! I just read the first page and skimmed... But come on people. The death of the Canadian Universal Healthcare system? I am sorry, but you need to think a bit more long term here...

I see the two as something that can coexist... Universal Healthcare is for those who can not afford it, or who don't want a private insurance firm telling them when they can get sick and be covered. :P

The government pays for Universal Healthcare anyways, so private healthcare firms would not lose the government any money! In fact, the government would have more money to appropriate elsewhere...! Imagine that! In addition to this, the government does not have to keep as strong an eye on the private firms, as the private firms have to compete with the Universal Healthcare system.

If you look at it in a cyclic view, the government could keep devoting the same amount of money to the Universal Healthcare system... Private firms would crop up, offering better coverage and whatnot. Less strain on the Universal Healthcare system shifts the balance so there is more money for less people. The Universal Healthcare system slowly improves, forcing the private firms to keep up with it. Seeing as Universal Healthcare is essentially made to be free or very low cost to people using it, private firms would also have to compete rate-wise.

The government would actually be using a free system in order to eliminate monopolizing in the insurance industry. Eventually, only people who can not afford the better coverage of private firms would be using the Universal Healthcare system... And you know what? That was how it was meant to work!

The problem with people nowadays is that they see change and automatically assume a "doomsday" for something is nearing. I think the Universal Healthcare system coexisting with private firms is a prime example of how government control should be exercised. Do not restrict, allow for choice between various options.

If the Universal Healthcare system gives better coverage than a private firm, do you really think people would be so freaking stupid as to pay for less when they could pay little to no money at all to get more?!

I'm reading this forum on my lunchbreak, and sadly haven't got through all the posts. The American/Canadian bashing never ceases to amaze me. (Note, I'm Canadian myself).

Anyway, to my point:

Is it better to:

Die of an illness while waiting for treatment on a long (but Government funded) waiting list, or...
Die of an illness which you couldn't afford to seek treatment for privately?


Neither of us have it perfect, on either side of the border.
This is a really good topic to discuss. There is real data available, unlike the Creation or any number of other silly threads. This makes a good intellectual exercise and it should be taken in that context. I don't think anything really amounts to bashing of or by either side of the border. Maybe some strong critcism, but I hope there isn't any real animosity.

Now to answer the what if...Of course it doesn't matter which way you die, but I'd rather be suffering from an illness in a privately funded system. There's always the chance that I'll win the lottery, find a benefactor, make someone feel sorry for me...you get the idea. On the government list, all you can do is wait your turn.

Two tiered systems DO provide timely service for those who want to pay for the care. I didn't see that contradicted in the article. The only complaint I saw was that the folks who want "free" care are going to have to wait in line. The old fairness argument again.

The artificiality of price controls forces the doctors to choose who they are going to treat. Thus the legislation that bans opting out is introduced. And then found unconstitutional. I love it when it all makes sense.


This is just one more model that we shouldn't adopt in the U.S. in a panic to do _something_.
This is exactly why the two tiered system shouldn't be used in Canada. Let me explain.

The problem is long waiting lists.

From what we know and from Australia's system, the two tiered system actually grows the waiting lists. The small percentage that can afford it do get treated faster, but the overall waiting list (the one where 90% of cases are) is longer. This would only coumpound the problem.

The problem, according to the Canadian Supreme court is not for those who can afford it. It's for the middle class who would be on the free list in a two tiered system.

So in effect, Australia's system would worsen the Canadian problem.

I find it hard to draw a hard link between nationalized healthcare and life expectancy. I suspect there's something else at work that lowers our life expectancy. Maybe the large immigrant population? Maybe the gangs at work killing each other? Lots of factors to consider.
I would say there's quite a strong link between health care and life expectancy. Do you tihnk all those third-world countries have good health-care systems, but lots of murder victims? Immigrants and murder victims make up only a small portion of the population.

I'm actually quite content that the Canadian Supreme Court pointed out mandatory National Healthcare for what it is. Inefficient, bureaucratic, and dangerous is not what I'd want my taxes to go.

As far as the half-truths attacking the U.S. system, well, if that's your best defense, I'm sorry for you.
I'm sorry for you if you can't even refute each "half-truth" claim with evidence. Is it a lie that the US Govt spend two to three times as much on healthcare per capita than the Canadian government?

Also, we're talking Canada, so it's not your taxes; but at least you don't even try to hide your ulterior agenda.

This is exactly why the two tiered system shouldn't be used in Canada. Let me explain.

The problem is long waiting lists.

From what we know and from Australia's system, the two tiered system actually grows the waiting lists. The small percentage that can afford it do get treated faster, but the overall waiting list (the one where 90% of cases are) is longer. This would only coumpound the problem.

The problem, according to the Canadian Supreme court is not for those who can afford it. It's for the middle class who would be on the free list in a two tiered system.

So in effect, Australia's system would worsen the Canadian problem.
So it's really better to have everyone suffer than to allow a few to pay for what they can afford? Nah, get rid of the price controls and let the market sort it out.

Now if we could only let the market drive prices in the U.S...Wait, I'm off topic again.

I would say there's quite a strong link between health care and life expectancy. Do you tihnk all those third-world countries have good health-care systems, but lots of murder victims? Immigrants and murder victims make up only a small portion of the population.


I'm sorry for you if you can't even refute each "half-truth" claim with evidence. Is it a lie that the US Govt spend two to three times as much on healthcare per capita than the Canadian government?

Also, we're talking Canada, so it's not your taxes; but at least you don't even try to hide your ulterior agenda.
I think I made a pretty good case against mandatory participation and against government interference a couple posts back. I was never proposing to defend the U.S. system against anything. The debate rages down here about how to reform what we have, so it's important to have good arguments against bad plans. Let's face it, none of us are policy makers, so what are any of our discussions but academic exercises?

If I tell you what my ulterior agenda is, is it still ulterior?

So it's really better to have everyone suffer than to allow a few to pay for what they can afford? Nah, get rid of the price controls and let the market sort it out.

Now if we could only let the market drive prices in the U.S...Wait, I'm off topic again.
Price control in Canada is part of a free market. Think of the Canada government as a big Insurance Company. It deals with the pharmaceutical companies by making pressures to lower the cost of the drugs for it's customers (the Canadian people). The Pharmaceutical company don't like it? Then don't sell. Some drugs are not on the Canadian market. The Pharmaceutical companies still sell in Canada because it generates profit.

