Blame Canada

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
Are you still insisting that water wasn't on the table for NAFTA and that cultural outlets like magazines wouldn't be affected MMMike? How about us being able to retain control of our environmental legislation?

It turned out that all of hose things were on the table MMMikey. If we sell bulk water, then it becomes part of NAFTA. We lost a good chunk of our magazine industry because of NAFTA. We got sued by Ethyl corp under NAFTA and found out that we had less power than US states when it came to protecting our health and environment.

The same will happen with health care as soon as we make it a commodity. That's not a dogmatic belief, it's the result of reading the feckin' paper, MMMikey.

Never mind all that though. It is you who is being intentionally thick by saying that fixing our present system is so expensive that you'd rather pay more to bring in a different system. That's like saying, "Gee, I can't afford to fix my economy car, I should go buy a brand new, gas guzzling SUV."
 

Nascar_James

Council Member
Jun 6, 2005
1,640
0
36
Oklahoma, USA
GL Schmitt said:
Nascar_James said:
Why not have two seperate systems for Canada? This would please both sides. Have seperate hospitals and clinics for each system. . . .
They call that the two-tier system.

In that you wind up with two hospitals in a city that has a population of fifty thousand.

One is a private hospital that offers single rooms, state-of-the-art technology, a two-to-one patient-to-nurse ratio, five-foot plasma televison monitors, and lap dances, for a mere $8,500. per day rate. (Plus treatment costs)

The public hospital, in a different part of town, offers a crowded waiting room, with two overworked doctors, an intern who’s only there to skim the smack, three nurses, and a two-ward sixteen-bed-capacity facility, to serve the rest of the city.

Well, it is their choice if they want to keep supporting an inefficient public health care system. Those who don't mind waiting for their surgeries, then so be it. However, an individual has a right to pay for private insurance if he/she so chooses in order to avoid long waits for medical procedures.
 

LeftCoast

Electoral Member
Jun 16, 2005
111
0
16
Vancouver
I lived in California for 10 years - I moved back to Vancouver in 2004. I was working for a big 5 (now big 4) accounting firm for about 7 years. My benefits were paid 25% by me and 75% by my employer. My health benefit premiums (just my 25% portion) for a family of 4 came to around $225/month. I think the provider was Aetna US Healthcare.

So on average figure for a family of four, medical coverage costs about $1000/month.
 

Kellen

Nominee Member
Sep 26, 2005
81
0
6
Calgary, Alberta
Nascar_James said:
GL Schmitt said:
Nascar_James said:
Why not have two seperate systems for Canada? This would please both sides. Have seperate hospitals and clinics for each system. . . .
They call that the two-tier system.

In that you wind up with two hospitals in a city that has a population of fifty thousand.

One is a private hospital that offers single rooms, state-of-the-art technology, a two-to-one patient-to-nurse ratio, five-foot plasma televison monitors, and lap dances, for a mere $8,500. per day rate. (Plus treatment costs)

The public hospital, in a different part of town, offers a crowded waiting room, with two overworked doctors, an intern who’s only there to skim the smack, three nurses, and a two-ward sixteen-bed-capacity facility, to serve the rest of the city.

Well, it is their choice if they want to keep supporting an inefficient public health care system. Those who don't mind waiting for their surgeries, then so be it. However, an individual has a right to pay for private insurance if he/she so chooses in order to avoid long waits for medical procedures.

...While millions of others will not be able to afford the high healthcare costs and will be left without any opportunity for treatment? The rights of the few over the rights of the many?

No thanks. The system Canada has now is fine, it just has to be tweaked a little. The Liberals have to stop blindly throwing money at it and actually fix it. A two-tier system will eventually turn into a completely privatized system anyway.
 

Nascar_James

Council Member
Jun 6, 2005
1,640
0
36
Oklahoma, USA
Re: RE: Blame Canada

LeftCoast said:
I lived in California for 10 years - I moved back to Vancouver in 2004. I was working for a big 5 (now big 4) accounting firm for about 7 years. My benefits were paid 25% by me and 75% by my employer. My health benefit premiums (just my 25% portion) for a family of 4 came to around $225/month. I think the provider was Aetna US Healthcare.

So on average figure for a family of four, medical coverage costs about $1000/month.

I am paying about the same (a little less) for my family, LeftCoast. A good portion of it (as in your case) is already covered.

