NationStates Jolt Archive

Recent threads

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=424913

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9039174#post9039174

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.
Well, since you know so much fucking better than Canadians themselves do on how to run their lives, why don't you propose an alternative?

Maybe Canadians want to live in a decent, moral society? Unlike the US, where people see nothing wrong with sending children home to die because their parents can't afford surgery?

thank you

It is frequently observed that dogmatic thinking, upon encountering a functioning alternative, attempts to denigrate or destroy it.

The reality is, different approaches to a problem can be equally valid, and some more appropriate to a certain setting than others. For example, there is no reason to believe that a constitutional theocracy is not a reasonable way of government in the Middle East.

Unfortunately, no system which preaches its superiority can ever accept such compromises.

Recent threads

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=424913

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9039174#post9039174


Well, since you know so much fucking better than Canadians themselves do on how to run their lives, why don't you propose an alternative?

Maybe Canadians want to live in a decent, moral society? Unlike the US, where people see nothing wrong with sending children home to die because their parents can't afford surgery?

I, as one Republican Conservative, am not out to destroy your health care system - it seems to have problems of its own, just as ours does.

On the other hand, the Canadian health care system DID send my aunt home to die - she was put on an 18 month waiting list for surgery for pancreatic cancer - when she had less than 6 months to live. Apparently, there's a shortage of qualified specialty surgeons in specific areas. If you're not able to pay for a private surgeon to do it, you go home to die - just like in the US.

She came here to the US and immediately had the surgery.

Neither system is perfect. We do have a safety net for people who can't afford health care - but it costs far more than it should, largely because it only covers emergency care - people don't get much preventive or regular care.

Of all the systems I've seen work, Kaiser has one that has finally made the right adjustments - but it's a private HMO, not a government system. The problem I have with a government system is that it has no motivation to do anything right - at least a private system is worried about losing customers and losing money.

There's probably a middle ground somewhere. If I had my way, I would make all medical insurance follow the Kaiser model - no other types of insurance, and no doctors working outside the networks. I would subsidize the premiums based on your income (or lack thereof), and would force the companies to compete on a regulated basis - I would federalize the US insurance laws. I would also eliminate suits for pain and suffering, and I would criminalize malpractice - if there's malpractice, you or your survivors will get a wage loss award, but nothing else. The doctor will go to jail.

The limited competition on a level playing field should keep everyone motivated, and I have the poor covered. And, if you can pay the premium, you pay it. And if you can pay more, you pay the premium, and I tax you to help cover the poor.

The Canadian system smacks of Socialism, and the Republicans hate to see it working.

The Canadian system smacks of Socialism, and the Republicans hate to see it working.
I really should remember to write like this, instead of my usual style in the post above. Maybe then people will talk to me. :(

I wish someone could explain to me why private care is illegal in Canada though. Why not have both. Many other countries do, and it works just fine.

It's like banning busses because not enough people are taking the train.

Recent threads

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=424913

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9039174#post9039174


Well, since you know so much fucking better than Canadians themselves do on how to run their lives, why don't you propose an alternative?

Maybe Canadians want to live in a decent, moral society? Unlike the US, where people see nothing wrong with sending children home to die because their parents can't afford surgery?

...some of us see socialism as a greater evil...

so we socialize health care

taxes must first be raised on the rich and on corporations

that means that the rich and corporations have less money to pay employees

which means that employees lose their jobs

which means that their kids starve
---
it is a simplistic and perhaps overzealous anecdote, but in it lies one reason why I don't like socialism... and nationalized health care is one component in a socialist regime (or.. is based on socialistic thought: you are taking money from some to pay for others' health care... and redistribution of wealth is a cornerstone of socialism)

okay, okay, perhaps you're not getting the ;) i'm wearing...

we could at least give kids free health care.

Because

1) the private health care industry in the US is big business.

2) Big business lobbies government as much as it does public opinion

3) Canada US Free Trade (which I hope is torn up and that we look elsewhere for honorable trading partners) opens the door wide open for big US HMO's to operate in Canada.

I wish someone could explain to me why private care is illegal in Canada though. Why not have both. Many other countries do, and it works just fine.

It's like banning busses because not enough people are taking the train.

It's like the US when abortion was illegal. Sure, if you were rich, you could get on a plane, fly to Europe, and get your abortion. If you were poor, you were screwed to the wall.