It is exactly like when Wal-Mart makes a deal to get Band-Aid at half the cost than other business because it buys in bulk.

The question is: do you choose to pay for it yourself or does the government force you to pay for everyone else?
I love how you libertarians talk in such emotive terms! It's not about force, it's about staying alive. Taxes are your fee for living in a society. Well, at least you didn't say "government holding a gun to your head and..."

Price control in Canada is part of a free market. Think of the Canada government as a big Insurance Company. It deals with the pharmaceutical companies by making pressures to lower the cost of the drugs for it's customers (the Canadian people). The Pharmaceutical company don't like it? Then don't sell. Some drugs are not on the Canadian market. The Pharmaceutical companies still sell in Canada because it generates profit.

It is exactly like when Wal-Mart makes a deal to get Band-Aid at half the cost than other business because it buys in bulk.
No, it's not like Wal-Mart at all. When the government makes a bad decision, like mandatory participation, it creates shortages.

I said earlier that you have shortages and cited a Fraser Institute report that documented 30 week waits for a GP visit. That's what price controls do to a market. When Wal-mart has a shortage of junk, it just means I have to wait a couple weeks before I can buy it again.


One reason for the political popularity of price controls is the fact that they conceal the true costs – initially. Artificially lower prices created by this government control encourage consumption while discouraging production at the same time. In economics, a situation where the quantity demanded exceeds the quantity supplied is called a shortage.

But we don't have shortages in Canada, do we?
In countries where government pays for healthcare, the time to wait for treatment increases exponentially. In Canada, for example, The Fraser Institute, a Vancouver, British Columbia-based think tank, released reports quantifying the average wait times for a patient to see a general practitioner. The shortest average wait time in Ontario is 14 weeks. In Saskatchewan, the number is alarmingly worse with an average of a 30 week waiting period.

I love how you libertarians talk in such emotive terms! It's not about force, it's about staying alive. Taxes are your fee for living in a society. Well, at least you didn't say "government holding a gun to your head and..."
If we are required to pay a fee for living in society, don't we have the right and responsibility to make sure it's spent wisely? I think that's what most reasonable people expect.

If we are required to pay a fee for living in society, don't we have the right and responsibility to make sure it's spent wisely? I think that's what most reasonable people expect.
You do when you elect a representative to the government during elections.

No, it's not like Wal-Mart at all. When the government makes a bad decision, like mandatory participation, it creates shortages.

I said earlier that you have shortages and cited a Fraser Institute report that documented 30 week waits for a GP visit. That's what price controls do to a market. When Wal-mart has a shortage of junk, it just means I have to wait a couple weeks before I can buy it again.
It is like wal-mart and I bolded the part where you agree that it is like Wal-Mart.

And a GP visit has no link to a shortage of a specific drug. Try again. A GP shortage is the reason for the wait between GP visit.

You do when you elect a representative to the government during elections.
Absolutely, but that's not sufficient in itself. You make the best choice in the election but you can't be content with that. You have to make sure the representative knows what you think is important. And what actions will get him voted out of office. You can't just blindly expect that he will do your bidding unless you tell him what the bidding is. Even then, it's not a sure thing.

Absolutely, but that's not sufficient in itself. You make the best choice in the election but you can't be content with that. You have to make sure the representative knows what you think is important. And what actions will get him voted out of office. You can't just blindly expect that he will do your bidding unless you tell him what the bidding is. Even then, it's not a sure thing.
Then I suggest you write to your representative, write opinion pieces in the papers, write petitions and generally get your voice heard. That's how the system works.

But I think this is a subject for another thread.

I'm actually quite content that the Canadian Supreme Court pointed out mandatory National Healthcare for what it is. Inefficient, bureaucratic, and dangerous is not what I'd want my taxes to go.

As far as the half-truths attacking the U.S. system, well, if that's your best defense, I'm sorry for you.
Right. And of course, the Canadian Supreme Court is qualified to make this sort of judgement, based on rigorous research...oh wait, that's not actually what happened. They were just enforcing the letter of the law which says that private healthcare is NOT ILLEGAL.

I'm still waiting for a _defense_ of the bureaucracy that delays treatment so much that patients die. A defense that doesn't revolve around "Well the U.S. pays more" or "Your infant mortality rate is higher than ours". That doesn't defend the practice of banning private insurance, only shifts the argument to different ground. I'm probably waiting in vain, I know.
I'll offer you on...the second you defend the idea that people without access to healthcare in your own country deserve to die because of it.

Freeloading natives and degenerates clogging up the hospitals when I need care and have paid hundreds of thousands more money into the system is just plain wrongMake racist generalisations much?

As one of those many 'natives' who are NOT freeloaders, I'd like you to rethink your blatant stereotype next time.

It is like wal-mart and I bolded the part where you agree that it is like Wal-Mart.

And a GP visit has no link to a shortage of a specific drug. Try again. A GP shortage is the reason for the wait between GP visit.
I'm talking about price controls and the shortage of medical care. That's far more serious than whether or not I can get my Cialis this week or next.

But to extend what you had said, There are a lot of things that companies have to cover when it comes to costs. Profit is typically a small part of the consumer cost of a product. There may be a large markup on the product, but probably very little of that is profit.

When a customer like the Canadian government can negotiate a sharp deal, the drug company still needs to turn a profit. Maybe their goal is 10 percent, maybe 15, I don't know. But they have to find a market where the drug can be marked up substantially. Obviously, that market is the U.S. We'll pay for more expensive drugs so you don't have to.

Then I suggest you write to your representative, write opinion pieces in the papers, write petitions and generally get your voice heard. That's how the system works.

But I think this is a subject for another thread.
I do. I go to town meetings. We're not on a first name basis, but we recognize each other. Sadly, that's not true with my Senators. They can't be bothered to come this far out from town.

I'm talking about price controls and the shortage of medical care. That's far more serious than whether or not I can get my Cialis this week or next.