You have to admit LeftCoast, health care services in the US is far more efficient than it is in Canada. For instance, here long waits are not an issue. Plus, we don't pay high taxes here for healthcare as in Canada.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
Survey Shows Private Health Insurance Premiums Rose 11.2% in 2004



Premiums Increased at Five Times The Rate of Growth in Workers’ Earnings and Inflation



About Five Million Fewer Workers Covered By Their Own Employer’s Health Insurance Since 2001



Washington, DC – Employer-sponsored health insurance premiums increased an average of 11.2% in 2004 -- less than last year’s 13.9% increase, but still the fourth consecutive year of double-digit growth, according to the 2004 Annual Employer Health Benefits Survey released by the Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Educational Trust (HRET). Premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance rose at about five times the rate of inflation (2.3%) and workers’ earnings (2.2%).



In 2004, premiums reached an average of $9,950 annually for family coverage ($829 per month) and $3,695 ($308 per month) for single coverage, according to the new survey. Family premiums for PPOs, which cover most workers, rose to $10,217 annually ($851 per month) in 2004, up significantly from $9,317 annually ($776 per month) in 2003. Since 2000, premiums for family coverage have risen 59%.



The survey also found that the percentage of all workers receiving health coverage from their employer in 2004 is 61%, about the same as in 2003 (62%) but down significantly from the recent peak of 65% in 2001. As a consequence, there are at least 5 million fewer jobs providing health insurance in 2004 than 2001. A likely contributing factor is a decline in the percentage of small employers (three to 199 workers) offering health insurance over this period. In 2004, 63% of all small firms offer health benefits to their workers, down from 68% in 2001.



“The cost of family health insurance is rapidly approaching the gross earnings of a full-time minimum wage worker,” said Drew Altman, President and CEO of the Kaiser Family Foundation. “If these trends continue, workers and employers will find it increasingly difficult to pay for family health coverage and every year the share of Americans who have employer-sponsored health coverage will fall.”



“Since 2000, the cost of health insurance has risen 59 percent, while workers wages have increased only 12 percent. Since 2001, employee contributions increased 57 percent for single coverage and 49 percent for family coverage, while workers wages have increased only 12 percent. This is why fewer small employers are offering coverage, and why fewer workers are taking-up coverage,” said Jon Gabel, vice president for Health Systems Studies at the Health Research and Educational Trust.



The survey was conducted between January and May of 2004 and included 3,017 randomly selected public and private firms with three or more employees (1,925 of which responded to the full survey and 1,092 of which responded to an additional question about offering coverage). This is the sixth year the joint survey was conducted by Kaiser and HRET, and the 17th year this survey has been conducted overall. Findings appear in the September/October issue of the journal Health Affairs.



Survey highlights include:

· Worker contributions. This year, workers on average contribute $558 of the $3,695 annual premium cost of single coverage and $2,661 of the $9,950 cost of premiums for family coverage. Average employee contributions for single coverage are statistically unchanged from 2003, while average employee contributions for family coverage grew by 10% – a similar rate to the average overall premium increase. The percentage of premiums paid by workers is statistically unchanged over the last several years, at 16% for single coverage and 28% for family coverage.



· Cost-sharing. Cost sharing rose modestly in 2004 compared to the larger increases observed in recent years. Most covered workers are in health plans that require a deductible be met before most plan benefits are provided. In PPO plans, which cover more than half of all workers with health benefits, the average deductible for single coverage is $287 for services from preferred providers and $558 for services from non-preferred providers, about the same as in 2003. In addition, half of covered workers must either pay a separate deductible (average $224) or pay additional co-insurance (averaging 16% of the costs) when they are admitted to the hospital. The proportion of covered workers facing a $20 copayment for an office visit increased to 27% in 2004 from 19% in 2003.



· Consumer-driven plans. While about 10% of all firms offer a high-deductible plan to covered workers this year, only about 3.5% of those firms offer a personal or savings account option along with a high-deductible plan. These accounts permit employers (and sometimes employees) to make pre-tax contributions, which can be used by employees to pay for routine medical care. The survey finds that employers, particularly larger firms, are interested in high-deductible plans (a plan with a deductible of at least $1,000 for single coverage). About 6% of all firms (accounting for 13% of covered workers) say that they are “very likely” to offer such a plan within two years, and another 21% of all firms (accounting for 26% of covered workers) say that they are “somewhat likely” to do so.