In Canada, if you can't get the health care you want from the government, if you're rich, you can go to the US and get it. Otherwise, if you're poor, you're screwed to the wall.

They already have a two-tier system - those who can afford to go to the US for care, and those who can't.

It's like the US when abortion was illegal. Sure, if you were rich, you could get on a plane, fly to Europe, and get your abortion. If you were poor, you were screwed to the wall.

In Canada, if you can't get the health care you want from the government, if you're rich, you can go to the US and get it. Otherwise, if you're poor, you're screwed to the wall.

They already have a two-tier system - those who can afford to go to the US for care, and those who can't.

Yes, I understand how it works up there. I just don't understand why they won't allow people to choose private healthcare in Canada if they wish.

The UK has the National Health Service, but you can still choose private insurance and private healthcare in the UK if you want. Why is Canada different?

I wish someone could explain to me why private care is illegal in Canada though. Why not have both. Many other countries do, and it works just fine.

It's like banning busses because not enough people are taking the train.
Actually, it isn't. It was in Quebec but there are other provinces with some form or other of private care. New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Saskatchewan have system in place where the private is contributing to the healthcare system.

The supreme court case brought down two clauses in the Quebec laws that made it illegal in that province. But it can (and will) be used as precedent in a variety of other cases where a private clinic / hospital / whatever would want to contest an existing law.

They already have a two-tier system - those who can afford to go to the US for care, and those who can't.

And those US'ians who can't afford prescription medications come to Canada or make use of our many mail order pharmacies which purportedly sell dangerous medications though identical to those sold in the US. :confused:

I as an American Republican could not possibly care less if Canadians have socialized medicine or any other component of the welfare state. I do however take exception to your attempts to export it's supposed virtues into the minds of American pubesents such as yourself with bald faced lies about our system. It is one thing to be proud of your system, but when its failings are so well known, making up lies about others is unacceptable. Shame on you little boy.

Actually, it isn't. It was in Quebec but there are other provinces with some form or other of private care. New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Saskatchewan have system in place where the private is contributing to the healthcare system.

The supreme court case brought down two clauses in the Quebec laws that made it illegal in that province. But it can (and will) be used as precedent in a variety of other cases where a private clinic / hospital / whatever would want to contest an existing law.

Okay, so it was only Quebec. That makes more sense.

I still don't understand the reason for it. :(

Recent threads

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=424913

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9039174#post9039174


Well, since you know so much fucking better than Canadians themselves do on how to run their lives, why don't you propose an alternative?

Maybe Canadians want to live in a decent, moral society? Unlike the US, where people see nothing wrong with sending children home to die because their parents can't afford surgery?
Hey pal, why didn't you quote the second part of that post? The part where I said that we can abandon _our_ goals of being like Canada, now that it's been proven to be a failed system? Huh?

And clean out your mouth.

Hey pal, why didn't you quote the second part of that post? The part where I said that we can abandon _our_ goals of being like Canada, now that it's been proven to be a failed system? Huh?

And clean out your mouth.
It has NOT been proven a failed system. To say so is as much disingenious as what you are accusing Swimmingpool of doing.

Okay, so it was only Quebec. That makes more sense.

I still don't understand the reason for it. :(
Well, it has been debated and our politicains decided that we didn't want a two-tiered system so the effectively banned it. According to the Supreme Court, it violates a couple point of our Charter, so it's out.

Okay, so it was only Quebec. That makes more sense.

I still don't understand the reason for it. :(
The reason for mandatory participation is that people won't participate unless they are forced to. Doctors treat patients for fees and patients pay doctors for their services.

The complaint is that this forces out the folks that won't or can't get off the dole and they have to wait too long for that nose job or those braces. It's the whole class envy problem. Life isn't fair, but it is up to the government to make it so.

It is frequently observed that dogmatic thinking, upon encountering a functioning alternative, attempts to denigrate or destroy it..

I was thinking that that's what it was. They did it with Cuba in the 1960s, they're doing it to Canada now. The socialist model absolutely could not be permitted to work in Cuba, as a matter of US right-wing ideological interest.

I wish someone could explain to me why private care is illegal in Canada though. Why not have both. Many other countries do, and it works just fine.

It's like banning busses because not enough people are taking the train.
I agree with you there. I don't see anything wrong with allowing private hospitals.

If you're not able to pay for a private surgeon to do it, you go home to die - just like in the US.

Good post as usual, WL.