But to extend what you had said, There are a lot of things that companies have to cover when it comes to costs. Profit is typically a small part of the consumer cost of a product. There may be a large markup on the product, but probably very little of that is profit.

When a customer like the Canadian government can negotiate a sharp deal, the drug company still needs to turn a profit. Maybe their goal is 10 percent, maybe 15, I don't know. But they have to find a market where the drug can be marked up substantially. Obviously, that market is the U.S. We'll pay for more expensive drugs so you don't have to.
Well, them's the break. ;)

That is what free market is all about.

I'll offer you on...the second you defend the idea that people without access to healthcare in your own country deserve to die because of it.
People here don't die from the lack of healthcare. There would be huge rows over that if it happened. They go to government sponsored charity hospitals that are not allowed to refuse treatment. They may or may not be billed, but that's the determination of the hospital.

What I will say, again, is that the plight of a few isn't reason to abandon a largely successful system. The real answer is to get the government out of the whole healthcare system. Except for some means-tested welfare payments, the government doesn't need to be involved in health. Period. But that's a different discussion, too.

Well, them's the break. ;)

That is what free market is all about.
And you know what? I don't have a gripe in the world about it! My only gripe, okay I lied, is that the U.S. government is trying to make it illegal to get prescriptions filled in Canada.

I said it also in the other post. The solution is simple.
Implement a National Healthcare System AND allow to anyone who wants to open a private clinic.

I said it also in the other post. The solution is simple.
Implement a National Healthcare System AND allow to anyone who wants to open a private clinic.
Now there's a can of worms you shouldn't have opened. Seems like the Brits are happy with it, although I though I read about a ban on opting out of their system. I just can't find it.

But the Aussies are livid over how unfairly the two-tiered system treats folks that can't or won't pay for service. Since they won't abandon the government-managed part, they are in trouble.

If you have any serious interest in the two-tiered system, just look for a post to an Australian article a few back.

And you know what? I don't have a gripe in the world about it! My only gripe, okay I lied, is that the U.S. government is trying to make it illegal to get prescriptions filled in Canada.

Isn't that just because the government is trying to protect corporate profits? It's interesting how we can trust the market--until large wealthy corporations start throwing their weight around. Doesn't seem like a reasonable way to provide either good medical coverage or good government.

As for Canada--They have the right to run their health care system any way they want. Playing by free market rules, if that guy wanted to pay for his treatment to avoid waiting lines, he should have moved to the US to get it. He should vote with his dollars instead of taking it to court and forcing the rest of the country to possibly scrap their own system--even if it might seem ineffecient to free market ideology.

The market isn't free unless there is choices--even the choice to pay for your health care through taxes.

I really hate that you started this entire thread by pretty much saying: "See, I was right all along!" You demonstrate that you really aren't interested in different ideas or finding the best solution--you really just want to prove you're right.

Have I misunderstood?

Now there's a can of worms you shouldn't have opened. Seems like the Brits are happy with it, although I though I read about a ban on opting out of their system. I just can't find it.

But the Aussies are livid over how unfairly the two-tiered system treats folks that can't or won't pay for service. Since they won't abandon the government-managed part, they are in trouble.

If you have any serious interest in the two-tiered system, just look for a post to an Australian article a few back.

I live in a country with a two-tiered system, Italy, and although we have some typical problems associated with NHS, the situation is quite good, because there isn't such a dualism with the rich who go to private clinics and the poor go to public: also the rich use the public service and due to the prices also the poor can afford some private treatments. It's a sort of equilibrium, although of course there's still more to be done

Canada City']Yes, I'm share the fact that people are DYING in waiting rooms and the shortage of doctors are traits of a 'successful healthcare'
The shortage of doctors would end if there was some simple way to certify doctors with training outside Canada for work as doctors here. There are plenty of people who could be doctors out driving cabs now.

I'm also paying for someone else's health problems. I've never been to the hospital in my life and I don't go to the doctors except for yearly check ups. Why should I pay for YOUR problems?
When you have problems, they'll be covered too...

I said earlier that you have shortages and cited a Fraser Institute report that documented 30 week waits for a GP visit. That's what price controls do to a market. When Wal-mart has a shortage of junk, it just means I have to wait a couple weeks before I can buy it again.
The shortest wait in Ontario is 14 weeks (from the article that didn't show up)? wft?

I've never had to wait more than a week between booking a doctor's appointment and seeing the doctor and I live in Ontario.

I really hate that you started this entire thread by pretty much saying: "See, I was right all along!" You demonstrate that you really aren't interested in different ideas or finding the best solution--you really just want to prove you're right.

Have I misunderstood?
It's comforting to know that I was right all along. My only interest is in avoiding the mess that government meddling brings to a situation. Except for national defense, I can't bring myself to support government interference in anything.

I do have ideas that would be more appropriate for another thread. Maybe as this one dies out, I can start another one based on those ideas.

I'm very anxious to discredit nationalized health care and this was the easiest example to use. I would have been equally eager to pick on Britain or Australia, if they had had the same recent news. But for the Canadian Supreme Court ... that was just too good to be true.

The shortest wait in Ontario is 14 weeks (from the article that didn't show up)? wft?

I've never had to wait more than a week between booking a doctor's appointment and seeing the doctor and I live in Ontario.
BFD. Fourteen weeks is three and a half months to see a GP. That's bad, just not as bad. Certainly nothing to be proud of.

I live in a country with a two-tiered system, Italy, and although we have some typical problems associated with NHS, the situation is quite good, because there isn't such a dualism with the rich who go to private clinics and the poor go to public: also the rich use the public service and due to the prices also the poor can afford some private treatments. It's a sort of equilibrium, although of course there's still more to be done
You probably get a pass through the subject because you're European. Maybe the dualism issue is only there to attack Americans with.

*sighs*
I want to go back and visit Italy again. Soon. :)

BFD. Fourteen weeks is three and a half months to see a GP. That's bad, just not as bad. Certainly nothing to be proud of.
And I'm saying it's not true.

I book my doctor's appointments a week before.

please, these are legends. NHS work quite well. Of course there are some limit cases of people waiting for months, but they are really a few compared to all the people cured and saved by the NHS --- expecially poor people who in the US simply would have died.
I'm for the two-tiered system

BFD. Fourteen weeks is three and a half months to see a GP. That's bad, just not as bad. Certainly nothing to be proud of.

