Re: RE: Americans against Can
Biting lip...
Must be a good boy... must behave...
Reverend Blair said:
Biting lip...
Must be a good boy... must behave...
Americans against Canadians???
- Thread starter Brazilian guest
- Start date
Rev. Blair:
I have been away and wouldn't want to create the impression that I am not responding anymore.
My time is short today also but speaking as one of those "professionals who does that research for a living", I would advise anyone who cites these reports as evidence in their argument to remember that this still does not represent fact. Like I said, it it still an opinion and any of us can find research to support our arguments. I believe the Fraser Institute is well known for boosting support for the Canadian health system but I can tell you that they can only focus on one or two variables in any specific study. Lately, they have been talking a lot about the administrative costs of health care in the U.S being higher than that in Canada (per capita) and I'd believe it. There are many other variables however and other studies done in the U.S (see what I mean?) can counter that, focusing on different variables. My point is that we can prove (although research can not "prove" something to be true) almost anything; it just depends on what we want to hear. I respect your opinion and I understand that there are faults in the American programs too but these are thing to keep in mind.
On another note, I've read some of your other posts and it stills seems like you address other people's comments with hostility so I really don't know where this conversation can go if you intend on "sticking it" in people's faces as opposed to having a true round table discussion.
I'll leave this topic with one other thought. The term opportunity cost is quite relevant in this discussion. It is, obviously, a qualitative measure (can not be assigned a dollar value) but it goes a long way with respect to the quality of health care we perceive we are getting. It is important to me that I not have to sit in pain in an ER waiting room or worse, watching a loved one do the same because thay can't get in to see a doctor. My wife had an issue that required an MRI although it was not considered life-threatening at the time. She got in immediately because there was potential for serious implication. She got in right away and was not treated any different than anyone...meaning they cared about making her feel comfortable and easing concern. My father had the same need in Canada and had to wait 9 weeks to get an appointment. He finally paid out of pocket so he could have his MRI right away. No one cared about his concerns, even when he paid by check. His opportunity cost (and mine) would have been impossible to measure in hard currency. A friend of mine has a similar story about his mother. She was continuously turned away and had appointments pushed back for various tests and consultation (that she was told she would need) and over a year and a half later when she finally got in, they discovered that she had breast cancer. The first thing the doctor said was he wished they could have caught this sooner. I'm sure there are sad stories like this everywhere and that limitations are imposed on both systems but for me, personally, prompt service comes second to none with my health (and especially for my loved ones).
I have been away and wouldn't want to create the impression that I am not responding anymore.
My time is short today also but speaking as one of those "professionals who does that research for a living", I would advise anyone who cites these reports as evidence in their argument to remember that this still does not represent fact. Like I said, it it still an opinion and any of us can find research to support our arguments. I believe the Fraser Institute is well known for boosting support for the Canadian health system but I can tell you that they can only focus on one or two variables in any specific study. Lately, they have been talking a lot about the administrative costs of health care in the U.S being higher than that in Canada (per capita) and I'd believe it. There are many other variables however and other studies done in the U.S (see what I mean?) can counter that, focusing on different variables. My point is that we can prove (although research can not "prove" something to be true) almost anything; it just depends on what we want to hear. I respect your opinion and I understand that there are faults in the American programs too but these are thing to keep in mind.
On another note, I've read some of your other posts and it stills seems like you address other people's comments with hostility so I really don't know where this conversation can go if you intend on "sticking it" in people's faces as opposed to having a true round table discussion.