So it's either

Canada - you're going to get treatment on paper/they pretend to treat you
USA - bye, have a nice death!

your country is more honest, i'll give ya that.

Where is Kaiser?

It has NOT been proven a failed system. To say so is as much disingenious as what you are accusing Swimmingpool of doing.
You have taken the time to read through the thread, so you know I made a pretty honest effort at proving my point. Which was not that Canada should do anything in particular, that will sort itself out. My point was to avoid the mistakes of your politicians when we decide on our own reforms.

You have taken the time to read through the thread, so you know I made a pretty honest effort at proving my point. Which was not that Canada should do anything in particular, that will sort itself out. My point was to avoid the mistakes of your politicians when we decide on our own reforms.
I have no problem with that. But that's not what you said in this thread. You said it had failed and should be thrown out. While you may think that, saying so as if it was God's honest truth is patently false.

And it is the height of hypocrisy to admonish a poster for not saying the whole truth when you do the same thing in the very next sentence. As such, I invoke the "Black" clause according to Pot V. Kettle.

One thing that I've never understood is why sending children home to die is necessarily bad. If you really start to think about it, there is absolutely no logical foundation for saying that no human deserves to die. The way I see it, if people think that said child shouldn't die, then they should give to charities that prevent it from happening. I don't happen to have a problem with him dying, so why should I pay to save him?

At the heart of your post, however, is the assumption that all ____ Americans feel ____ about _____, which is just silly. I have heard as many bad things about the UK and Canadian health systems as the US. As far as I can tell, everyone's got a bad system, it's just a sliding scale of bad; some are worse than others, but none are really good. Of course, I have insurance and could get any operation I need, so I think our system is just dandy (of course, I think we could do better on my wallet too).

I have no problem with that. But that's not what you said in this thread. You said it had failed and should be thrown out. While you may think that, saying so as if it was God's honest truth is patently false.

And it is the height of hypocrisy to admonish a poster for not saying the whole truth when you do the same thing in the very next sentence. As such, I invoke the "Black" clause according to Pot V. Kettle.

Come on, you quoted me just a couple posts back. I said
"...The part where I said that we can abandon _our_ goals of being like Canada..." Not "Canada should dismantle its national obsession". What part of that could be confused for saying it should be thrown out of Canada?

I'm not trying to be unclear, or evasive, I really don't see where I ever suggested that Canada should dismantle its system of healthcare. I've tried several times to make the point that I'm dead against the same system here, but up there, you're on your own.

The reason for mandatory participation is that people won't participate unless they are forced to. Doctors treat patients for fees and patients pay doctors for their services.

The complaint is that this forces out the folks that won't or can't get off the dole and they have to wait too long for that nose job or those braces. It's the whole class envy problem. Life isn't fair, but it is up to the government to make it so.

Yah, but if you look at the UK that just doesn't happen. People tend to use the NHS mostly. (Hell, I used to use it when I lived there, and really only had positive experiences).

I mean, I don't think anyone will tell you that the NHS is problem free, but a lot of the actual problems with is seem - at least as far as I can tell - to be centered around specific geographical areas, and largely depend upon which hospital trust you deal with and probably can be easily fixed. (At least that is my impression).

At the same time you can get BUPA if you want.

I was thinking that that's what it was. They did it with Cuba in the 1960s, they're doing it to Canada now. The socialist model absolutely could not be permitted to work in Cuba, as a matter of US right-wing ideological interest.

I'll think you'll find that most US citizens don't really ever think about Canada. You get a somewhat distorted perspective from NS.

Come on, you quoted me just a couple posts back. I said
"...The part where I said that we can abandon _our_ goals of being like Canada..." Not "Canada should dismantle its national obsession". What part of that could be confused for saying it should be thrown out of Canada?

I'm not trying to be unclear, or evasive, I really don't see where I ever suggested that Canada should dismantle its system of healthcare. I've tried several times to make the point that I'm dead against the same system here, but up there, you're on your own.
I refer to you to Post #16 of this thread:
Hey pal, why didn't you quote the second part of that post? The part where I said that we can abandon _our_ goals of being like Canada, now that it's been proven to be a failed system? Huh?

And clean out your mouth.

The solution is simple
Implement a public healthcare system AND permit to anyone who wants to open a private clinic

And those US'ians who can't afford prescription medications come to Canada or make use of our many mail order pharmacies which purportedly sell dangerous medications though identical to those sold in the US. :confused:

The fear is that the packages will arrive filled with hockey pucks instead of pills...