I've never had to wait more then two weeks to see my family doctor, and the only day I can get into town to see him he only works a half day, at least around here there's no problems getting to see a doctor at all.

And I'm saying it's not true.

I book my doctor's appointments a week before.


I've never had to wait more then two weeks to see my family doctor, and the only day I can get into town to see him he only works a half day, at least around here there's no problems getting to see a doctor at all.


Guys, I cited a study by the Fraser Institue to back up those numbers. They are extremes, but for folks in Ontario and Saskatchewan those numbers represent real time. I suspect that the waits are location driven, but why should there be waiting periods like that at all in a successful system? No, we're right back to the shortages that price controls will bring about. This is just economics, plain and simple.

Guys, I cited a study by the Fraser Institue to back up those numbers. They are extremes, but for folks in Ontario and Saskatchewan those numbers represent real time. I suspect that the waits are location driven, but why should there be waiting periods like that at all in a successful system? No, we're right back to the shortages that price controls will bring about. This is just economics, plain and simple.
The problem is that you cited the Fraser Institute. An institute who will do research for one side of a debate when paid to. Of course they found the little village where you have to wait 14 weeks.

I'm very anxious to discredit nationalized health care and this was the easiest example to use. I would have been equally eager to pick on Britain or Australia, if they had had the same recent news. But for the Canadian Supreme Court ... that was just too good to be true.
It is extremely difficult for you to be able to keep an open mind about Canada's healthcare system when your avowed goal is:

"I'm very anxious to discredit nationalized health care"

Since that would be your agenda, you would be unable to appreciate any of the benefits that public healthcare has to offer, nor does it appear that you would want to appreciate any benefits from such a system.

The problem is that you cited the Fraser Institute. An institute who will do research for one side of a debate when paid to. Of course they found the little village where you have to wait 14 weeks.
The Frazier Institute is a Libertarian think tank, whose views tend to excite only the smallest minority of people.

It is extremely difficult for you to be able to keep an open mind about Canada's healthcare system when your avowed goal is:

"I'm very anxious to discredit nationalized health care"

Since that would be your agenda, you would be unable to appreciate any of the benefits that public healthcare has to offer, nor does it appear that you would want to appreciate any benefits from such a system.
National healthcare isn't a good thing. I've looked at plenty of cases that confirmed that long ago. Why should I make the effort to look at this in an unbiased manner when the subject is settled? There are no good arguments for government managed healthcare. Period. I've looked at the links, provided my own arguments, backed them up with solid numbers, and the evidence is that the government cannot manage healthcare. When your own Supreme Court says the same thing, the battle is lost.

The Frazier Institute is a Libertarian think tank, whose views tend to excite only the smallest minority of people.
I'm not quoting views, I'm quoting research. Tell me why it's wrong and I'll find another source to cite. There's no lack. The Canada News ran a story that talked about waits of 20 weeks for hip replacement. The waits were so long that patients became un-ambulatory. That's not healthcare, it's torture. By the way, I cited the Canada News story a few posts back and I'm not going to dig it out again.

National healthcare isn't a good thing. I've looked at plenty of cases that confirmed that long ago. Why should I make the effort to look at this in an unbiased manner when the subject is settled? There are no good arguments for government managed healthcare. Period. I've looked at the links, provided my own arguments, backed them up with solid numbers, and the evidence is that the government cannot manage healthcare.
Obviously, you have very little concern for the 45 Million Americans who do not have a basic healthcare plan?

When your own Supreme Court says the same thing, the battle is lost.
I honestly believe that the majority of Canadians are happily addicted to the public healthcare system, so you can bet that whatever comes down the pipe, as a result of any judicial rulings, that the basic core of public health care will be maintained.

Obviously, you have very little concern for the 45 Million Americans who do not have a basic healthcare plan?


I honestly believe that the majority of Canadians are happily addicted to the public healthcare system, so you can bet that whatever comes down the pipe, as a result of any judicial rulings, that the basic core of public health care will be maintained.

You'll do what your politicians can get away with. That's the way it works. My problem is to keep mine from voting to screw up our system even worse than it is. Just because some cannot pay for healthcare does not give the government justification to enact legislation that removes the capability for doctors and patients to trade for services in the market. A real free market in health care would make it far more affordable than it is now and we wouldn't be worried about the uninsured.

Guys, I cited a study by the Fraser Institue to back up those numbers. They are extremes, but for folks in Ontario and Saskatchewan those numbers represent real time. I suspect that the waits are location driven, but why should there be waiting periods like that at all in a successful system? No, we're right back to the shortages that price controls will bring about. This is just economics, plain and simple.
Well, if we're talking northern Ontario and Saskaechewan... these are places nobody wants to live. They're places that once you get off to school and get some training that allows you to get the hell out of there, you do so as quickly as possible. Saskatchewan is losing a lot of their population to Ontario and Alberta, Manitoba is losing a lot of people to Ontario as well, Northern Ontario is losing population to southern Ontario and hell, let's not even talk about the territories...

There aren't a lot of doctors in those places because people who are qualified to be doctors don't want to live there. If there were some incentives, say, paying med school tuition in exchange for a couple year's work out there, then you'd see more people moving out to the land of the black flies and horrible winters and nothing to do and you would see shorter wait periods for doctor's appointments.

The fact that you take these as examples of what it's like everywhere in Canada shows your total ignorance of the country itself.

I'm not quoting views, I'm quoting research. Tell me why it's wrong and I'll find another source to cite. There's no lack. The Canada News ran a story that talked about waits of 20 weeks for hip replacement. The waits were so long that patients became un-ambulatory. That's not healthcare, it's torture. By the way, I cited the Canada News story a few posts back and I'm not going to dig it out again.
Uh... my grandparents in Ohio have been living with bad knees and hip for years (my grandma has the bad knees, my grandpa has a bum hip) and they haven't got them fixed because they can't afford to. I would say that 20 weeks for a hip replacement is better than years without it.

They can't even travel out to visit us anymore because neither of them can sit in the car that long, let alone drive so long.