I'll leave this topic with one other thought. The term opportunity cost is quite relevant in this discussion. It is, obviously, a qualitative measure (can not be assigned a dollar value) but it goes a long way with respect to the quality of health care we perceive we are getting. It is important to me that I not have to sit in pain in an ER waiting room or worse, watching a loved one do the same because thay can't get in to see a doctor. My wife had an issue that required an MRI although it was not considered life-threatening at the time. She got in immediately because there was potential for serious implication. She got in right away and was not treated any different than anyone...meaning they cared about making her feel comfortable and easing concern. My father had the same need in Canada and had to wait 9 weeks to get an appointment. He finally paid out of pocket so he could have his MRI right away. No one cared about his concerns, even when he paid by check. His opportunity cost (and mine) would have been impossible to measure in hard currency. A friend of mine has a similar story about his mother. She was continuously turned away and had appointments pushed back for various tests and consultation (that she was told she would need) and over a year and a half later when she finally got in, they discovered that she had breast cancer. The first thing the doctor said was he wished they could have caught this sooner. I'm sure there are sad stories like this everywhere and that limitations are imposed on both systems but for me, personally, prompt service comes second to none with my health (and especially for my loved ones).
Numbers are numbers, FC. It costs more per capita to deliver medical care in the US than it does in Canada. To expand and rebuild our healthcare system to a point where wait times were cut etc. has a cost that can be determined by what we need and what those things cost. If we do that it will still cost less per capita than it does in the US. Now those numbers may not be exact, being projections, but the difference is still massive, so our lower per capita cost remains well within the margin of error.
While we're at it, evolution isn't an opinion, neither is global warming, and neither is the equation e=mcsquared.
The Fraser Institute is a radical-right think tank that has been pushing for a US-style system in Canada for years. They don't do research, they write position papers to try to pressure the government into selling our country to the lowest bidder. Your assertion that they are "boosting support for the Canadian health system" shows you to have far less than a complete grasp of the situation.
Why? Because I dare to talk back? Because I'm insistent that my country will not become like your country? Because I've looked around and seen that the American dream has become a corrupt excuse for a few elites to make billions while other other people die? If I seem hostile to the ideas you present, it's only because I am. I have my reasons. Those aren't opinions either. Dead children are very much a fact.
It is important to me that all Canadians receive equal care. You have more uninsured people in your country than the entire population of our country. People are dying, suffering, and being bankrupted in the USA right now because your system is wholly inadequate. That's indefensible in a country as wealthy and technologically advanced as the United States is.
Your personal stories of care mean little or nothing. I have personal stories that contradict yours. Which are isolated incidents?
Rev.Blair:
I guess we're just gonna keep it nasty, aren't we? I'm not sure you'll finish reading this before getting so flustered and going on the offensive again, but here it goes...(hopefully, you'll at least read the very last line...maybe that'll smooth thinkgs over a bit).
Contrary to your claims, I have a very frim grasp of what is going on (its what I do for a living). I do understand what the Fraser Inst. does and I am also aware that numbers are NOT numbers. They can be skewed anyway that suits the benfactors (not just the Fraser Inst). My point was completely off your line of attack though. You don't seem to understand what it is I am trying to comvey. Your vision has been narrow and very biased. You displayed no objectivity and the fact that you are calling variables margins of error shows an experienced research scientist, such as myself, that you also have no comprehension of statistical analysis. You keep trying to point out inconsistencies in my arguments but I somehow fail to see it that way. The only time you did not reply directly to one of my arguments, you decided to correct my spelling or grammar...I guess things get off track once in a while. I am sorry that it has come down to this but I don't see this conversation going anywhere. You can call it whatever you like...I know you have a need to get the last word in anyway.
Simply talking back is not hostile...its the way you talk down to everyone. I just don't see any place for it in here but I guess its because of your democratic rights and freedom of speech that we need to tolerate your "your not the boss of me" attitude. Please don't think for a second that you've won some kind of victory here because you think I'm aggravated. I would guess that was part of your goal all along. I think my replies and my push for respectful interaction have shown quite the opposite.