"Ohhhhh, you meant that kind of pill!"

Some people want Canada's health system changed because it's 'OMG TEH SOCIALIST!!!', and they do not wish to give others the right to live that way if they wishdecide they'd like to.

However, it's not all Republican Americans like you seem to be saying. Many people just regard Canada as the big country to the north that they know little about, and don't particularly care about either.

I refer to you to Post #16 of this thread:
When I said

Hey pal, why didn't you quote the second part of that post? The part where I said that we can abandon _our_ goals of being like Canada, now that it's been proven to be a failed system?


I was just using some hyperbole to justify my point that we should follow you into the cesspool of government-managed healthcare. I still don't read it as advocating the dismantling of Canadian healthcare, only a restatement of what your Supreme Court has said in their ruling against Quebec.

so he pointed out that there was a court decision that said too many canadians were dying due to long waiting lists

why respond with "well at least we arent like YOU" instead of disucssing what is wrong with the canadian system?

not that im saying our system is better, i dont want a canadian system here but that doesnt mean its not better for you. but pointing out the flaws in the US system does not address the flaws in yours.

you all seem a little eager to change the subject from "what is wrong with the canadian system" to "the US sucks"

this part is getting on my nerves:

the only time i can think of when people here are "sent home to die" is when there is no hope for them or they are organ transplant patients where either the cost isnt covered by any program (including insurance) or there are no organs available in time. sometimes a person is wanting experiemental treatment that they have no private money to pay for. but NEVER because the waiting list is too long.

yes there are people with no insurance public or private, yes some of those people are insuranceless through no fault of their own. THEY STILL GET TREATMENT. they just show up at the emergency room and they get seen by a medical professional (at least a physicians assistant). maybe they have a bad cold, maybe they are having a heart attack. they get treatment. if they are having a heart attack, they get the same treatment that the guy with 100% insurance coverage gets. no corners are cut.

geez dont you guys ever watch ER?

what they dont have are visits to their primary care physician in his office for routine exams and tests. unless they pay for it out of their own pockets.

so he pointed out that there was a court decision that said too many canadians were dying due to long waiting lists

why respond with "well at least we arent like YOU" instead of disucssing what is wrong with the canadian system?

not that im saying our system is better, i dont want a canadian system here but that doesnt mean its not better for you. but pointing out the flaws in the US system does not address the flaws in yours.

you all seem a little eager to change the subject from "what is wrong with the canadian system" to "the US sucks"

this part is getting on my nerves:

the only time i can think of when people here are "sent home to die" is when there is no hope for them or they are organ transplant patients where either the cost isnt covered by any program (including insurance) or there are no organs available in time. sometimes a person is wanting experiemental treatment that they have no private money to pay for. but NEVER because the waiting list is too long.

yes there are people with no insurance public or private, yes some of those people are insuranceless through no fault of their own. THEY STILL GET TREATMENT. they just show up at the emergency room and they get seen by a medical professional (at least a physicians assistant). maybe they have a bad cold, maybe they are having a heart attack. they get treatment. if they are having a heart attack, they get the same treatment that the guy with 100% insurance coverage gets. no corners are cut.

geez dont you guys ever watch ER?

what they dont have are visits to their primary care physician in his office for routine exams and tests. unless they pay for it out of their own pockets.

People die on the waiting list for donor organs many times, because it is so long.

People die becuase they cannot afford treatment [like my Aunt] and only get treated when it progresses too far to help.

People die because they are afriad of the bills after the operation , thusly they don't have it.

This all happens in the "great US healthcare system."

PS. Private healthcare is getting very difficult to get in the US, especially for those with on going dieases [ such as diabetes, etc.].

I agree that there are flaws in the Canadian system, and, as a Canadian I appreciate having the American system next door, it allows our doctors and nurses to gain experience and earn enough money that they can come home and live comfortably. There are cracks in the American system, I base this on some of my family's experiences as a resident, but it is not entirely bad. That said, a two-tier system in Canada will not fly, partly because 98% of us don't want it (source, 6 o'clock news last night) and partly because having such a system takes doctors and other health care professionals from the private sector.

People die on the waiting list for donor organs many times, because it is so long.

People die becuase they cannot afford treatment [like my Aunt] and only get treated when it progresses too far to help.

People die because they are afriad of the bills after the operation , thusly they don't have it.