· Type of insurance. In 2004, PPOs continue to be the most common form of health coverage, with more than half (55%) of all employees with health coverage enrolling in a PPO. HMOs, which cost significantly less than PPOs, cover about 25% of covered workers. Conventional, or indemnity, benefit plans have all but disappeared, covering just 5% of covered workers. These enrollment shares are statistically unchanged from 2003.



“You have to look over the past several years to really understand why Americans are so worried about health care costs. Just for premium contributions alone, families are paying $1,000 more this year for their health coverage than they paid in 2000,” Dr. Altman said. “More than any other factor, these out-of-pocket cost increases are what's driving voter concern about health.”



Facing continued premium increases, many employers say they looked to make cost-saving changes in the past year. Among firms offering coverage, 56% report that they shopped for a new plan in the past year. Of those firms, 31% (17% overall) report changing insurance carriers in the past year and 34% (19% overall) report changing the type of health plan offered.



When asked about future plans, about half (52%) of large firms (200 or more workers) say they are “very likely” to increase employee contributions in the next year. In contrast, just 15% of small firms (3 to 199 workers) say that they are “very likely” to increase employee contributions next year.



Across all firms offering coverage, relatively low percentages say that they are “very likely” in the next year to raise deductibles (9%), raise office visit cost-sharing (5%), raise prescription drug copayments (5%), introduce tiered networks for physicians or hospitals (2%), or restrict eligibility for benefits (1%). In addition, 3% of firms say they are “very likely” to drop health coverage entirely in the near future.



“Employers continue to look for ways to control the rising costs of health insurance, with more than half shopping around for a better option and one in six actually changing insurance carriers,” said Gary Claxton, Vice President and the Director of the Health Care Marketplace Project at the Kaiser Family Foundation
 

Nascar_James

Council Member
Jun 6, 2005
1,640
0
36
Oklahoma, USA
Kellen said:
Nascar_James said:
GL Schmitt said:
Nascar_James said:
Why not have two seperate systems for Canada? This would please both sides. Have seperate hospitals and clinics for each system. . . .
They call that the two-tier system.

In that you wind up with two hospitals in a city that has a population of fifty thousand.

One is a private hospital that offers single rooms, state-of-the-art technology, a two-to-one patient-to-nurse ratio, five-foot plasma televison monitors, and lap dances, for a mere $8,500. per day rate. (Plus treatment costs)

The public hospital, in a different part of town, offers a crowded waiting room, with two overworked doctors, an intern who’s only there to skim the smack, three nurses, and a two-ward sixteen-bed-capacity facility, to serve the rest of the city.

Well, it is their choice if they want to keep supporting an inefficient public health care system. Those who don't mind waiting for their surgeries, then so be it. However, an individual has a right to pay for private insurance if he/she so chooses in order to avoid long waits for medical procedures.

...While millions of others will not be able to afford the high healthcare costs and will be left without any opportunity for treatment? The rights of the few over the rights of the many?

No thanks. The system Canada has now is fine, it just has to be tweaked a little. The Liberals have to stop blindly throwing money at it and actually fix it. A two-tier system will eventually turn into a completely privatized system anyway.

Well Kellen, I guess those of us in the US have preferential treatment then since we are not faced with this wait issue. Not to mention the lower taxes.
 

Kellen

Nominee Member
Sep 26, 2005
81
0
6
Calgary, Alberta
Nascar_James said:
Kellen said:
Nascar_James said:
GL Schmitt said:
Nascar_James said:
Why not have two seperate systems for Canada? This would please both sides. Have seperate hospitals and clinics for each system. . . .
They call that the two-tier system.

In that you wind up with two hospitals in a city that has a population of fifty thousand.

One is a private hospital that offers single rooms, state-of-the-art technology, a two-to-one patient-to-nurse ratio, five-foot plasma televison monitors, and lap dances, for a mere $8,500. per day rate. (Plus treatment costs)

The public hospital, in a different part of town, offers a crowded waiting room, with two overworked doctors, an intern who’s only there to skim the smack, three nurses, and a two-ward sixteen-bed-capacity facility, to serve the rest of the city.

Well, it is their choice if they want to keep supporting an inefficient public health care system. Those who don't mind waiting for their surgeries, then so be it. However, an individual has a right to pay for private insurance if he/she so chooses in order to avoid long waits for medical procedures.