It's comforting to know that I was right all along. My only interest is in avoiding the mess that government meddling brings to a situation. Except for national defense, I can't bring myself to support government interference in anything.

I gathered that... Look, governments are hardly perfect--but without something (perhaps a government, perhaps just a sense of community) that equalizes things, we'd be back to a feudal system where the wealthy literally own everybody else.

We're already dangerously close to sliding back into that--it's just all hidden behind a thick layer of crap we call economics. But you can't have a democracy if money is the only thing that decides what happens.

One guy in Canada thinks he's better than everybody else in his country just because he has money. That's not sound economic thinking; that's just being an a**hole. Meanwhile, other people wait their turn and are happy to pay for others on occasion--not because their government forces them--but because they feel it is their responsibility as citizens--because they care about each other and would rather have it this way than let the rich run everything.

The "free" market erodes community, and something is needed to build it back up.


I'm very anxious to discredit nationalized health care and this was the easiest example to use. I would have been equally eager to pick on Britain or Australia, if they had had the same recent news. But for the Canadian Supreme Court ... that was just too good to be true.

That's what worries me--you're more anxious to discredit the system you personally don't like than you are to find the best solution. The truth may not always be where you expect to find it.

You'll do what your politicians can get away with. That's the way it works. My problem is to keep mine from voting to screw up our system even worse than it is. Just because some cannot pay for healthcare does not give the government justification to enact legislation that removes the capability for doctors and patients to trade for services in the market. A real free market in health care would make it far more affordable than it is now and we wouldn't be worried about the uninsured.
Newsflash: Universal healthcare has been around in Canada for a long time: it dates way back to Lester B. Pearson's Liberals in the mid-1960's. That capability to trade for those services hasn't been there for a good long while now. Doctors who enter that field are aware of the limitations there, and they accept them.

You say that a "true free market" in healthcare would make things more affordable. Wrong. The cheapest healthcare systems, where things are most affordable for a normal person, are the ones where healthcare is available to everyone. Two-tier systems are merely a recipe for disaster, as they confuse funding and screw over the poor.

Your system is one of the most inefficent in the world. In 2001, the government of Canada spent $1533 (in US dollars) per person on health care, while in the United States it gave $2168.
Your government spends more on healthcare, yet, millions of Americans go without basic health insurance, while everybody in Canada and recieves the same service. Canada has the highest proportion of state-funded hospitals in the world - 98%, where no other country exceeds even 80%. And guess what: we like that. If a government in this country were to establish a two-tier system, they would have an electoral defeat on the scale of Kim Cambell's Progressive Conservatives in the 1993 election.

Two-tier equals longer waiting lists - a problem we simply cannot exacerbate. This decision by the Supreme Court is them sticking their noses where they don't belong - and them taking away power from the duly elected politicians of this country.

Someone with more money does not deserve the right to live any more than someone with less money does. People are people - regardless of their monetary status - and they deserve to be treated the same.

After a discussion like this, it's nice to look back at the high points. I'm going to miss a few details, but I'm going to try and hit all of the main points in this discussion. I'm not trying to break any new ground or invite any new arguments, but the thread isn't locked, so that's not my call.

First, I started with a statement that mandatory participation in nationalized healthcare has been a failure. Canada had the honors of being my example for three reasons. The first was that we, in the U.S. have debated the exact same system since the Clintons were in office. We call it Hillarycare for fun. I guess no one understood that and it lead to a lot of off track discussion. The second reason that Canada was the example in this argument is because only Canada is the only major nation that requires mandatory participation in its health insurance program. Last, the third reason why Canada needed to be used as the example is because the Canadian Supreme Court provided such an excellent starting point by stating that mandatory participation violates Quebec's constitution by denying people vital health care and endangering their lives.

My interest in this is to have intelligent arguments to use towards the defeat of similar legislation in the U.S. I would never advocate the elimination of nationalized healthcare in Canada. Mainly because I don't have any standing to do so, no more than a Canadian has to advocate changes in our healthcare system. I can point our flaws from dawn to dusk and so can you. This discussion was supposed to be about why we shouldn't adopt mandatory nationalized healthcare, not why ours is worse than yours.

So that's where we started. What happened between #1 and now?

First, I found that any criticism of anything Canadian really touches a raw nerve. Someone even said that I probably represented an insurance company itching to move north. That's funny. Anyhow, quoting the Supreme Court led to the numerous comparisons about cost, mortality rates, and how our lower income citizenry can't afford insurance. Out of scope, I already know we have some reforms to make and acknowledged it in the first post. It took a long time to start discussing the issue of two-tiered systems but we finally did.

Two-tiered systems, where government and private insurance can both be used to pay for medical services, is another hot button. The Australians, and by association the Canadians, hate to see private insurance pay the bills that the government could pay. There is one main argument that is used against allowing private pay insurance. That is that the waits increase for those who will or can not buy their own insurance. I only had one argument to make against that and it was basically "Welcome to the free market". Is it any surprise that a doctor would prefer to make more money performing a procedure for a private payer? Is it any surprise that a private payer would prefer to have the procedure done sooner than later? Not to anyone but a die-hard socialist/communist--I can't tell them apart, sorry.

We also talked a little about economics and price controls. I mentioned that price controls cause shortages and gave several examples of long waits and fewer trained doctors. I don't know that anyone ever told my why price controls wouldn't produce shortages, but I'll look. I did see one argument that was meant to defend price controls. It compared the Canadian government to Wal-mart.

Wal-mart is a huge company and can negotiate deals with suppliers. That's how the government can get good prices on goods. Okay, fine. You're daily dose of Vicodin costs less than mine. I never saw the consumer side addressed. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that if I put out a sign that says "free food", the food is going to all be taken. Eventually, I'll run out of food and the consumers will have to wait. I read several posts that complained about doctors going to the U.S. to get better jobs. There is economics at work, my friends.

What else did we discuss? The last third of the thread was mostly made up of attacks on my evidence, on my motives, and on the Canadian Supreme Court. Nothing much worth re-hashing here.

Conclusions? If we adopt a single or two-tiered system, we're in for trouble. National Healthcare is nothing more than rationed scarcity. Shortages of personnel will be problematic, although if the Canada News is to be believed, there are fewer applicants and graduates of medical school in Canada year to year. Good news for someone that wants to be a doctor for altruistic reasons.