The fact that you use how many people in the US are living without insurance as a comparative argument (certainly a problem) versus the entire population of Canada is absurd. Again, numbers are NOT numbers. There are also ten times as many people (total) in this country and likely eight or nine times as many who DO have insurance...numbers are numbers though, right? Look, there are issues and the system will continue to be a living, breathing entity as each administration comes and goes. In my opinion, the US system, in all of its facets (commerce, health insurance, etc, etc, etc.) provides opportunity for anyone who is willing to work for it. I believe that people (with a few exceptions) make themselves victims as opposed to "the man gettin' you down". When things happen that knock you off your feet (layoffs, illnesses, etc.), you are the only one who can pick yourself up and rebuild, not the government. The US system allows for that. What I don't believe in is a system of hand-outs. When you move toward socialism, you move toward a union mentality. People expect certain things to be handed to them...just for being alive. Should people also demand two fifteen minute coffee breaks everyday in a free market society? You should check out the Libertarian Party (www.lp.org). Liberty does not come without responsibility. The same goes for health care; it is available to anyone who wants it. Don't get caught up in the hype. Even those who currently can't afford some of the better plans can at least have medicare and NO ONE will be turned away from a hospital.
By the way, I never implied that individual circumstances represent the greater population. These were just examples.
Well, Rev.Blair, it has been a hoot going back and forth with you but I think we've cricled the shark tank enough now. I'd be glad to check out other topics but this one has been beaten to death. I'm certain that I'll get some kind of provacative reply from you since I know you won't be able to let this one go without the last word. In any case, please remember that it is my country too (Canada) and if we ever bump into each other, I'd be glad to share a pint with you.
I guess we're just gonna keep it nasty, aren't we? I'm not sure you'll finish reading this before getting so flustered and going on the offensive again, but here it goes...(hopefully, you'll at least read the very last line...maybe that'll smooth thinkgs over a bit).
Contrary to your claims, I have a very frim grasp of what is going on (its what I do for a living). I do understand what the Fraser Inst. does and I am also aware that numbers are NOT numbers. They can be skewed anyway that suits the benfactors (not just the Fraser Inst). My point was completely off your line of attack though. You don't seem to understand what it is I am trying to comvey. Your vision has been narrow and very biased. You displayed no objectivity and the fact that you are calling variables margins of error shows an experienced research scientist, such as myself, that you also have no comprehension of statistical analysis. You keep trying to point out inconsistencies in my arguments but I somehow fail to see it that way. The only time you did not reply directly to one of my arguments, you decided to correct my spelling or grammar...I guess things get off track once in a while. I am sorry that it has come down to this but I don't see this conversation going anywhere. You can call it whatever you like...I know you have a need to get the last word in anyway.
Simply talking back is not hostile...its the way you talk down to everyone. I just don't see any place for it in here but I guess its because of your democratic rights and freedom of speech that we need to tolerate your "your not the boss of me" attitude. Please don't think for a second that you've won some kind of victory here because you think I'm aggravated. I would guess that was part of your goal all along. I think my replies and my push for respectful interaction have shown quite the opposite.
The fact that you use how many people in the US are living without insurance as a comparative argument (certainly a problem) versus the entire population of Canada is absurd. Again, numbers are NOT numbers. There are also ten times as many people (total) in this country and likely eight or nine times as many who DO have insurance...numbers are numbers though, right? Look, there are issues and the system will continue to be a living, breathing entity as each administration comes and goes. In my opinion, the US system, in all of its facets (commerce, health insurance, etc, etc, etc.) provides opportunity for anyone who is willing to work for it. I believe that people (with a few exceptions) make themselves victims as opposed to "the man gettin' you down". When things happen that knock you off your feet (layoffs, illnesses, etc.), you are the only one who can pick yourself up and rebuild, not the government. The US system allows for that. What I don't believe in is a system of hand-outs. When you move toward socialism, you move toward a union mentality. People expect certain things to be handed to them...just for being alive. Should people also demand two fifteen minute coffee breaks everyday in a free market society? You should check out the Libertarian Party (www.lp.org). Liberty does not come without responsibility. The same goes for health care; it is available to anyone who wants it. Don't get caught up in the hype. Even those who currently can't afford some of the better plans can at least have medicare and NO ONE will be turned away from a hospital.