...While millions of others will not be able to afford the high healthcare costs and will be left without any opportunity for treatment? The rights of the few over the rights of the many?

No thanks. The system Canada has now is fine, it just has to be tweaked a little. The Liberals have to stop blindly throwing money at it and actually fix it. A two-tier system will eventually turn into a completely privatized system anyway.

Well Kellen, I guess those of us in the US have preferential treatment then since we are not faced with this wait issue. Not to mention the lower taxes.

Well James, I guess that a third of Americans don't have to deal with wait times since that's the number of people that can't afford it.
 

Nascar_James

Council Member
Jun 6, 2005
1,640
0
36
Oklahoma, USA
Kellen said:
Nascar_James said:
Kellen said:
Nascar_James said:
GL Schmitt said:
Nascar_James said:
Why not have two seperate systems for Canada? This would please both sides. Have seperate hospitals and clinics for each system. . . .
They call that the two-tier system.

In that you wind up with two hospitals in a city that has a population of fifty thousand.

One is a private hospital that offers single rooms, state-of-the-art technology, a two-to-one patient-to-nurse ratio, five-foot plasma televison monitors, and lap dances, for a mere $8,500. per day rate. (Plus treatment costs)

The public hospital, in a different part of town, offers a crowded waiting room, with two overworked doctors, an intern who’s only there to skim the smack, three nurses, and a two-ward sixteen-bed-capacity facility, to serve the rest of the city.

Well, it is their choice if they want to keep supporting an inefficient public health care system. Those who don't mind waiting for their surgeries, then so be it. However, an individual has a right to pay for private insurance if he/she so chooses in order to avoid long waits for medical procedures.

...While millions of others will not be able to afford the high healthcare costs and will be left without any opportunity for treatment? The rights of the few over the rights of the many?

No thanks. The system Canada has now is fine, it just has to be tweaked a little. The Liberals have to stop blindly throwing money at it and actually fix it. A two-tier system will eventually turn into a completely privatized system anyway.

Well Kellen, I guess those of us in the US have preferential treatment then since we are not faced with this wait issue. Not to mention the lower taxes.

Well James, I guess that a third of Americans don't have to deal with wait times since that's the number of people that can't afford it.

Not really Kellen. Individuals are generally responsible for costs, either out of pocket or through insurance. Many have employer-paid or subsidized programs. The very poor are covered by the government's Medicaid program, and seniors and the disabled are covered largely by the government's Medicare program.

In addition, many Canadains don't like to gamble with their lives and head south of the border for critical surgeries since they will not have to wait weeks as they would in Canada. With the higher taxes in Canada versus the US, this is unacceptable.

Because of the "death risk factor" with waiting lists, Canadians should have the right to choose if they want to be a part of the Canadian health care system or opt for private insurance. As such, if they opt for private insurance, they would not pay their share of the tax portion that goes to public health care. Deaths due to waiting lists equals lawsuits which equals higher taxes. Who do you think pays the government settlement if familes sue due to wrongfull death. The Canadian taxpayers will pay. But alas, Canada is a country built on taxes, so it would simply be adding to the list....
 

no1important

Time Out
Jan 9, 2003
4,125
0
36
57
Vancouver
members.shaw.ca
death risk factor? puleeease. If you are in bad shape or near death you get treated right away. The waiting lists are for people with elective non emergencey non life threatning surguery.

When I broke my arm I was in in a minute because I was going "blue" according to the nurse. Woke up next day with "pins" in my wrist and stayed 3 nights in hospital.

I actually do not know of anyone personally who was in such pain or near death that had to wait. I know of people who are waiting for elective surguery and do not like minor pain or inconveince. But if it is life or death you are treated pronto.
 

Nascar_James

Council Member
Jun 6, 2005
1,640
0
36
Oklahoma, USA
Re: RE: Blame Canada

no1important said:
death risk factor? puleeease. If you are in bad shape or near death you get treated right away. The waiting lists are for people with elective non emergencey non life threatning surguery.

When I broke my arm I was in in a minute because I was going "blue" according to the nurse. Woke up next day with "pins" in my wrist and stayed 3 nights in hospital.

I actually do not know of anyone personally who was in such pain or near death that had to wait. I know of people who are waiting for elective surguery and do not like minor pain or inconveince. But if it is life or death you are treated pronto.