We do pay more for medical costs and there are people that can't afford insurance. There will likely be more in time. Is this a good reason to give the government control of the healthcare market? Not if we use the Canadians as a example of where it will lead.

There's nothing better than agreeing with the Wall Street Journal. Nothing until you find out that they agree with you, anyway. The lead editorial (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006813) in the paper today addressed this very issue in the same terms that I attempted to spell out. They did it a lot better and with quite a bit more polish, but the idea was the same. "Not this, not for the U.S.".
Too bad I didn't frame this as a jab at Teddy Kennedy. It might not have raised the ire of as many Canadians as happened.

Let's hope Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy were sitting down when they heard the news of the latest bombshell Supreme Court ruling. From the Supreme Court of Canada, that is. That high court issued an opinion last Thursday saying, in effect, that Canada's vaunted public health-care system produces intolerable inequality.


The rest of the editorial ignores Teddy, but concludes properly

The larger lesson here is that health care isn't immune from the laws of economics. Politicians can't wave a wand and provide equal coverage for all merely by declaring medical care to be a "right," in the word that is currently popular on the American left.

There are only two ways to allocate any good or service: through prices, as is done in a market economy, or lines dictated by government, as in Canada's system. The socialist claim is that a single-payer system is more equal than one based on prices, but last week's court decision reveals that as an illusion. Or, to put it another way, Canadian health care is equal only in its shared scarcity.

When asked whether he was worried about being known as the man who helped bring down his country's universal health-care system, Mr. Zeliotis told the Toronto Star, "No way. I'm the guy saving it." If the Canadian ruling can open American eyes to the limitations of government-run health care, Mr. Zeliotis's hip just might end up saving the U.S. system too.


I've got to say it again. I love it when I'm right.

I've got to say it again. I love it when I'm right.

I said it before, I'll say it again... to you and the Journal. Maybe this time you'll listen.

Show me where the Supreme Court said that Canada's system produced a level of inequality equal to or greater than that produced by the system in the United States.

Nobody claimed the Canadian system was perfect or immune to criticism. But it's got the U.S. system beat hands down.

Based on your summary and conclusion I have to ask: What thread were you reading?

I need to give my input on this issue, even though I only had time to read about half of the posts. For this reason, I appologize if this becomes a repetitive post, but I believe what I have to say is important.

You say that the US spends more on its public healthcare, which is not universal, than Canada does, and that healthcare is universal. I won't dispute this, as it may very well be correct. But you miss a very important detail about this spending: it is not representative of the will of the people in the US.

Nearly every election cycle (I say "nearly," but if I remember correctly, it may very well be "every"), our representatives increase the benefits for programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Why? Because of the incredibly organized lobbies supporting these measure. If an incumbent wants to be reelected, he or she may not anger the American Association of Retired People (AARP), which consists of 35 million of the highest percentage voters in the country. The rest of the public is unfortunately unable to combat the excesses of these programs. I'm surprised that Bush got reelected after threatening Social Security as it stands, because that was normally the death of any campaign in the past. However, the elderly and other interests having such a chokehold on our representatives does not equate to public support for these programs. Thus, the system is failing us and resulting in excess, and that is why the statistics are as they are.

1. The American Murder rate is 3 times that of Canada, and most of the victims are 17-24 years old. Sure that won't bring the average down?

I'm astonished by your argument, do you think it make it better? :eek:

For the record:
US Homicide rate 7,1/100 000 http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005110.html
Canada Homicide rate 1,8/100 000 http://www40.statcan.ca/l02/cst01/legal12b_f.htm
Now, 20 000 Homicide out of 2 400 000 death doesn't make a big difference what ever the age of the victim is.

I would also add that your high murder rate could be related to an inferior standard of living for the poor. Crime become a better option when you cant afford a minimum comfort, especially when your neighbor got an easy ride.

I find it hard to draw a hard link between nationalized healthcare and life expectancy. I suspect there's something else at work that lowers our life expectancy. Maybe the large immigrant population? Maybe the gangs at work killing each other? Lots of factors to consider.

Immigration totally messed up life expectancy in the U.S.

Look what it did to the natives.

I said it before, I'll say it again... to you and the Journal. Maybe this time you'll listen.

Show me where the Supreme Court said that Canada's system produced a level of inequality equal to or greater than that produced by the system in the United States.

Nobody claimed the Canadian system was perfect or immune to criticism. But it's got the U.S. system beat hands down.
The reader responses (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/responses.html?article_id=110006813) to the WSJ editorial revealed that there are people out there that understood the point of the editorial was to prevent nationalized healthcare in the U.S, not to berate the Canadians for making a poor choice. Not a single one of them resorted to the diversionary tactic of comparative analysis between the two countries. Too bad the NS posters didn't catch on as quick.

The reader responses (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/responses.html?article_id=110006813) to the WSJ editorial revealed that there are people out there that understood the point of the editorial was to prevent nationalized healthcare in the U.S, not to berate the Canadians for making a poor choice. Not a single one of them resorted to the diversionary tactic of comparative analysis between the two countries. Too bad the NS posters didn't catch on as quick.

Certain NS posters aren't catching on very quick but it's not the ones you're referring to.

You're arguing that you must prevent nationalized healthcare in the U.S. based on the fact that the Canadian system isn't immune to criticism but IGNORING the actual comparative advantages and disadvantages of that system respective to the one that you already have in place!

To put it in simpler terms, person B in the following exchange is the NS posters you're complaining about and person A is you:

A: We must prevent nationalized healthcare in the U.S... Look, the Canadian nationalized system of healthcare has flaws!

B: But... flawed or not it provides superior coverage to a larger percentage of the population than the system the U.S. is using now, and on top of that it does it at less cost. In short, it provides MORE for LESS.

A: Canada's has flaws, that's all that matters. So we shouldn't use it.

B: Listen. Flaws or not it is hands down superior to the system you're ALREADY using!

A: Stop resorting to the diversionary tactic of actually comparing the two systems I'm talking about. I don't care which one has clearly superior performance, I just care that Canada's isn't perfect.

:rolleyes:

Excuse us for finding that argument less than compelling.

Immigration totally messed up life expectancy in the U.S.

Look what it did to the natives.
Canada has more immigrants per population than the U.S. does. Someone posted the stats a while back.

Certain NS posters aren't catching on very quick but it's not the ones you're referring to.

You're arguing that you must prevent nationalized healthcare in the U.S. based on the fact that the Canadian system isn't immune to criticism but IGNORING the actual comparative advantages and disadvantages of that system respective to the one that you already have in place!

To put it in simpler terms, person B in the following exchange is the NS posters you're complaining about and person A is you:

A: We must prevent nationalized healthcare in the U.S... Look, the Canadian nationalized system of healthcare has flaws!

B: But... flawed or not it provides superior coverage to a larger percentage of the population than the system the U.S. is using now, and on top of that it does it at less cost. In short, it provides MORE for LESS.

A: Canada's has flaws, that's all that matters. So we shouldn't use it.

B: Listen. Flaws or not it is hands down superior to the system you're ALREADY using!

A: Stop resorting to the diversionary tactic of actually comparing the two systems I'm talking about. I don't care which one has clearly superior performance, I just care that Canada's isn't perfect.

:rolleyes:

Excuse us for finding that argument less than compelling.
I guess this topic is just too sensitive for Canadians to discuss rationally. Especially considering that the actual point at hand has absolutely nothing to do with the morass that they have created. It's all about choosing a better system, rather than making a convenient choice that has serious flaws, in order to reform the United States model of healthcare.

Maybe we should have just made fun of hockey. That seems to be a little easier subject to discuss.

I guess this topic is just too sensitive for Canadians to discuss rationally. Especially considering that the actual point at hand has absolutely nothing to do with the morass that they have created. It's all about choosing a better system, rather than making a convenient choice that has serious flaws, in order to reform the United States model of healthcare.

Maybe we should have just made fun of hockey. That seems to be a little easier subject to discuss.
What world are you living in, exactly? You seem to read things and I don't know how you draw your conclusions about them... it confuses the hell out of me though, it's almost like we're reading completely different posts.

And hell, the U.S. has fucked up hockey. I mean, have you heard about the new rules? Geez. What the fuck? It's even worse than when they needed to have a line indicating where the puck went.

I guess this topic is just too sensitive for Canadians to discuss rationally. Especially considering that the actual point at hand has absolutely nothing to do with the morass that they have created. It's all about choosing a better system, rather than making a convenient choice that has serious flaws, in order to reform the United States model of healthcare.

Maybe we should have just made fun of hockey. That seems to be a little easier subject to discuss.
Err, I don't know if you've noticed, but you've spent quite a bit of time complaining about oversensitive Canadians, yet I can't actually see any. I read back five pages, and I really didn't see anyone doing anything other than trying to argue against you. The post you quoted was an attempt at a logical argument, and you completely ignored it.

Do you have an argument still, or do you simply want to complain about Canadians some more?

I really think he's reading an entirely different thread.

I'm still waiting for a _defense_ of the bureaucracy that delays treatment so much that patients die.

Ahah... ahahahah... you must be pretty blind. The US is a bureaucracy, period. It's not just the government, either. Canada has a bureaucratic government, no question, but when your country employs nearly 3 million people in a government sector, that's saying something about who's the true bureaucracy.

Your move, South Africa.

I guess this topic is just too sensitive for Canadians to discuss rationally. Especially considering that the actual point at hand has absolutely nothing to do with the morass that they have created.

How fascinating. What post are you replying to exactly? Because it sure as heck wasn't mine. You did quote it... but then you ignored it's entire content, which leaves me having some difficulty trying to follow your thought processes.

Thanks for giving us something to laugh about at work. You guys are the greatest. If you could only read...

Thanks for giving us something to laugh about at work. You guys are the greatest. If you could only read...

Amazingly enough I would wager a fairly high percentage of the people you're discussing this with here are literate. And I see you've once again posted a stunningly comprehensive response to the arguments that have been presented against your statements.

Amazingly enough I would wager a fairly high percentage of the people you're discussing this with here are literate. And I see you've once again posted a stunningly comprehensive response to the arguments that have been presented against your statements.

Including the fact that Canada's literacy rate is 0.3% higher than that of the US, even with a lower "category" criteria?

Canadian literacy definition - 12 or older can read or write, 98.8% literate
US literacy definition - 15 or older can read or write, 98.5% literate.

Hmm... who's understanding WHO?

From what I've seen - its not the Canadian content thats been hyper-sensitive here. Not that its worth mentioning, since I can tell that making logical argumentation is not even a concern for someone of note here - but I can say from personal experience over the past month that the Canadian health care system is working quite well. I've spent a lot of time in the hospital lately, and I can tell you from my own dealings, and from the dealings of other patients that I encountered during my stay - there were no complaints about the promptness or quality of care given.

If all you're going to do is sling mud at something - its going to get dirty. Enough said.

Finally, a Canadian court confirms what we have suspected all along. That is that the Canadians are endangering themselves with the free public health system. A recent Supreme Court decision (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aVIH1kZG.S0M&refer=top_world_news) struck down a Quebec law that banned private insurance and private clinics. The court stated that the ban violates Quebec's constitution by denying people vital health care and endangering their lives.



Read the decision itself, not the media's spin on it. The court didn't state that public health care endangered lives. It stated that wait times did. It was as much a criticism underfunding public health care as it was a criticism of banning private health care.

Read the decision itself, not the media's spin on it. The court didn't state that public health care endangered lives. It stated that wait times did. It was as much a criticism underfunding public health care as it was a criticism of banning private health care.
If you don't mind, post a link to the text of the decision. I tried in vain for an hour or so to find it and I would like to read it.

Based on your comments, see my previous posts about economics and rationed scarcity. There is no system that can survive price controls without developing scarcity. That's where the wait times come from, the lack of supply of doctors. Sure, if the service were funded better then there would be more doctors, but where does the government get those funds?

Amazingly enough I would wager a fairly high percentage of the people you're discussing this with here are literate. And I see you've once again posted a stunningly comprehensive response to the arguments that have been presented against your statements.