By the way, I never implied that individual circumstances represent the greater population. These were just examples.
Well, Rev.Blair, it has been a hoot going back and forth with you but I think we've cricled the shark tank enough now. I'd be glad to check out other topics but this one has been beaten to death. I'm certain that I'll get some kind of provacative reply from you since I know you won't be able to let this one go without the last word. In any case, please remember that it is my country too (Canada) and if we ever bump into each other, I'd be glad to share a pint with you.
Nasty? Why, because I won't defer to you? I can show you nasty if you like.
I'm not flustered, I am standing up for my country.
not if you claim that they are trying, in any way, to preserve the Canadian health care system. Their president has said, into a microphone, that he plans to bring an end to public healthcare. You'd think a research scientist would be aware of something like that a source he is citing.
I understand exactly what you are trying to convey...that Canada should become more like the United States. I am heavily and proudly biased against such a supposition. Live with it.
That's not what I said though. What I did say was, "Now those numbers may not be exact, being projections, but the difference is still massive, so our lower per capita cost remains well within the margin of error." See how that works? Even if we missed the mark by a bit (a huge bit, actually) the difference is so massive that we'll still fall within the margin of error. In other words, your cost per capita is so much higher that we can underestimate our future costs by a large amount and still be cheaper than your system.
Unless you are willing to fully disclose what your credentials are and who you work for, you are just another schmuck around here, buddy.
The rest of your post is just silly. It shows that you lack a grasp of the issues at hand and choose to be unaware that there is more to life than money. It also shows you to be all too willing to blame poor people for being poor. It is a heartless attitude based on false assumptions.
It is clear that you hate unions, socialism (which I highly doubt you understand beyond the usual corporatist babble), and are living under the misapprehension that people who would help others are simply lazy bastards who are trying to steal your money.
If you show up in Winnipeg, let me know. You can buy me a beer. Come in the summer when the patios are open though...the bastards won't let me smoke in the bar.
Rev.Blair:
OK...you win. I don't want to cause any more aggravation than necessary. I suppose I'll remain a schmuck since bringing my employer into this wouldn't be such a smart idea...this of course, is conditional on your admittance into the schmuck club aswell.
Since you're from Winnipeg, I'll at least tell you that I did do my Master's just south of you in North Dakota so I've been to your fine city many times. I'll also admit that I miss Canadian beer desperately. If I could find a way to convince grocery stores down here to carry Big Rock products, I'd be a happy camper.
I'll also give you credit for being a patriot...not in the Molson beer commercial sense either. On that note, I feel I need to make it clear that I too am a patriot but I now have the best of two countries to be proud of. The burden however is that I have to carry the shortcomings of both as well. It is idealistic to think the two phylosophies could be blended into one perfect scenario and it would be naive to think either one, on their own, is without fault. The grass is always greener but in this case it is all too easy to pick on the faults we want to find. I will end this tiff by saying the following, if not only to clear my pseudo-name:
- Money is not the most important thing to me. I plan on making a decent living, I do feel sympathy for those in need, and I think the two can co-exist. I have a family that means more to me than anything in the world and no amount of money could replace that. I don't think that working towards financial security is an evil thing. Most people in Canada vie for the same standard of living. We all want to retire someday and provide for our families in the meantime. I don't know about anyone else, but I do know that come Christmas time, I would rather buy nice things for my child (not that it replaces the meaning of good intention) than come home empty handed. The material things aren't what's important...its the look on their face!
- While many fortune 500 companies pratice cut-throat business tactics, they often contribute a great deal to charity. Ok, maybe they get a tax break for it but the money goes to the right places. On that subject, one of the "good-guy" things about the United States is that it contributes more foreign aid to those in need than just about anyone else in the world. Again, we could speculate about hidden agendas but I'm not a conspiracy theorist either. There is no doubt that Canada has done the same...but if we're going to ackowledge one, let's do the same for the other.