Then how do you explain the deaths of patients on waiting lists for surgery every year, no1?

Here are some links ...

http://heart.bmjjournals.com/cgi/co...7e63a3a147cac3de5dcf148f&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

http://www.nupge.ca/news_2000/News May/n12my00a.htm
 

MMMike

Council Member
Mar 21, 2005
1,410
1
38
Toronto
Re: RE: Blame Canada

no1important said:
death risk factor? puleeease. If you are in bad shape or near death you get treated right away. The waiting lists are for people with elective non emergencey non life threatning surguery.

When I broke my arm I was in in a minute because I was going "blue" according to the nurse. Woke up next day with "pins" in my wrist and stayed 3 nights in hospital.

I actually do not know of anyone personally who was in such pain or near death that had to wait. I know of people who are waiting for elective surguery and do not like minor pain or inconveince. But if it is life or death you are treated pronto.

That's bullshit. People have to wait all the time. One of the biggest problems is waiting times for things like MRI's, CAT scans etc... These wait times can be deadly. My mother had a problem with the sight in one eye... after a bunch of tests she was put on a waiting list for an MRI. When she finally got to the front of the line she found out she had a brain tumour. These waiting lists kill every day.

Not to mention if you happen to need a hip replacement - you can wait in pain for up to a year. But feck em, though. As long as its not you, huh?
 

no1important

Time Out
Jan 9, 2003
4,125
0
36
57
Vancouver
members.shaw.ca
Sorry but its not bullshit. Maybe you should read something other than what the Fraser Institute says.

Not to mention if you happen to need a hip replacement - you can wait in pain for up to a year. But feck em, though. As long as its not you, huh?

:roll:

Why do you conservatives get so upset about anything so easily? Why do all you conservatives just seem to bash Canada all the time too?

I just stated what I know from my expeirence. I also know my 80 year old great aunt recieved a hip replacement within a month and my mother only waited 6 weeks for a knee replacement, the longest waiting time was to see specialist.


American Healthcare: the 'Prime Example of How Not To Do It'


The latest findings by the American Census Bureau found that 45 million Americans are uninsured. This is almost one sixth of the population! At the same time, the Americans are spending more on healthcare than any other country in the industrialized world. In 2003 that number stood at 15% of gross domestic product, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development or OESO
 

Nascar_James

Council Member
Jun 6, 2005
1,640
0
36
Oklahoma, USA
Re: RE: Blame Canada

no1important said:
Sorry but its not bullshit. Maybe you should read something other than what the Fraser Institute says.

Not to mention if you happen to need a hip replacement - you can wait in pain for up to a year. But feck em, though. As long as its not you, huh?

:roll:

Why do you conservatives get so upset about anything so easily? Why do all you conservatives just seem to bash Canada all the time too?

I just stated what I know from my expeirence. I also know my 80 year old great aunt recieved a hip replacement within a month and my mother only waited 6 weeks for a knee replacement, the longest waiting time was to see specialist.


American Healthcare: the 'Prime Example of How Not To Do It'


The latest findings by the American Census Bureau found that 45 million Americans are uninsured. This is almost one sixth of the population! At the same time, the Americans are spending more on healthcare than any other country in the industrialized world. In 2003 that number stood at 15% of gross domestic product, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development or OESO

No matter what you say no1, the fact of the matter remains that many folks die needlessly every year in Canada due to the hospital waiting lists. Check out the two links that I posted on my last post.

Also, as I mentioned on the last post, many of the uninsured Americans, particularly the very poor are covered by the government's Medicaid program.
 

Cosmo

House Member
Jul 10, 2004
3,725
22
38
Victoria, BC
It's me Peapod, I am confused..anyways the post isn't :p

More great information from



Health Care - United States vs. Canada
Government Involvement
The two neighbours are a dramatic contrast. Canada has the world's most fully socialized health care system while the United States is the only OECD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OECD

(Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) country not to have some form of guaranteed health insurance.

The governments of both nations are closely involved in the delivery of health care. The central structural difference between the two is in health insurance. In Canada all citizens are guaranteed access to health care by the Canada Health Act, which explicitly prohibits billing end users for procedures that are covered by Medicare. In the United States health insurance must be paid for privately if one is not disabled or over 65, in most cases by a person’s employer. However, there are about forty million Americans who do not have health insurance.

Canada's health plan only covers certain areas. Dental care is not covered, and optometry is only covered in some provinces. Also, some procedures are only covered under certain circumstances. For example, circumcision is not covered, and a fee is usually charged when a parent requests the procedure; however, if an infection or medical necessity arises, the procedure would be covered. When compared, the privately managed sectors of the health system have similar rates of participation and treatment in both countries.

Cost of Health Care
Health care is of the most expensive items of both nations’ budgets. In 2001, in Canada, about 16.2% of government money was spent on health care, while in the United States this number was 17.6%. When exchange rates are included it can be seen that government in the United States spends more per capita on health care than it does in Canada. In 2001, the government of Canada spent $1533 (in US dollars) per person on health care, while in the United States it gave $2168.

Despite the American government paying more per capita, private sources also pay far more for health care in the United States. In Canada an average of $630 dollars is spent annually by individuals or private insurance companies for health care, including dental, eye care, and drugs. In the United States this number is $2719.

In 2001 the United States spent in total 13.6% of its annual GDP on health care. In Canada only 9.5% of the GDP was spent on health care.

Drugs
Another much higher cost in the United States is that of prescription drugs and medicines. Canada has laws that impose less rigorously medical patents. Generic drugs are thus allowed on Canadian shelves sooner. The Canadian system also takes advantage of centralized buying by the provincial governments that have more market heft and buy in bulk, lowering prices. This typically delays the introduction of new medications into the Canadian market. However, despite this Canada continues to be a world leader in the research and development of pharmaceuticals.

Quality of Care
While Canada’s health system is cheaper, it compares well with the American one statistically. Life expectancy in 2002 was about two and a half years lower in the United States than Canada. With Canadians living to an average of 79.8 years and Americans 77.3. Infant and child mortality rates are also markedly higher in the United States.

When comparisons of public satisfaction are made between the two nations' health care systems, the numbers for Canadians and insured Americans are almost identical. This holds true in average annual doctor's visits. While a good number of Canadians complained that they were unable to receive treatment due to long wait lists, overall Canadians had no greater number of people unable to receive treatment than insured Americans.

A much greater difference was seen, however, between uninsured Americans and Canadians. Overall the uninsured group was much less satisfied, less likely to have seen a doctor, and more likely to have been unable to receive desired care than both Canadians and insured Americans. This leads to numbers somewhat lower for Americans.

Effect of Poverty
If the poorest twenty percent of Americans were excluded from health statistics, Canadian and American life expectancy and infant mortality rates would be almost identical.

There is some disagreement as to whether the poor are less healthy merely because they have reduced access to medical treatment in the United States. The fact that the poor are also generally poorer in the United States is believed by many to contribute greatly to reduced health. If this is the case, then not only adopting Canada's health care system but other social welfare programs may also be necessary to bring American health levels up to Canadian ones.

However, the wealthy are more likely to be more healthy in the United States than Canada. The better health of this smaller group cannot statistically offset the poorer health at the much larger bottom levels of the socio-economic system.

Economic Effects
Conversely, the problem could be not poverty hurting health, but poor health causing poverty. Over a quarter of the American poor report chronic health difficulties, a level much higher than in Canada. This can make it far harder to find and hold a job and improve one's financial well being. Better overall health of the poor encourages social mobility and may play a role in it recently being easier to climb the social ladder in Canada than in the United States.

The economic effects of the differences in the two health system are hard to judge. Canada's higher taxes to pay for health care certainly have some negative impact on its economy. There are some benefits as well, however. Major corporations often find it cheaper to pay those taxes rather than having to provide expensive employee health plans as in the United States. This is especially true of the auto industry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared
ttp://www.livejournal.com/users/ami_vrai/48235.html
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
I'm seeing the usual trend here. Those who support fixing the present Canadian system have facts and figures to back them, as well as anecdotal evidence.

Those who would impose an American-style system on the rest of us offer anecdotal evidence only.

Funny how that works.
 

Nascar_James

Council Member
Jun 6, 2005
1,640
0
36
Oklahoma, USA
Re: RE: Blame Canada

Reverend Blair said:
I'm seeing the usual trend here. Those who support fixing the present Canadian system have facts and figures to back them, as well as anecdotal evidence.

Those who would impose an American-style system on the rest of us offer anecdotal evidence only.

Funny how that works.

You have to admit Rev, that wait lists are a serious problem in canada where many die each year. It was noted in Cosmo's link as well.