This all happens in the "great US healthcare system."

PS. Private healthcare is getting very difficult to get in the US, especially for those with on going dieases [ such as diabetes, etc.].
all those things are true.

the organ transplant thing is a problem everywhere.

now what about the flaws of the canadian system?

Marric']I agree that there are flaws in the Canadian system, and, as a Canadian I appreciate having the American system next door, it allows our doctors and nurses to gain experience and earn enough money that they can come home and live comfortably. There are cracks in the American system, I base this on some of my family's experiences as a resident, but it is not entirely bad. That said, a two-tier system in Canada will not fly, partly because 98% of us don't want it (source, 6 o'clock news last night) and partly because having such a system takes doctors and other health care professionals from the private sector.

so what does it mean that the court ruled that the quebec ban on private clinics is unconstitutional? do they have to allow them or is it a matter of rewriting a law or 2?

The reason for mandatory participation is that people won't participate unless they are forced to. Doctors treat patients for fees and patients pay doctors for their services.

The complaint is that this forces out the folks that won't or can't get off the dole and they have to wait too long for that nose job or those braces. It's the whole class envy problem. Life isn't fair, but it is up to the government to make it so.

You must realize that dental work and cosmetic surgury isn't covered by public heathcare.

You must realize that dental work and cosmetic surgury isn't covered by public heathcare.
That _was_ supposed to be tongue-in-cheek. Just another reason why the U.S. should opt out of G-M healthcare.

all those things are true.

the organ transplant thing is a problem everywhere.

now what about the flaws of the canadian system?

Basically, the same issues as the American healthcare systems:

Long wait for treatment.

Problems with quality care

Difficulty getting the right treatment.

[I don't know if the Canadians have the same crisis with waits in the ER as the US has, and I don't know the severity of the issues in the CHS. Unfortunately, I reside in the US.]

People die on the waiting list for donor organs many times, because it is so long.

People die becuase they cannot afford treatment [like my Aunt] and only get treated when it progresses too far to help.

People die because they are afriad of the bills after the operation , thusly they don't have it.

This all happens in the "great US healthcare system."

PS. Private healthcare is getting very difficult to get in the US, especially for those with on going dieases [ such as diabetes, etc.].

I have Crohn's disease. I had a bowel resection and some other repair work done on my digestive track. I had no insurance, I had no money. I was admitted to the hospital and after signing one form I was treated and treated well. It was paid for entirely by the state and I never have to repay it. This was at a public hospital and they did a good job on me.
The main thing stopping most poorer people from being treated in the US is this belief they have been convinced of that they can't or won't be treated.
The only people in the US who have trouble are the lower middle class. They make too much money to be covered by the government and not enough to pay for insurance or to pay for it themselves. But the interesting part is, they will still be treated if they go to a public hospital. A payment plan will be worked out by the hospital. They are not allowed to refuse treatment. Again, that is a public hospital not a private one.

As a Republican I don't care one way or another what the Canadian healthcare system is. If you guys are happy with it then more power too ya. I just don't want that kind of system in the US.

so he pointed out that there was a court decision that said too many canadians were dying due to long waiting lists

why respond with "well at least we arent like YOU" instead of disucssing what is wrong with the canadian system?

not that im saying our system is better, i dont want a canadian system here but that doesnt mean its not better for you. but pointing out the flaws in the US system does not address the flaws in yours.

you all seem a little eager to change the subject from "what is wrong with the canadian system" to "the US sucks"

this part is getting on my nerves:

the only time i can think of when people here are "sent home to die" is when there is no hope for them or they are organ transplant patients where either the cost isnt covered by any program (including insurance) or there are no organs available in time. sometimes a person is wanting experiemental treatment that they have no private money to pay for. but NEVER because the waiting list is too long.

yes there are people with no insurance public or private, yes some of those people are insuranceless through no fault of their own. THEY STILL GET TREATMENT. they just show up at the emergency room and they get seen by a medical professional (at least a physicians assistant). maybe they have a bad cold, maybe they are having a heart attack. they get treatment. if they are having a heart attack, they get the same treatment that the guy with 100% insurance coverage gets. no corners are cut.

geez dont you guys ever watch ER?

what they dont have are visits to their primary care physician in his office for routine exams and tests. unless they pay for it out of their own pockets.
While all this is well and good, I refer you to the first post of the other thread. It wasn't intended to discuss the problems of the Canadian system so much as to say the US system is better. So, of course, we responded in kind. It's all a matter of presenting the information.