- I don't want Canada to become more like the US. I guess I just don't like how things get done on Parliament Hill...for one thing, it'd be nice if they put their money where their mouth is and house an elected Senate instead of one full of the PM's buddies (and a House of Commons that doesn't have to vote in accordance with their party's agenda or otherwise risk being kicked out). I wish I could claim that as a Canadian, my voice could be heard in Ottawa. Of course, I'm from Alberta so no one wants to hear from us...the east only want Alberta's money anyway!
- Cheers, enjoy a pint for those of us who can't! Don't feel bad, you can't smoke indoors in most States either.
OK...you win. I don't want to cause any more aggravation than necessary. I suppose I'll remain a schmuck since bringing my employer into this wouldn't be such a smart idea...this of course, is conditional on your admittance into the schmuck club aswell.
Since you're from Winnipeg, I'll at least tell you that I did do my Master's just south of you in North Dakota so I've been to your fine city many times. I'll also admit that I miss Canadian beer desperately. If I could find a way to convince grocery stores down here to carry Big Rock products, I'd be a happy camper.
I'll also give you credit for being a patriot...not in the Molson beer commercial sense either. On that note, I feel I need to make it clear that I too am a patriot but I now have the best of two countries to be proud of. The burden however is that I have to carry the shortcomings of both as well. It is idealistic to think the two phylosophies could be blended into one perfect scenario and it would be naive to think either one, on their own, is without fault. The grass is always greener but in this case it is all too easy to pick on the faults we want to find. I will end this tiff by saying the following, if not only to clear my pseudo-name:
- Money is not the most important thing to me. I plan on making a decent living, I do feel sympathy for those in need, and I think the two can co-exist. I have a family that means more to me than anything in the world and no amount of money could replace that. I don't think that working towards financial security is an evil thing. Most people in Canada vie for the same standard of living. We all want to retire someday and provide for our families in the meantime. I don't know about anyone else, but I do know that come Christmas time, I would rather buy nice things for my child (not that it replaces the meaning of good intention) than come home empty handed. The material things aren't what's important...its the look on their face!
- While many fortune 500 companies pratice cut-throat business tactics, they often contribute a great deal to charity. Ok, maybe they get a tax break for it but the money goes to the right places. On that subject, one of the "good-guy" things about the United States is that it contributes more foreign aid to those in need than just about anyone else in the world. Again, we could speculate about hidden agendas but I'm not a conspiracy theorist either. There is no doubt that Canada has done the same...but if we're going to ackowledge one, let's do the same for the other.
- I don't want Canada to become more like the US. I guess I just don't like how things get done on Parliament Hill...for one thing, it'd be nice if they put their money where their mouth is and house an elected Senate instead of one full of the PM's buddies (and a House of Commons that doesn't have to vote in accordance with their party's agenda or otherwise risk being kicked out). I wish I could claim that as a Canadian, my voice could be heard in Ottawa. Of course, I'm from Alberta so no one wants to hear from us...the east only want Alberta's money anyway!
- Cheers, enjoy a pint for those of us who can't! Don't feel bad, you can't smoke indoors in most States either.
Money is not the most important thing to me. I plan on making a decent living, I do feel sympathy for those in need, and I think the two can co-exist. I have a family that means more to me than anything in the world and no amount of money could replace that. I don't think that working towards financial security is an evil thing. Most people in Canada vie for the same standard of living. We all want to retire someday and provide for our families in the meantime. I don't know about anyone else, but I do know that come Christmas time, I would rather buy nice things for my child (not that it replaces the meaning of good intention) than come home empty handed. The material things aren't what's important...its the look on their face!
I am sorry but that is disney laden semential bah de bahe.
I am sorry but that is disney laden semential bah de bahe.
They sell Big Rock here Former Canuck along with a host of fine Canadian beverages.
I disagree with you on Healthcare FC. I find the Canadian sytem to be far better. The Us system is fine if ;
You are rich
You have a good union plan
You have a company that provides benefits
You don'y ever get sick or injures.