Buddy, you win the prize for tenacity. Start at post #1 and look at my replies. I've posted some thought-through stuff and defended it agains the few real arguments that addressed it. I think you have misread them, so I'll help you out with a reply to those stunningly comprehensive arguments.


A: We must prevent nationalized healthcare in the U.S... Look, the Canadian nationalized system of healthcare has flaws!

B: But... flawed or not it provides superior coverage to a larger percentage of the population than the system the U.S. is using now, and on top of that it does it at less cost. In short, it provides MORE for LESS.

What I've said time and time again is that we should make reforms that are truly workable. Mandatory participation in nationalized health care isn't workable. I've also said that the plight of a few shouldn't drive us to a hasty decision that has undesirable consequences. Read this again, you have a hard time understanding it.


A: Canada's has flaws, that's all that matters. So we shouldn't use it.

B: Listen. Flaws or not it is hands down superior to the system you're ALREADY using!

Reread the response above, I still don't think it's sunk in. Superior or not, it isn't the way to go in the future. Reread this, too.


A: Stop resorting to the diversionary tactic of actually comparing the two systems I'm talking about. I don't care which one has clearly superior performance, I just care that Canada's isn't perfect.


Comparisons don't matter that's not the purpose. I don't care what sort of statistics we have in the U.S. We are in need of reform, but what model should we pick? The fact that the coverage is better and prices are lower in the Canadian model are false indicators of a successful system. The real indicators are how well treatment is distributed and how the shortages in supply are handled. Those indicators fail the test for success. Personal anecdotes aside, there are a lot of people that wait a long time for treatment. The Court wouldn't have stricken the Quebec law if the case were otherwise.

This is not what we should rush to in the U.S. I'm inclined to believe a free market solution, augmented by some means-tested relief, would be the best answer, but I haven't researched it enough. I will and I will post a thread about it. Then you can argue that Canada still has more coverage and lower costs.

If you don't mind, post a link to the text of the decision. I tried in vain for an hour or so to find it and I would like to read it.


Try the Supreme Court of Canada website:

http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/rec/html/2005scc035.wpd.html

I dislike the implied suggestion in some of the posts that it is better for people to die because they don't have healthcare than for people to die because they have to wait for free healthcare.

Based on your comments, see my previous posts about economics and rationed scarcity. There is no system that can survive price controls without developing scarcity. That's where the wait times come from, the lack of supply of doctors. Sure, if the service were funded better then there would be more doctors, but where does the government get those funds?

Taxes, user fees, there are many options.

You fail to address the economic benefits in terms of purchasing power that are achieved by having a national health care system. Because of the size of the system, Canadian governments have purchasing power that individual health care providers would not, and are able to demand better prices from suppliers. That keeps down the price of health care on a per person basis. If you fragment that by allowing other health care providers to step in, prices will go up.

In terms of addressing the scarcity, since medical school is subsidized by taxpayers, we should insist that Doctors serve a certain amount of time in the Canadian system, or ask them to repay that subsidy if they leave.

Try the Supreme Court of Canada website:

http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/rec/html/2005scc035.wpd.html
Thanks. As usual, the obvious thing to do would have been google the Supreme Court of Canada, not the case docket number and appellant name.

Looks like a three or fourth read-through document. Makes me glad I'm not a lawyer.

Taxes, user fees, there are many options.

You fail to address the economic benefits in terms of purchasing power that are achieved by having a national health care system. Because of the size of the system, Canadian governments have purchasing power that individual health care providers would not, and are able to demand better prices from suppliers. That keeps down the price of health care on a per person basis. If you fragment that by allowing other health care providers to step in, prices will go up.

In terms of addressing the scarcity, since medical school is subsidized by taxpayers, we should insist that Doctors serve a certain amount of time in the Canadian system, or ask them to repay that subsidy if they leave.

I did talk about the purchasing power of the government way back. We used Wal-Mart as an example. Problem is that when Wal-Mart runs out of tires, it's no a big deal. When the gov't runs out of doctors, it is a real problem. You need to consider all aspects of a gov't managed system, complete with price controls. The price controls on wages and services are going to offset any gains made on q-tips and Viagra.

I did talk about the purchasing power of the government way back. We used Wal-Mart as an example. Problem is that when Wal-Mart runs out of tires, it's no a big deal. When the gov't runs out of doctors, it is a real problem. You need to consider all aspects of a gov't managed system, complete with price controls. The price controls on wages and services are going to offset any gains made on q-tips and Viagra.

Doctors aren't exactly an expendable resource. They tend to last a few decades.

BTW the US is having trouble getting doctors and other health professionals, too. There seems to be a worldwide shortage of health professionals, actually. Largely due to baby boomers since they are retiring from the field and getting old and sick themselves requiring more personnel to take care of them.

The government has never had trouble finding new product to stock hospitals either. Companies are always producing new stuff and we buy it. I think your example depends on the supply being finite. It isn't. There are always supplies because there are several businesses to buy from, all set up to provide the different Health Authorities with the supplies they need to match the procedures they use. The companies make profit. They use it to make more product, which we buy and they profit from.

I don't see what the problem is. :confused:

I did talk about the purchasing power of the government way back. We used Wal-Mart as an example. Problem is that when Wal-Mart runs out of tires, it's no a big deal. When the gov't runs out of doctors, it is a real problem. You need to consider all aspects of a gov't managed system, complete with price controls. The price controls on wages and services are going to offset any gains made on q-tips and Viagra.

Assuming that all of the assumptions underlying your free market paradigm are correct (which I will do for the moment), price controls are only a problem if you let the market set the supply of doctors as well, and assuming there is absolute mobility of labour, which is never the case. However, there are many ways in which you can artificially increase the supply of doctors, even with price controls in place. Subsidising the cost of medical school, as I mentioned, is one of them.

However, at the end of the day, you have to accept that not everyone is going to believe that people's health is something that is best left to the vagaries of the market. Some people are willing to accept the possibility of suffering or loss of life due to the supply shortages of a public system instead of the possibility of suffering and loss of life because some people are unable to afford health care under a private system.

As you said, people should consider all of the aspects of a government managed system. The fact that they don't arrive at the same conclusion you did doesn't mean they didn't do so. It just might mean they have different values.

And being dismissive of other people's arguments doesn't strengthen yours.