And this is why the other thread has fallen into a pissing contest to see who is better.

Perhaps a little context would be useful here.

Right now we see the US medical services under increasing strain; there are not enough Doctors, nurses and various medical aides and specalists to meet the demand and the constant retraining needed. Moreover prices are increasing at fantastic rates, new procedures with higher price tags are being concieved every day.

Simply put; things are reaching critical mass in the healthcare world. The big cash cow is testing the limits of the public's pocketbook. The public at large relies increasingly heavily on insurance, which in turn charges the public ever higher rates.

So we are faced with a public that is losing more and more money, an insurance industry that is forcing the increasing risk of medical coverage on the public, and a medical industry that has no real method of cost-cutting. Even with that we see the massive ad budgets that equal or even double the cost of researching and making drugs; pushing the costs even higher.

There are a lot of factors that are making it hard for the public to be satisfied with its current healthcare system; spiraling costs and ad-saturation combined with strained and tired professionals. People are bound to look at alternatives.

If people are looking for alternatives, and you are making money hand over fist in this situation...why WOULDN'T you try to discredit the "competition"? The recent debate around imported drugs from canada was merely a first taste of this, now we are seeing attacks on the very mechanism that drives costs to the consumer down.

While all this is well and good, I refer you to the first post of the other thread. It wasn't intended to discuss the problems of the Canadian system so much as to say the US system is better. So, of course, we responded in kind. It's all a matter of presenting the information.

And this is why the other thread has fallen into a pissing contest to see who is better.

all i remember of the first post was a the notion that "republicans" wanted to DISMANTLE the canadian system.

i dont recall any bill or platform plank indicating this.

there was a thread on a ruling by the canadian courts. the canadians didnt want to discuss this ruling but instead tried to turn the discussion into the relative merits of us vs canadian health care

why cant you discuss the problems with canadian health care?

the canadians are justly proud of their healthcare. no question that it does many things that the US system doesnt even bother with. and does them well. but all systems have problems and your courts just made a ruling on one of them. why cant it be talked about as much as any US court ruling?

and yes it looks like every health system in the world is at least on the edge of a crisis. who knows what it will force on the various countries of the world?

My point was to avoid the mistakes of your politicians when we decide on our own reforms.
What is your bizarre fear of the universal health care (red?) scare? Have you noticed which party is dominating US politics? Do you think the Republicans are going to nationalise the health industry?

I don't happen to have a problem with him dying, so why should I pay to save him?

Article 3
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
...the right to life, liberty...

At the heart of your post, however, is the assumption that all ____ Americans feel ____ about _____, which is just silly.
Not at all, my thread is specifically addressed to Republicans, not all Americans. There is a mass Republican propaganda move afoot to discredit the Canadian health care system. They do this in order to scare the American people away from demanding what the people of other countries demanded long ago: a right to quality healthcare regardless of income.

Admittedly though I accept that it was unfair to tar all Republicans with the one brush.

I have heard as many bad things about the UK and Canadian health systems as the US. As far as I can tell, everyone's got a bad system, it's just a sliding scale of bad; some are worse than others, but none are really good.
I agree that there are probably no really good health systems.

I'll think you'll find that most US citizens don't really ever think about Canada. You get a somewhat distorted perspective from NS.
Oh yes, I know that most Americans are not right-wing ideologues!

I'm not. I hate when people always say stereotypical things about people.

I think both systems need work. Of course they do, nothing is perfect. I, personally, want as many Canadians and Americans to live as possible. I just wish we could take the best of both systems and squish 'em together...

Recent threads

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=424913

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9039174#post9039174


Well, since you know so much fucking better than Canadians themselves do on how to run their lives, why don't you propose an alternative?

Maybe Canadians want to live in a decent, moral society? Unlike the US, where people see nothing wrong with sending children home to die because their parents can't afford surgery?
WTF brought THAT on? I don't recall anyone, and certainly not me, indicating in any way, manner, shape or form that we wanted to destroy anything about Canada! Whatever you Canadians want to do with your Country, your government and yourselves is perfectly all right with me. :p :p :p

As a matter of fact, I have a bit of a crush on a Canadian female just now! Hehehe! ( NO, I will NOT tell you! )

I'm not. I hate when people always say stereotypical things about people.

I think both systems need work. Of course they do, nothing is perfect. I, personally, want as many Canadians and Americans to live as possible. I just wish we could take the best of both systems and squish 'em together...
They call that the Australian healthcare system. Guess what? It sucks.

By taking the "best" of both worlds, you just end up getting something worse.

Even Australians think it sucks. Read the articles in the main thread on this topic.

WTF brought THAT on? I don't recall anyone, and certainly not me, indicating in any way, manner, shape or form that we wanted to destroy anything about Canada! Whatever you Canadians want to do with your Country, your government and yourselves is perfectly all right with me. :p :p :p

As a matter of fact, I have a bit of a crush on a Canadian female just now! Hehehe! ( NO, I will NOT tell you! )
I think you might take a look at that thread.

It's just the general feeling amongst Republicans that Canada's healthcare system is a prime example of socialism, right next door. And they tend to hate that.

Think of it like Cuba, except speaks English and French, apologises all the time and is rather hard to hate. Not that many Republicans aren't trying, of course.

PS: I hope you aren't macking on Belinda Stronach or something ;)

Why are leftist Europeans obsessed with posting misleading flamebait topics?

Maybe their repeated socialist failures that they've got no one to blame but themselves for are driving them crazy.

Why are leftist Europeans obsessed with posting misleading flamebait topics?
Reality check: Swimmingpool isn't socialist; he's a liberal (in the classic liberal/libertarian sense). And he's just harping on our attitude for searching to attack Canadians for something, which is justified to a point.

They call that the Australian healthcare system. Guess what? It sucks.

By taking the "best" of both worlds, you just end up getting something worse.

Even Australians think it sucks. Read the articles in the main thread on this topic.

Ermm...

Who needs healthcare, eh? Without it, only the strong survive. There are too many weaklings in the world!

Oh dear, I'm one of 'em. Er...forget what I just said.

Swimmingpool isn't socialist; he's a liberal (in the classic liberal/libertarian sense).

And OJ is innocent too.

and the American republicans would never stand for it (sounds too liberal).

And OJ is innocent too.
I find you guilty of the false analogy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy) fallacy; the two objects or events being compared are relevantly dissimilar.

Recent threads

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=424913

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9039174#post9039174


Well, since you know so much fucking better than Canadians themselves do on how to run their lives, why don't you propose an alternative?
s want to live in a decent, moral society? Unlike the US, where people see nothing wrong with sending children home to die because
Maybe Canadiantheir parents can't afford surgery?

ha alternatives. alternatives are not to high up on democrats priority list they have just as much fun at arguing the same topic then trying to think of a new solution. canadian health system * i laugh again* ur heatlh systemis made up of people that are unable to get medical attention because of the socialistic government. ur system is set up in a way that appointments are not made so someone could wait until they die in the hospital. thats just grand. im surprised canada hasnt made an alternative because u guys are pretty good at making simplistic descisions. Canada is a socialist government, which gives all people access to free health care. This sounds like a good idea, doesn't it? This is why people like the idea of socialism. Free health care comes at a cost in terms of availability. There is not personal physicians available like American citizens are familiar with. Appointments are not made in a socialistic government. If you are in need of medical care, you go to the hospital and put your name on a list which will be ranked in order of seriousness of problem. A person must wait at the hospital all day to try to be seen, but it is unlikely unless the problem is an emergency. Each day a person must return to the hospital to try to be seen for a medical problem. Obviously, Canadians can not regularly miss days of work to wait in line for medical treatment. So, they must choose between health and their jobs. Many Canadians that live outside of the main cities do not have any access to medical treatment. So unless you have a life or death medical problem, health care is not available to you. But you might still say "But its still free right, the wait isn't too bad." Wrong! Physicians in a socialistic county are paid through taxes, and I know everyone loves those. Many people from Canada already drive down to Erie because taxes are lower here. But Canada is still better.
any responses bring it im waiting: evil jay

It's been said than no health-care system works perfectly. That's true. However, the NHS (Brit perspective here) would work a lot better with more funding. That's how it started off - opticians and dentists used to be under it, too - but it couldn't be sustained. Sadly, the same goes for most government programs - there just isn't enough money to go round. The best thing to do would be to abolish the military, and use their money... but then we'd be defenceless. So we're kinda screwed there.

However, the point was, the NHS would work better with more money. I assume (yes, yes, bad me, I know) that the same can be said for Canada's system. Can it be said for the US variant? I don't know, I'm not up to date on US policies and systems, so... anyone? Does the US health care system fall down because of a lack of funding? Because if not, I would argue that the UK/Canada systems are better because there is room for improvement that could be implemented in the next budget. If, however, it is the case, then I think we should all join together to persuade the rest of the world to disarm, and use the now-surplus military budgets towards healthcare.

-- yes, yes, that last idea is wishful thinking. I know it would never happen.

Reality check: Swimmingpool isn't socialist; he's a liberal (in the classic liberal/libertarian sense).
I'm neither. I'm in between. To the left of the libertarians, but to the right of the socialists. But in truth I feel I identify slightly more with socialism (note: not socialists) than pure capitalism in my worldview.

Why are leftist Europeans obsessed with posting misleading flamebait topics?
None of your topics, or even posts, have been anything other than flamebait. We've got a case of hypocrisy here.

Anything not based on the idea of profit-making is anathema to the peculiar outlook of our neighbours to the south.

Anything not based on the idea of profit-making is anathema to the peculiar outlook of our neighbours to the south.
I didn't really want to get back into this, but I find this comment extraordinarily ignorant of economic fact.

Nothing runs without a profit except government. And the government makes up for it by either spending money they don't have, by cutting services to their citizens, or by raising taxes on the citizenry. Where does the tax revenue come from? Why profit-making enterprises, of course.

Anything not based on the idea of profit-making is anathema to the peculiar outlook of our neighbours to the south.

There's a peculiar observation that I've made over the years on anything that is "non-profit". They have NO motivation to make anything run efficiently.

There's also the extremes of profit-centric thought. Not a good idea, either.

Like I said in my post (way, way back there), there's probably a middle balance that would give companies incentives to provide good services at a low cost, while maintaining a full spectrum of coverage for everyone. My proposal was to make all medical insurance follow the Kaiser HMO model, and to have a sliding scale - if you're poor, the government picks up your insurance tab - if you're middle class, you pay your insurance tab - and if you're rich, you pay for your insurance and you pay a tax to help the poor.

At the same time, you can switch from one HMO to another - they're going to compete for your business. And, I would outlaw private care outside the HMO systems.

Thus, I avoid the idiocy of having something run very badly by a government that has no real incentive at any level to really provide services (if they screw up, there's no place you can take your business). And, I avoid multiple models of competition - a more regulated market may be of some value in this area.

There's a peculiar observation that I've made over the years on anything that is "non-profit". They have NO motivation to make anything run efficiently.

There's also the extremes of profit-centric thought. Not a good idea, either.

Like I said in my post (way, way back there), there's probably a middle balance that would give companies incentives to provide good services at a low cost, while maintaining a full spectrum of coverage for everyone. My proposal was to make all medical insurance follow the Kaiser HMO model, and to have a sliding scale - if you're poor, the government picks up your insurance tab - if you're middle class, you pay your insurance tab - and if you're rich, you pay for your insurance and you pay a tax to help the poor.

At the same time, you can switch from one HMO to another - they're going to compete for your business. And, I would outlaw private care outside the HMO systems.

Thus, I avoid the idiocy of having something run very badly by a government that has no real incentive at any level to really provide services (if they screw up, there's no place you can take your business). And, I avoid multiple models of competition - a more regulated market may be of some value in this area.
Look at the way we buy insurance. We buy homeowners insurance to protect our house. We shop for the best coverage at the best price. Then we decide what we really want covered. Do we want flood, hail, and wind insurance? Do we want replacement cost coverage? Do we want a huge deductible or a small one? Same with auto insurance. We make the decisions about what we want.

Does health insurance work that way? Not when it's offered by an employer. About all we can choose is what company we want to use. The companies are required to include a wide range of products that may not have any interest to the customer. Required by the employer? Of course not, these products are required by the government. So I can't choose a plan that only covers major medical expenses unless I want to foot the entire bill. If I take the plan from work, I'm required to get wall-to-wall coverage. I have to be covered for maternity benefits, drug and alcohol abuse, chiropractic care, and a whole host of other things I don't want.

Plus smokers pay the same rates as non-smokers. Let's allow the insurance companies to assign risk to the insureds. Just like car/home/liability...The Atlanta city government finally did that. They raised premiums on smokers by $100/ month, I think. I'd look it up, but I'm lazy.

So, if insurance companies could act like a free-enterprise business and customers could shop for insurance products, we would be well on the way to controlling insurance costs.