I have waited six weeks for a simple test down here. My research into the plans down here ( at least in Washington state) shows that a plan that provides a very basic coverage ( at least somewhat useful) runs at $170 to $210 per month. Not everyone down here has an employer willing to kick money into the coffers. Medicare does provide some relief but it still charges a percentage based on your income, if your eligible.
I know of no one in Canada whom has lost there home due to medical bills. I know of no one in Canada who has filed for bankruptcy because of medical bills. I know of no one in Canada that was turned away from a hospital because they didn't have the right coverage. I know of no one in Canada that is almost crippled because they can't go to a doctor simply because they just can't afford it. I do know people who have experienced that here. ( even in Washington, where they provide some actual coverage)
Down here if you have the money...you get speedy results in the hospital. Otherwise....You'd wait the same ( if not longer) than in Canada.
The costs in both countires don't need to be as high as they are. You're doing research FC... How much of hospital costs are related to treating patients in relation to how much is spent on administration? That is the real crux of the problem in both systems.
I disagree with you on Healthcare FC. I find the Canadian sytem to be far better. The Us system is fine if ;
You are rich
You have a good union plan
You have a company that provides benefits
You don'y ever get sick or injures.
I have waited six weeks for a simple test down here. My research into the plans down here ( at least in Washington state) shows that a plan that provides a very basic coverage ( at least somewhat useful) runs at $170 to $210 per month. Not everyone down here has an employer willing to kick money into the coffers. Medicare does provide some relief but it still charges a percentage based on your income, if your eligible.
I know of no one in Canada whom has lost there home due to medical bills. I know of no one in Canada who has filed for bankruptcy because of medical bills. I know of no one in Canada that was turned away from a hospital because they didn't have the right coverage. I know of no one in Canada that is almost crippled because they can't go to a doctor simply because they just can't afford it. I do know people who have experienced that here. ( even in Washington, where they provide some actual coverage)
Down here if you have the money...you get speedy results in the hospital. Otherwise....You'd wait the same ( if not longer) than in Canada.
The costs in both countires don't need to be as high as they are. You're doing research FC... How much of hospital costs are related to treating patients in relation to how much is spent on administration? That is the real crux of the problem in both systems.
That's kind of the point.
0.14-0.16% of GDP. The goal is 0.7% of GDP. Canada isn't there either...we give about 0.26% of GDP, which is one of the things that disgusts me about the Martin government.
There's also the matter of tying aid to other things. Canada only does that with what countries have to buy from us, which is bad enough. The US does it with everything though. Their "aid" does everything from ensuring people in foreign countries adhere to Bush's bizarre religiosity, to forcing countries to grow genetically modified crops, to forcing them deeply into debt by forcing them to adopt economic plans that are goofy.
No, I just spelled it incorrectly...but thanks for asking.
As for the other comments...I keep telling myself not to get sucked into more health care discussions but I'll say this:
The common theme here is that the US system sucks and the Canadian system is fantastic. More to the point, the American system is in line with its oppressive and "disney laden semental bah de bahe" approach to everything. It always has to predatory with the US and never genuine concern for the fellow man. Hey, I don't like Bush's doctrine either, I'm a libertarian. By the way, the libertarians take the following position (I think you'll like the third one):
The Libertarian Party is committed to America's heritage of freedom:
- individual liberty and personal responsibility
- a free-market economy of abundance and prosperity
- a foreign policy of non-intervention, peace, and free trade.
The Major beef I have with socialistic tendencies is that the government has a say in how you do things with respect to their program. What the government gives, it will surely take away. The US has government programs too but I don't think they should have any control or input into which doctors you can see or how doctors should decide whether a patient is too old to receive treatment, for billing purposes (this might lower the cost of administration too =). I will submit an except below that, in a "rough around the edges way" touches on this (I don't agree with all of the statements this author make either, by the way):
Free health care
Walter E. Williams
Let's start out by not quibbling with America's socialists' false claim that health-care service is a human right that people should have regardless of whether they can pay for it or not and that it should be free. Before we buy into this agenda, we might check out just what happens when health-care services are "free." Let's look at our neighbor to the north -- Canada.
The Fraser Institute, a Vancouver, B.C.-based think tank, has done yeoman's work keeping track of Canada's socialized health-care system. It has just come out with its 13th annual waiting-list survey. It shows that the average time a patient waited between referral from a general practitioner to treatment rose from 16.5 weeks in 2001-02 to 17.7 weeks in 2003. Saskatchewan had the longest average waiting time of nearly 30 weeks, while Ontario had the shortest, 14 weeks.
Waiting lists also exist for diagnostic procedures such as computer tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound. Depending on what province and the particular diagnostic procedure, the waiting times can range from two to 24 weeks.
As reported in a December 2003 story by Kerri Houston for the Frontiers of Freedom Institute titled "http://ff.org/centers/ccfsp/pdf/CCSFP-1203-PP.pdf]Access Denied: Canada's Healthcare System Turns Patients Into Victims[/url]," 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.
Adding to Canada's medical problems is the exodus of doctors. According to a March 2003 story in Canada News (http://www.canoe.ca), about 10,000 doctors left Canada during the 1990s. Compounding the exodus of doctors is the drop in medical school graduates. According to Houston, Ontario has chosen to turn to nurses to replace its bolting doctors. It's "creating" 369 new positions for nurse practitioners to take up the slack for the doctor shortage.
Some patients avoided long waits for medical services by paying for private treatment. In 2003, the government of British Columbia enacted Bill 82, an "Amendment to Strengthen Legislation and Protect Patients." On its face, Bill 82 is to "protect patients from inadvertent billing errors." That's on its face. But according to a January 2004 article written by Nadeem Esmail for the Fraser Institute's Forum and titled "Oh to Be a Prisoner," Bill 82 would disallow anyone from paying the clinical fees for private surgery, where previously only the patients themselves were forbidden from doing so. The bill also gives the government the power to levy fines of up to $20,000 on physicians who accept these fees or allow such a practice to occur. That means it is now against Canadian law to opt out of the Canadian health-care system and pay for your own surgery.
Health care can have a zero price to the user (although we know there are premiums), but that doesn't mean [it] has a zero cost. The problem with a good or service having a zero price is that demand is going to exceed supply. When price isn't allowed to make demand equal supply, other measures must be taken. One way to distribute the demand over a given supply is through queuing -- making people wait. Another way is to have a medical czar who decides who is eligible, under what conditions, for a particular procedure -- for example, no hip replacement or renal dialysis for people over 70 or no heart transplants for smokers.
I'm wondering just how many Americans would like Canada's long waiting lists, medical czars deciding what treatments we get and an exodus of doctors.
Of course, I realize there is a skew to the right in the article and I realize that many see the Frasxer Inst. that way too...but just remember, we only see what we want to.
As for zenfisher, I am sorry but I just don't buy what you're selling. I have not lived in Washington State but I have lived in five different States (all in different regions of the country) and I have not encountered this. I do however agree with some of your comments. If you are a union worker, you definetely have health care on your side but that because there is a sector of this country that, unlike those of us who believe in true free market economies and personal responsibility, still believes in hand outs and would love for someone in a posision of authority to simply tell them what to do (as long as they get their two 15 minute coffee breaks and don't have to lift anything over 25 lbs without a forklift). Unions cry for direction and hand outs. If it seems like I have distain for unions, its becasue I do. It wasn't until I witnessed a union worker at my office moving a file cabinet (because I wasn't allowed to by their union rules) simply drop it in the middle of the hallway because his watch said it was 10AM (coffee time) that I knew there was something inherently wrong with this way of thinking. If you don't know of anyone in Canada who has lost their home because of medical bills, you haven't looked hard enough and it may also be because you don't have a choice when it comes to helath care. Like the ariticle said, it is essentially illegal to opt out of Canada's plan for your well being. So far they haven't stopped people at the border going south for various procedures. I have never met anyone in the US who has been turned away from treatment either. I'm not saying its never happened but my point is that the pitfalls of health care on either side of the border know no boundaries. I do, however know people in Canada who can't afford a home in the larger cities (making decent wages) because they have to pay Uncle Liberal in Ottawa for his boodoggle gun registration program, his helicopter dog and pony show, and various investigations into government subsidy programs. Hey, it happens in the US too...lets just call a spade a spade.
On a lighter note, I am glad to hear Big Rock has filtered into the US but so far it has not made it to my neck of the woods. I guess I'll start lobbying for it here.
As for foreign aid, I guess its just one of those things...no matter how many nice things the west does for the rest of the world, there will always be something for people to be critical about. Bush will be gone in four years but the US policy of contibuting billions of dollars in foreign aid, year after year, will continue.
I wish as Canadians, we (all of us) could spend more time building the image for ourselves that we seek and less time comparing ourselves to others. Imagine how prodcutive that would be.
No, the common theme is that we don't want the US system in Canada. I don't care what the US decides to do about its system, the comparisons are because some would foist that system on Canadians.
If you look back over the history of healthcare in this country you will find that our system started having problems when Multoney started underfunding it. That continued with Martin as Finanace Minister. It is being addressed now, very slowly, because the Canadian people are demanding it.
The underfunding wasn't accidental. It was done to cause a crisis so the system could be privatized. They starved the system so that it didn't work, then said, "Look the system doesn't work."
Socialism is the government working for the good of all of the people. The government does not have a say in the day to day operation of business, but there are rules that limit what coporations can and cannot do.
Yeah, and we saw the president of the Fraser Institute stand up in front of a microphone and vow to do away with our health care system and replace it with an American-style system.
Funny, I used to work in a lab where, when something went wrong with my machine, I had to sit and wait for somebody else to fix it no matter how simple it was. If a bulb burned out, there was a 45 minute stabilization time. I could not go for coffee or lunch during that period because management had set the break times. Not the union...management. The union actually tried to get that changed because it messed up our ability to meet targets, but management refused. There were days when I sat staring at my machine for an hour, then got up and took lunch.
Don't blame unions for everything, FC...the problem generally starts much higher up.
[/quote]If you look back over the history of healthcare in this country you will find that our system started having problems when Multoney started underfunding it. That continued with Martin as Finanace Minister. It is being addressed now, very slowly, because the Canadian people are demanding it.
The underfunding wasn't accidental. It was done to cause a crisis so the system could be privatized. They starved the system so that it didn't work, then said, "Look the system doesn't work."
The underfunding wasn't accidental. It was done to cause a crisis so the system could be privatized. They starved the system so that it didn't work, then said, "Look the system doesn't work."
[/quote]If you look back over the history of healthcare in this country you will find that our system started having problems when Multoney started underfunding it. That continued with Martin as Finanace Minister. It is being addressed now, very slowly, because the Canadian people are demanding it.
The underfunding wasn't accidental. It was done to cause a crisis so the system could be privatized. They starved the system so that it didn't work, then said, "Look the system doesn't work."
The underfunding wasn't accidental. It was done to cause a crisis so the system could be privatized. They starved the system so that it didn't work, then said, "Look the system doesn't work."
Ha ha. Maybe the anti union policy (right to work) in 22 states has something to do with that. Personally I would rather have no job than a job where I am treated like garbage, and thats what a lot of non union companies are like.
Well I trust PM Martin a lot more than I do "W".
That makes no sense. If the company does not succeed there are no jobs. :roll:
Could be, but America has a lot more hidden conspiracies than the general public realize.
This has nothing to do with either Martin or "W"...they're just puppets. The system is what matters in this duscussion.
That's exactly the point....that's union mentality (it doesn't have to make sennse and often doesn't), at least in the US. I've seen it first hand.
I guess that's why its called a conspiracy :roll: