National Healthcare in Canada Problems - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

aceventura3 · 03-01-2006, 03:25 PM

I saw this in today's Investors Business Daily. It appears that the private sector is responding to a few problems with Canada's national healthcare plan

Quote:

Private Matters

Posted 2/28/2006

Health Care: This page has diligently documented the horror stories of Canada's state medical system, which has been held out as the model the U.S. should follow. There's one more fact to add, but this one is promising.

Private health clinics are opening right and left, despite the fact that they are illegal. So says The New York Times, which seems to finally realize that state-run health care is cruel and unsustainable.

Given the newspaper's long tradition of promoting such programs, we marveled at its story last Sunday acknowledging that Canada's "publicly financed health insurance system — frequently described as the third rail of its political system and a core value of its national identity — is gradually breaking down."

But this is nothing new. For years, alarming tales have seeped across the border.

They tell of absurd waits — often taking months — to see a doctor; of even longer waits — sometimes fatal — to see specialists; of bureaucratic rationing of care; of overcrowded hospitals; of substandard care from harried professionals once patients are seen; of an exodus of doctors and nurses who find the system intolerable; of shortages of modern equipment; and of costs so high they're crowding out other public spending and squeezing the average taxpaying household for half its income.

Over a one-year period studied by the Canadian Medical Association Journal, 71 patients in Ontario died while languishing on the waiting list for heart-bypass surgery. Another 121 were more fortunate — they merely lost their places in line because they became too sick to survive surgery while they waited.

Cancer victims fare no better. The average patient has to wait 5 1/2 weeks from the time he's referred by his family doctor to the time he's treated by an oncologist. Enough time, in other words, to die from the fright of having a serious disease go untreated.

But the Times, to its credit, has revealed another side of the Canadian health care story: the proliferation of private clinics.

Canada is the only developed country that deems private care for basic medical services to be against the law. The others are Cuba and North Korea — hardly the kind of international company that Canadians should want to keep no matter how much the system is a part of its "national identity."

Government officials are inexplicably fighting to keep the mess in place. They are losing, however. The Times reports that about one private clinic is opening in Canada each week. Among those leading the charge to freedom-based medical treatment is Dr. Brian Day. The president and medical director of the Cambie Surgery Center in Vancouver, British Columbia, Day plans to open more private medical centers across the country and is daring government officials, who threaten to fine him, to bring it on.

(Curiously, Day keeps a photograph of himself with Fidel Castro behind his desk. We can only assume it's to remind him how much worse things could get if Canada doesn't move away from a state-run system.)

Canada's ban on private health care began to crack last June, when the Supreme Court ruled that it was a violation of Quebec's Charter to forbid someone to buy health services. The court took up the case after a brave, desperate fellow by the name of George Zeliotis sued when told by the state he would have to wait a year to have hip-replacement surgery. It was a rational decision.

Canada's woes are sadly typical of nations with similar health care systems. When, we wonder, will the political left in this country make its own rational decision and abandon the effort to nationalize health care? Surely it can no longer deny that the Canadian system it has extolled for so long is anything but a miserable failure.

Link: http://www.investors.com/editorial/I...issue=20060228

smooth · 03-01-2006, 04:17 PM

besides the obvious view the author holds against the canadian system according to the adjectives used in the article, it simply doesn't make much sense to me to criticize a system based on the number of people who didn't receive treatment without analyzing whether those people woudn't have even had a line to stand in if they were seeking treatment in a wholly private system.

that is, while it certainly sounds horrendous that 71 people died and over 120 were removed from a list while waiting for treatment, that doesn't mean as much as the author would like us to take it to mean if those nearly 200 people would have been absolutely unable to obtain treatment in the US. and this does nothing to understand the vast amount of people who are able to obtain treatment despite wait lists who otherwise would not have had the funds to obtain treatment in a wholly privatized system. I don't know the numbers, but I suspect far more than 200 people die each year in the US for want of surgery.

that said, I've never seen canadians claim their system was a panacea. Even they agree that changes could and should be made. and quite often I see them suggest a two-tiered system might address many of the concerns others raise about their system. but then to take that into a leap of logic and declare the entire system should be scrapped doesn't serve the patients' interests--for certain.

publicly available health care, ideally, should guarantee a baseline of treatment. not much more, and certainly no less.
elective surgeries shouldn't even be the purvue of such a system, in my view.

the wealthy have always been welcome and able to spend their money elsewhere when they want particular treatments their nations don't or can't provide. eliminating the public guarantee of health care in canada would obviously only benefit a select few at great expense to many who do benefit from such care.

highthief · 03-01-2006, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

that said, I've never seen canadians claim their system was a panacea. Even they agree that changes could and should be made. and quite often I see them suggest a two-tiered system might address many of the concerns others raise about their system. but then to take that into a leap of logic and declare the entire system should be scrapped doesn't serve the patients' interests--for certain.

Yeah, I was thinking about this earlier today. You'd be hard pressed to find a Canadan outside of the ghost of Tommy Douglas who thinks the current system is perfect, yet most Canadians agree that universal healthcare is the basis from which any tweaks should emerge. It would be the foundation and some private clinics would be supplemental or specialist to same.

Yet within the US I hear so many people espouse their system as wonderful while slamming the Canadian system, even as 10s of millions go without primary healthcare, millions more lose insurance coverage, and the costs to the consumer mount every year. Surely, these are signs of an imperfect system also?

I'm ever surprised by this disparity.

Ustwo · 03-01-2006, 06:14 PM

When you see what Canadan's really PAY in taxes for this 'universal' coverage, you have to wonder if math scores are as bad in Canadian schools are they are US schools these days.

Good luck saving that system, but I've done this one too many times on the board to get into it another time.

highthief · 03-02-2006, 04:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

...but I've done this one too many times on the board to get into it another time.

That's good to hear!

feelgood · 03-02-2006, 06:37 AM

I'd like to see the comparsion in numbers to the US private health care system. There's alot of arguement about it in Alberta especially. Probably more than half of the people in the province are unsure because it's a relatively new idea and concept being introduced as a alternative to a system filled with lots of problem.

Personally, I'm for the private care but I just read an article in the Calgary Sun about the private care being in the works and somebody just made an excellent point of it

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calgary Sun

And Voogd said it's only logical to assume that for every hour a doctor spends in private care, that's an hour taken away from public care

Again, I'm still kind of unsure

Yakk · 03-02-2006, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

When you see what Canadan's really PAY in taxes for this 'universal' coverage, you have to wonder if math scores are as bad in Canadian schools are they are US schools these days.

As a percentage of GDP, Canada spends the same amount of government money on health care that the USA does. Or at least this was the case for the last year I managed to scrape numbers up for.

Canada's health care system isn't perfect. Is yours?

Quote:

Good luck saving that system, but I've done this one too many times on the board to get into it another time.

Did you post for the purpose of engaging in a discussion?

kutulu · 03-02-2006, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

When you see what Canadan's really PAY in taxes for this 'universal' coverage, you have to wonder if math scores are as bad in Canadian schools are they are US schools these days.

Good luck saving that system, but I've done this one too many times on the board to get into it another time.

Yes because our system is sooo affordable. With my former employer, the monthly premiums for myself, my wife, and our daughter were $660/mo (PPO). That was with them paying 75% of mine and 50% of hers.

host · 03-02-2006, 09:39 AM

aceventura3, I thought that SOP for an OP requires your "take" on the issues that influence you to start a new thread in the first place. I'm going to assume that you want us to respond by offering opinions as to whether the trend in Canada is "good or bad", and how it compares to the healthcare cost and availability to the general U.S. population.

From the <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/healthcare/public_vs_private.html">CBC News site</a>, 2004 data, in Canadian dollars:
Government annual spending on healthcare: $90 billion
(For comparison, I reduced this figure to $80 billion U.S., to deal with a rough but low allowance for currency exchange rates, i.e., the actual figure would be as low as $70 billion U.S.)
That works out, based on a population of 30 million....to $2666 U.S. dollars per capita.
Add in the $40 billion in "private care" spending..... (the government apparently doesn't pay this tab), and, after cutting it to $32 billion U.S., $1066 U.S. is added to the total expenditure, or a total of $3732 per Canadian, in U.S. dollars.

<a href="http://www.cms.hhs.gov/apps/media/press/release.asp?Counter=1314">From the HHS.gov site</a> , the U.S. 2003 Healthcare spending figure is $1.7 trillion, or $5670 per capita (according to HHS....)

The total healthcare annual spending, per capita, in Canada in 2004 was no more than 65 percent of the equivalent per capita cost, in the U.S. and, from the link above:

Quote:

....Private payers (primarily private health insurance and payments by individuals for co-pays, deductibles, and services not covered by insurance) funded more than half of national health expenditures in 2003, or $913.2 billion. The public sector funded $766 billion, with the Medicaid program funding 16 percent of aggregate health spending, or $267 billion, nearly equaling the 17 percent, $283 billion, spent by Medicare....

So....folks.....<h4>Voila !!!</h4> With ten times the population of Canada, U.S. public funding of healthcare expenditure in 2003 was $766 billion U.S., or..... <b>almost exactly ten times the expenditure on primary healthcare funded by Canadian tax dollars to insure that every Canadian received primary care, at a cost that was managed by their government !</b>

The U.S. expenditure of public funds covered only senior citizens and the 40 million uninsured Americans at the time. Another $913 billion was spent to cover everyone else, compared to $32 billion U.S., spent in Canada for private services. This amounts to 30 times what was spent in Canada, or three times the cost, on a per capita, total population comparison basis.

An older <a href="http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:PD0wFqvdO1EJ:www.chass.utoronto.ca/clea/confpapers/DWagner.pdf+doctors+emmigration+from+canada&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=7">study</a> that uses 1999 data indicates that Canada suffered a "brain drain" to the U.S. because of higher Canadian taxes on high income individuals, that began at a much lower income threshold in Canada, than in the U.S.

I imagine that, after five years of "Bush tax cuts", the shortfall of medical professionals available to provide healthcare services in Canada has accelerated. Canada enjoys a balance of trade surplus with the reat of the world, with the U.S. trade deficit pushing up nealry to $800 billion annually.
Canada takes in more than $60 million U.S. per day from it's oil exports, while the U.S. borrows $840 million per day (based on $60 per bbl oil price) to purchase foreign oil ($306 billion of the total $800 billion trade deficit.)

The Canadian dollar was worth .77 U.S. dollars, on Jan. 1, 2004. Today it buys .88 of a U.S. dollar. The combined pressure on the U.S. dollar of a massive and continuing trade deficit, and $500 billion plus, annual federal budget deficits should facilitate Canadian dollar exchange parity with the U.S. dollar, before you know it !
Exchange calculator: http://www.bankofcanada.ca/en/rates/exchform.html

Here is a link to the http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/26/in.../26canada.html that the IBD misrepresents as a story of "crisis" in Canadian healthcare.

Given current economic realities, which I would enjoy reading footnoted rebuttals to that offer more favorable scenarios for the future of the buying power of the U.S. dollar, if such an argument can even be credibly advanced,
doesn't it seem reasonable to assume that the emmigration of Canadian healthcare professionals could stop and then reverse?

Which economy has a better chance of sustaining the burden of providing better and more timely healthcare to all of it's residents....say....oh....ten years from now....given what we see as far as cost controls, management of care, availability of care givers going forward, and in terms of the buying power of a given currency and the governments ability to pay or to fund a deficit at a manageable interest rate....Canada's, or the United State's.

I have my doubts if the U.S. will even be able to afford or guarantee relaible availability in 2016 of fuel for it's ambulances or for diesel oil to fuel "back up" generators at it's hospitals.

If Investors Business Daily provided reliable analysis of the true looming problems of importance, I don't think that the state and future trends of Canadian healthcare would be top ten on it's list. Our grandchildren are going to be asking, "what were they thinking"? How could they just stand by, consuming 30 percent of the worlds oil every day, while the price quadrupled, borrowing money until the world refused to lend more, with no conservation plan, no plan to curb imports of foreign made goods or the loss of the national industrial base, and no plan to raise taxes to match increased government spending?

Can anyone argue that there is no chance that a Canadian dollar will fetch five U.S. dollars in 2016? Can anyone argue the opposite?

host · 03-02-2006, 10:15 AM

I guess that I wasn't quite done. I am reacting to <b>the MESSAGE</b> from aceventura3, the IBD, and Ustwo, et al.

They want to convince us that government cannot provide anything to the public that the "private sector' cannot do cheaper and better. I just read that medicare's administrative overhead costs are six percent, and private medical insurance administration, and I assume, profit, takes a 25 to 30 percent bite out of insurance premium charges on private insurance plans.

For the majority of Americans, (The U.S. is one of only two major industrialized nations that does not provide government funded healthcare.) the "system" is a private payer system. Looking at the info provided below, and in my last post, I have to wonder: <h4>U.S. population is ten greater than that of Canada. Why is there no cost or performance benefit result from an expected economy of scale, here in the U.S., given the sheer size and purchasing influence, as well as more money to purchase better technology and to make better use of it to manage costs, and to provide lowered expense per patient due to better treatment outcome and theoretically.... less misdiagnoses and shorter, less expensive treatment regimens, due to earlier and more accurate diagnosis and treatment, aggravated in Canada by it's "long lines" of those waiting to be examined and then waiting extended periods to be treated by specialists? </h4>

How will Americans pay for these cost increase projections ?

Quote:

http://www.foodconsumer.org/777/8/US..._in_2015.shtml
US health care will cost $4 trillion in 2015
By cms.hhs.gov
Feb 22, 2006, 13:43
......Forecast Summary

Health care spending in the United States is projected to grow 7.4 percent and surpass $2 trillion in 2005, down from the 7.9 percent growth experienced in 2004. This rate is 0.5 percentage points less than the 7.9 percent growth observed in 2004 and represents the third consecutive year of decelerating growth, following six years of acceleration from 1996 through 2002.

As a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), health care spending is expected to continue to grow, reaching 16.2 percent in 2005, up from 16.0 percent in 2004. By 2015, health care spending in the United States is projected to reach $4.0 trillion and 20.0 percent of GDP.

Quote:

http://www.voanews.com/english/NewsA...2-28-voa59.cfm
US Health Care: World's Most Expensive

The United States spends more on health care than any other country in the world and the health care costs continue to rise. Government figures show that in 2004 health care spending reached 1.9 trillion dollars, equaling 16 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product.......

..."Most Americans get their health insurance from their employer. Not all of them, however. Large companies provide basic health care services. But what you see is more and more U.S. employees, the workers, spend more money out of their pocket to help cover their health care cost. So out-of-pocket expenses for the average American are rising tremendously. And then, don't forget, you've got 45 million Americans without any health insurance. They have fallen through the safety net, so to speak."

The United States spends more money per person on health care than any other country in the world, about $5,300 annually. In comparison, Switzerland spends about 35-hundred dollars per person per year, Japan about $2,000 and Turkey as little as $446 per person each year.

America's Expensive Health Care System

Colleen Grogan, Professor of Health Policy and Politics at the University of Chicago, says the primary reason for the high cost of American health care is that most medical services, materials, technologies and drugs are more expensive than in other industrialized countries.

"For example, Canada," says Professor Grogan. "You would think we would be perhaps closest to the prices in Canada. We are three times higher. The fees that are paid, the actual prices for procedures and what we pay to providers, are three times as high as in Canada."............

.......The United States provides similar systems, Medicare and Medicaid, but only for its elderly and low-income people. Working Americans are usually covered by employer-sponsored private insurances. The idea has been that privatizing insurance would spur market competition and decrease the prices, but analysts say the opposite has happened.........

.........Proponents of the U.S. health care system have long argued that Americans may be paying the most, but that they also have access to the best and fastest health services in the world.

But some analysts call this is a myth. They say data for 30 countries of the
MRI
Patient receiving an MRI scan
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development show that the U.S. has fewer hospital beds and physicians per person than, for example, France, Australia, Italy and Austria. The University of Chicago's Colleen Grogan says many countries also outrank the U.S. in access to advanced medical technology. She says, "Here we are above the median for MRI [i.e., magnetic resonance imaging] units per million for example. So we have 8.2 MRI units per million population. The median is 5.5. But we are not the highest."

While some analysts argue that more beds and scanning units do not necessarily mean better health care, most agree that Americans are not getting the best value for the money............

Quote:

http://www.citypages.com/databank/26...ticle12985.asp
America by the numbers
No. 1?

by Michael Ventura
February 23, 2005

# Foreign applications to U.S. grad schools declined 28 percent last year. Foreign student enrollment on all levels fell for the first time in three decades, but increased greatly in Europe and China. Last year Chinese grad-school graduates in the U.S. dropped 56 percent, Indians 51 percent, South Koreans 28 percent (NYT, Dec. 21, 2004). We're not the place to be anymore.
# The World Health Organization "ranked the countries of the world in terms of overall health performance, and the U.S. [was]...37th." In the fairness of health care, we're 54th. "The irony is that the United States spends more per capita for health care than any other nation in the world" (The European Dream, pp.79-80). Pay more, get lots, lots less.
# "The U.S. and South Africa are the only two developed countries in the world that do not provide health care for all their citizens" (The European Dream, p.80). Excuse me, but since when is South Africa a "developed" country? Anyway, that's the company we're keeping.
# Lack of health insurance coverage causes 18,000 unnecessary American deaths a year. (That's six times the number of people killed on 9/11.) (NYT, Jan. 12, 2005.)
# "U.S. childhood poverty now ranks 22nd, or second to last, among the developed nations. Only Mexico scores lower" (The European Dream, p.81). Been to Mexico lately? Does it look "developed" to you? Yet it's the only "developed" country to score lower in childhood poverty.
# Twelve million American families--more than 10 percent of all U.S. households--"continue to struggle, and not always successfully, to feed themselves." Families that "had members who actually went hungry at some point last year" numbered 3.9 million (NYT, Nov. 22, 2004).

aceventura3 · 03-02-2006, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

aceventura3, I thought that SOP for an OP requires your "take" on the issues that influence you to start a new thread in the first place. I'm going to assume that you want us to respond by offering opinions as to whether the trend in Canada is "good or bad", and how it compares to the healthcare cost and availability to the general U.S. population.

Sorry.

My take is that the private sector will do a better job of responding to healthcare needs than government. Government healthcare systems over time will fail.

Why do no major medical or drug developments come out of Canada from Canadian companies or the Candian healthcare system? when you think about it, it seems that the US actually subsidizes Canadian healthcare doesn't it?

Yakk · 03-02-2006, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Why do no major medical or drug developments come out of Canada from Canadian companies or the Candian healthcare system? when you think about it, it seems that the US actually subsidizes Canadian healthcare doesn't it?

Ever hear of diabetes? I suppose not.

Oh, more recent....

http://www.lhsc.on.ca/about/medical.htm

Ever hear of Pacemakers?

Not chemical enough or recent enough?

MBP8298? Or is a treatment for multiple sclerosis not good enough?

host · 03-02-2006, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yakk

Ever hear of diabetes? I suppose not.

Oh, more recent....

http://www.lhsc.on.ca/about/medical.htm

Ever hear of Pacemakers?

Not chemical enough or recent enough?

MBP8298? Or is a treatment for multiple sclerosis not good enough?

C'mon, Yakk. Recognize that some of us 'Muricans" aren't Canada 'bashers". I think that you will agree that I posted a set of arguments that are accurate and favorable enough, comparing Canada and the U.S., and their respective abilities to provide adequate medical care to their populaces currently, and in the future, to more than offset other opinions posted here.

ubertuber · 03-02-2006, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Sorry.

My take is that the private sector will do a better job of responding to healthcare needs than government. Government healthcare systems over time will fail.

Why do no major medical or drug developments come out of Canada from Canadian companies or the Candian healthcare system? when you think about it, it seems that the US actually subsidizes Canadian healthcare doesn't it?

Your faith in private sector - it seems you take this on faith... Am I right in this assumption?

The healthcare system is not the same thing as pharmaceutical companies - having doctor visits paid for by taxes shouldn't affect whether some other company makes Viagra II or not... In fact, keeping healthcare and pharamceutical concerns separate strikes me as a good idea. I always feel uncomfortable when I go to the doctor and he's writing on my chart with a lipitor pen or using an allegra clipboard.

smooth · 03-02-2006, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

C'mon, Yakk. Recognize that some of us 'Muricans" aren't Canada 'bashers". I think that you will agree that I posted a set of arguments that are accurate and favorable enough, comparing Canada and the U.S., and their respective abilities to provide adequate medical care to their populaces currently, and in the future, to more than offset other opinions posted here.

lol, host, of course he agrees. his reply was to aceventura

highthief · 03-02-2006, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

The healthcare system is not the same thing as pharmaceutical companies - having doctor visits paid for by taxes shouldn't affect whether some other company makes Viagra II or not...

Yup

It's like suggesting cops and the guys who make Berettas are the same thing.

"Well, they make a fine 9mm, they should probably be in charge of the streets as well. Why spend tax dollars on flatfoots?"

Ustwo · 03-02-2006, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yakk

As a percentage of GDP, Canada spends the same amount of government money on health care that the USA does. Or at least this was the case for the last year I managed to scrape numbers up for.

Look up what the average middle class canadian pays in taxes for health care, you might surprise yourself.

I can insure my family (with better care) for many times less.

aceventura3 · 03-02-2006, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

Your faith in private sector - it seems you take this on faith... Am I right in this assumption?

Wrong. Views based on my study of history and economics. I don't pretend to be an expert, and my views do change occasionally. There is a positive role for government, but our current federal government is too big, growing to fast and too big a portion of our overall economy.

Quote:

The healthcare system is not the same thing as pharmaceutical companies - having doctor visits paid for by taxes shouldn't affect whether some other company makes Viagra II or not... In fact, keeping healthcare and pharamceutical concerns separate strikes me as a good idea. I always feel uncomfortable when I go to the doctor and he's writing on my chart with a lipitor pen or using an allegra clipboard.

Medical innovation is more than pharmaceutical companies. R&D is the cornerstone of the quality of healthcare. Most RD in healthcare is financed in the good old USA by private companies. The world benefits from our R&D, but who pays the price? People in the US who have private insurance, those who pay full "retail" prices for medical care, and US tax payers. It is not fair is it?

aceventura3 · 03-02-2006, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yakk

Ever hear of diabetes? I suppose not.

Oh, more recent....

http://www.lhsc.on.ca/about/medical.htm

Ever hear of Pacemakers?

Not chemical enough or recent enough?

MBP8298? Or is a treatment for multiple sclerosis not good enough?

You have to admit given every inovation in the medical field, that list is pretty pathetic isn't it?

Getting back to the issue at hand - If you take out the profit motive, inovation comes to a complete stop. Well not a complete stop, but its moving so slow...

kutulu · 03-02-2006, 01:58 PM

If you have the 'truth' then go ahead and enlighten us. I already posted that I was paying 20% of my pre-tax income towards health care expenses.

ubertuber · 03-02-2006, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Wrong. Views based on my study of history and economics. I don't pretend to be an expert, and my views do change occasionally. There is a positive role for government, but our current federal government is too big, growing to fast and too big a portion of our overall economy.

Here's the basis for my confusion. What I snipped above seems more like soundbite than reasons. You don't need to produce a massive document ala host, but I really think it would be helpful for you to summarize what you base this belief on. I'm trying to find a way to jump aboard with your ideas, but just repeating privatization over nationalisation doesn't help me get any closer to you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Medical innovation is more than pharmaceutical companies. R&D is the cornerstone of the quality of healthcare. Most RD in healthcare is financed in the good old USA by private companies. The world benefits from our R&D, but who pays the price? People in the US who have private insurance, those who pay full "retail" prices for medical care, and US tax payers. It is not fair is it?

You've confused me here - I'm really not sure how topical this is. I've taken "public healthcare" to mean that health insurance is nationalized. There should still be pharmaceutical companies, there would still be doctors, and there would still be companies doing R&D on things like artificial joints, etc... There's still a profit motive for those guys because they want their artificial knee to be used more often than the other company's artificial knee - sort of like defense companies still compete for profit from government contracts. Do you also oppose public defense?

In fact, if your mantra of private over public is really the sum total of your feelings on these issues, I'd like to know if you have any reason (other than safety) that law enforcement and military matters shouldn't be handled by private companies... Prepare the way for the Acme Naval Force! I'm only bringing this absurd question up to prompt you to give me more basis for your (obviously strong) opinion that private management is synonymous with efficient operation.

aceventura3 · 03-02-2006, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

If you have the 'truth' then go ahead and enlighten us. I already posted that I was paying 20% of my pre-tax income towards health care expenses.

Can you handle the truth?

1A)You pay more, because others pay nothing.

1B)When people pay nothing they could careless about costs, costs go up.

1C)When costs go up, those who are paying nothing don't care. You pay more.

2A) You pay more, because others get subsidized care.

2B) When people get subized care they careless about costs, costs go up.

2C) When costs go up, those getting subsized fight for and usually get higher subsidies. You pay more.

Solution: Have a competetive system were able people (I think we should support children, the old and mentally il) pay for what they use.

When people are active in a economic system, the system works well. when people are passive they get exploited. Our current system is failing because people are passive. Why do we let our employers control our health insurance? An employer is more concerned about profits than they are about anyone's health, hence our system has problems for employees.

Rodney · 03-02-2006, 02:38 PM

There are other options: for example, a government-mandated system of private insurors. One big pool -- no exclusions -- with varying rates based on socioeconomic status. Insurers make money by maximizing efficiencies within the gov't-mandated set of outcomes and coverages (with certain subsidies available as necessary).

Apparently the Swiss -- hardly wild-eyed free-spenders -- run their system that way, and provide excellent healthcare to the entire population for ~11 percent of GNP. The population has choice between insurors, there is competition -- and even some public control of policy. I hear it's an expensive system; but it's in good shape and gives good service. And as a percentage of GNP, it's less than what the US spends on health care (15 percnet). Here's a report:

http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/Switzerland.pdf

My point: there's a point between private healthcare and public healthcare -- and that's private healthcare that does business under a set of national standards, regulations, and policies.

aceventura3 · 03-02-2006, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

I'm trying to find a way to jump aboard with your ideas, but just repeating privatization over nationalisation doesn't help me get any closer to you.

Here is another article from IBD. I concur with the views. I do not believe there is a healthcare crisis. I believe that most people who choose not to have healthcare insurance do it by choice. There is another thread covering this in more detail.

It is ironic that our auto insurance market, withvirtually every car covered through private insurance, works better than our health insurance market. The reason: Everyone has to have it and participate in the market, and the conumer in much more active in the auto insurance market than they are in health insurance. A person will shop for auto insurance, but won't shop for health insurance. Isn't that screwy?

Quote:

Article Title: "Patient Power "
Author:
Section: Issues & Insights
Date: 2/17/2006
When Bush signed the Medicare prescription drug benefit bill in 2003, he also made health savings accounts available to more Americans than ever. That put him sharply at odds with those who push a national health system.

As Merrill Matthews of the Council for Affordable Health Insurance says, "By expanding HSA options, President Bush has openly declared that patient empowerment is the centerpiece of his vision for the health care system - and liberals don't like it one little bit."

During his State of the Union address, Bush asked Congress to give poor Americans refundable tax credits to help them buy basic health insurance and to expand health savings accounts so that more small businesses can take advantage of them.

Should Congress follow Bush's lead, more Americans will have health care coverage, and costs, including insurance, will fall.

Critics say there's a big problem: As a Los Angeles Times editorial recently put it, "Nearly 46 million Americans live without health insurance," and Bush's plan doesn't "address the broader problem."

First, that 46 million figure is not established fact. It's an estimate. The Times could have just as easily used 36 million, a figure arrived at by a study commissioned by the federal government.

Or it might have used 19 million, the number determined by the Census Bureau's Survey of Income and Program Participation.

But those numbers would not bolster the implication that there's a crisis that needs immediate attention - and lots of public money.

Second, the ranks of the uninsured are not necessarily swollen with those who have been "left behind" or are just too poor to buy insurance. A large number are uninsured out of choice: They're young and healthy and therefore don't see the need to buy health insurance. Or they choose to use their limited dollars elsewhere.

So the uninsured will be with us always. But their numbers can be trimmed. That's where health savings accounts come in.

"In just two years, more than 3 million consumers - many of whom were previously uninsured - have chosen health savings accounts," says Karen Ignagni, president and CEO of America's Health Insurance Plans.

Third, expanding HSAs and allowing refundable tax credits for health insurance costs will not only address the uninsured issue, but also help bring down premium costs.

Obviously, by allowing a tax credit, as Bush proposed, the cost of medical insurance becomes much more affordable. That alone will shrink the ranks of the uninsured.

Not as obvious: how HSAs will affect costs of premiums.

Health insurance premiums are expensive because medical care is expensive, and medical care has high costs because the system is simply overused. HSAs will give people incentive to limit unnecessary trips to the doctor. As demand falls, so will costs. The laws of economics dictate that a dip in premiums will follow.

And as coverage increases through HSAs, premiums should fall even further. Why? There will be fewer uninsured, and so the costs of caring for those without insurance will shrink.

Unfortunately, some won't be swayed by logic. They prefer a European-style national health system, the kind Hillary Clinton favors. Such systems are falling into disfavor around the globe. We would be wise to avoid that mistake.

Nor should we let those who oppose HSAs wage a disinformation campaign against the one reform we know will work for health care, as it has for everything else: the market.

kutulu · 03-02-2006, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Can you handle the truth?

Can you handle posting facts instead of hypothesis? USTWO is talking shit about how the Canadians pay up the ass for health care, I call him on it that I was paying 20% of my gross income on it and Host posts a comparison of how much they spend vs what we spend and all you two can do is repeat a tired mantra.

aceventura3 · 03-02-2006, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rodney

There are other options: for example, a government-mandated system of private insurors. One big pool -- no exclusions -- with varying rates based on socioeconomic status. Insurers make money by maximizing efficiencies within the gov't-mandated set of outcomes and coverages (with certain subsidies available as necessary).

Apparently the Swiss -- hardly wild-eyed free-spenders -- run their system that way, and provide excellent healthcare to the entire population for ~11 percent of GNP. The population has choice between insurors, there is competition -- and even some public control of policy. I hear it's an expensive system; but it's in good shape and gives good service. And as a percentage of GNP, it's less than what the US spends on health care (15 percnet). Here's a report:

http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/Switzerland.pdf

My point: there's a point between private healthcare and public healthcare -- and that's private healthcare that does business under a set of national standards, regulations, and policies.

I agree. Some states have workers' compensation insurance systems that fit this mold. And those systems work. I still think "national healthcare" is a system that will fail in time.

ubertuber · 03-02-2006, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

If you have the 'truth' then go ahead and enlighten us.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Can you handle the truth?

** Mod Note **

Come one guys - let's give each other the benefit of the doubt. It was a cheesy reference to A Few Good Men. Let's assume that and let it go.

aceventura3 · 03-02-2006, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

Can you handle posting facts instead of hypothesis? USTWO is talking shit about how the Canadians pay up the ass for health care, I call him on it that I was paying 20% of my gross income on it and Host posts a comparison of how much they spend vs what we spend and all you two can do is repeat a tired mantra.

Here is a fact: I pay 5% of my gross income on health insurance.

Here is a question: Why are you paying 20% of your gross income?

Irepeat myself because there seems to be a need to. If you don't agree with the logic in the points above, what kind of facts do you want to make you a believer. You seem to take a passive approach to your coverage, I don't, you pay more. You see, I just repeated myself again. I can't help it, so please ignore me if it bothers you.

aceventura3 · 03-02-2006, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

** Mod Note **

Come one guys - let's give each other the benefit of the doubt. It was a cheesy reference to A Few Good Men. Let's assume that and let it go there.

I apologize. I am getting a bit carried away.

highthief · 03-03-2006, 03:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Here is a fact: I pay 5% of my gross income on health insurance.

Here is a question: Why are you paying 20% of your gross income?

Irepeat myself because there seems to be a need to. If you don't agree with the logic in the points above, what kind of facts do you want to make you a believer. You seem to take a passive approach to your coverage, I don't, you pay more. You see, I just repeated myself again. I can't help it, so please ignore me if it bothers you.

You need to post hard facts, as others have done, not opinions.

Posting that you spend 5% of your income (which is false, part of your tax dollars already go towards health coverage in the form of Medic-aid and money you might otherwise receive in terms of a salary are instead diverted by your employer towards medical coverage) means zero. If you make, for example, 1 million a year, and you spend 5% that's 50 grand. If you make $100,000, then you are spending 5K. It doesn't mean anything to the overall debate.

The numbers that matter are things like percentage of tax dollars plus money paid by individuals for private coverage plus dollars paid by employers towards health coverage. Or, numbers such as percentage of GDP.

The paucity of such figures from "your side" of the debate is astonishing, and perhaps, revealing.

BigBen · 03-03-2006, 07:35 AM

What have Canadians produced? Two words:

Medicinal Marijuana.

Seriously though, I am with Ustwo on this one (a little shiver just went down my spine... I love you, Ustwo!).

I am walking away from this thread, as I have done all that I can to talk about this.

If you don't like our system, then vote against it when some nutjob tries to implement it in your region.

And to educate yourself further, I would recommend the collective works of "Barrer and Stoddart", two healthcare economists that objectively looked at the system.

Roy Romanow chaired a Royal Commission on canadian healthcare just a few years ago, and the report is free to download in .pdf format from the Government of Canada website.

If I was so inclined, I could cut-and-paste the whole damned thing here, but at over 200 pages long, it would get a little tiresome.

Kirby and Fyke had some good thoughts on their commissions, but it is a little bit dated. Oh well, if you are a fan of history, you could check those old guys out too.

Finally, talking shit about our healthcare system is a social faux pas. When asked "What makes you Canadian?" in a recent poll, National Healthcare ranked number 1.

Taking time to let that soak in; It is like I am burning the ol' Stars and Stripes while taking a shit in the Liberty Bell.

aceventura3 · 03-03-2006, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highthief

You need to post hard facts, as others have done, not opinions.

Posting that you spend 5% of your income (which is false, part of your tax dollars already go towards health coverage in the form of Medic-aid and money you might otherwise receive in terms of a salary are instead diverted by your employer towards medical coverage) means zero. If you make, for example, 1 million a year, and you spend 5% that's 50 grand. If you make $100,000, then you are spending 5K. It doesn't mean anything to the overall debate.

The numbers that matter are things like percentage of tax dollars plus money paid by individuals for private coverage plus dollars paid by employers towards health coverage. Or, numbers such as percentage of GDP.

The paucity of such figures from "your side" of the debate is astonishing, and perhaps, revealing.

Here is a link to a summary of a recorded symposium, the participants all doctors think there are problems with waiting times and shortages of resources. In my opinion other than spending more money no solutions were presented. They can shuffle the folks on the list but waiting times will continue to get worse.

http://www.wcwl.org/media/pdf/librar..._papers.13.pdf

Let's be fair. I was not the first to bring up % of gross income being spent on health insurance, why didn't you make your points when it first came up? However, what is meaningful to my response to that point was not the % I pay but the implied challenge.

If a person paying 20% of their gross income on healthcare insurance actively researched and evaluated their options, they could easily lower that percent or their total out of pocket costs. To me, a real person, experiencing a real result is the best kind of "fact", don't you agree?

Just like I will ask you, since you are in Canada. How long have your wait time been? How long were they 5 years ago, 10 years ago?

Do you actually dispute that wait time are getting worse?

Perhaps I made a poor assumption, I initially did not think we needed facts to prove that the wait times in Canada were getting worse, and that being the reason for the increase of illegal private clinics in Canada.

BigBen · 03-03-2006, 08:27 AM

...sigh...

Like calling Healthcare "Free" instead of "Universal", I must object to the use of the term "Illegal" when discussing private medical clinics.

You are allowed to open a private clinic in Canada. You must be a member of good standing in your area of specialty, and you must also provide competent care.

The confusion comes when it is time to pay the bills. The Canada Health Act forbids the use of Federal funds to pay for private clinics. What we have here is federal government matched funds, or in layman's terms, "50 cent dollars". When the bill comes to the public clinic, they only see half of the costs.

When the bill arrives for a private clinic, they see the true, unsubsidized cost. Private clinics cry foul, and say they are being penalized. In reality, they are not being compensated for following our rules.

If you are a public clinic, and you see 10,000 patients every year, and you charge a fee to one patient that contravenes the Canda Health Act, then you are at risk of losing half of the compensation for the 10,000 visits. Is this illegal? Technically, no. It is the old philosophy of "Carrot and the Stick". Play by the rules, and you have access to federal funds. Fuck around, and we cut you off, and you soon find out how expensive healthcare really is.

Please stop calling the private clinics "illegal".

Charlatan · 03-03-2006, 08:45 AM

Thank you Ben...

As for the wait times... I can give all the anecdotes you would like. I have never had a problem with wait times. Then again, I live in Toronto and have an adundance Hospitals and clinics to visit. Go to the north. This is not the case, especially where things like MRI machines are concerned. Then again, given the population, private clinics are less inclined to set up their either as they would see little return on their investment.

Most of the complaints on wait times that I hear about have to do with elective surgeries rather than emergency surgeries (i.e. life and death). Wealthy people like to go and spend the money in clinics in the US rather than wait a couple of months. I don't think monetarily challenged US citizens could afford to do this sort of thing either so I see it as a wash.

I can tell you that my father-in-law waited no more than a few weeks to have his heart valve replaced from diagnosis to replacement. I can tell you that when I showed up in emergency with my daughter, fresh from getting her head kicked by a horse, was seen in triage within five minutes of arrival (maybe less).

I have seen people showing up with flu symptoms wait for hours in the same emergency (my advice to them is suck it up or go to a clinic... what the fuck are you doing in Emerg with flu symptoms anyway?).

I've said it before. Our system, though flawed, provides service to 100% of our population for less than the US system that doesn't even provide the same level of service (i.e. millions go without coverage).

I have never bought into the belief that private can always do something better than public. All I have to do is look at the rolling blackouts of California (I'm talking about Enron and their ilk here). There are other examples.

Ustwo · 03-03-2006, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

I've said it before. Our system, though flawed, provides service to 100% of our population for less than the US system that doesn't even provide the same level of service (i.e. millions go without coverage).

I have never bought into the belief that private can always do something better than public. All I have to do is look at the rolling blackouts of California (I'm talking about Enron and their ilk here). There are other examples.

The rolling blackouts were in large part caused by the government regulations. Utilities are VERY heavily regulated from the EPA to costs and are a very poor example to use as 'government' doing a better job than private.

But you are correct, Canadians spend less of their GDP on health care and it is 100% coverage. So its cheaper (perhaps you get what you pay for comes to mind here) and you spend less of a % of your national production on it, but you spend more per household via taxes to do it. Thats not win-win, thats lose lose.

Charlatan · 03-03-2006, 09:05 AM

It's really just a matter of how you look at it.

I don't have a problem with paying more in taxes to ensure that there is Universal Healthcare (amongst the other things we get for our taxes).

Some would rather see a system where everyone fends for themselves.

It's a good thing that I live in this country and you live in yours... this way we both get the system we like. No?

aceventura3 · 03-03-2006, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

As for the wait times... I can give all the anecdotes you would like. examples.

I don't think you gave a direct response to the concerns raised in the link, fact based stuff from experts, not my opinion.

Are wait times a problem?

Is that the reason for the increase in illegal clinics?

Are wait time getting worse or better?

Ustwo · 03-03-2006, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I don't think you gave a direct response to the concerns raised in the link, fact based stuff from experts, not my opinion.

Are wait times a problem?

Is that the reason for the increase in illegal clinics?

Are wait time getting worse or better?

I would assume better due to fed up people going to the illegal clinics

ubertuber · 03-03-2006, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Is that the reason for the increase in illegal clinics?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I would assume better due to fed up people going to the illegal clinics

Are you guys saying this just to piss BigBen off? Seems to me he gave good reason to not use the term "illegal clinics" - namely that they're not illegal.

Charlatan · 03-03-2006, 09:35 AM

Thanks Uber... they aren't illegal. Get your head around the concept.

Are wait times getting worse? At this moment, reports say they are. One of the problems with wait times though is that there is no agreed upon way of keeping track of this data.

Different provinces track it differently.

That said, it seems to be a hot item with politicians of late so I would say that either a) the wait times are bad or b) the wait times are slow but people want them to be faster and policians smell a way to get votes

It's probably a bit of both. Again, from what I have read, the wait times are typically around elective surgeries (i.e. not life threatening).

One of the ways that has been suggested to solve the issue is to allow private clinics to open and dip into the public stream. There are examples where this has been done and works well.

Our system has it's flaws (what system doesn't?). It's just a matter of looking at what you are trying to accomplish and how you are going to acheive it. We want to offer Universal Healthcare.

You have pointed to some stats that show a number of people have died because of wait times. It's not the greatest news. I can reverse this, how many people die every year in the US because they cant' afford a proceedure? How many people let an illness slide because they can't afford to get it treated at the treatable stage?

I don't have those stats but I would like to see them.

03-01-2006, 04:17 PM	#2 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	besides the obvious view the author holds against the canadian system according to the adjectives used in the article, it simply doesn't make much sense to me to criticize a system based on the number of people who didn't receive treatment without analyzing whether those people woudn't have even had a line to stand in if they were seeking treatment in a wholly private system. that is, while it certainly sounds horrendous that 71 people died and over 120 were removed from a list while waiting for treatment, that doesn't mean as much as the author would like us to take it to mean if those nearly 200 people would have been absolutely unable to obtain treatment in the US. and this does nothing to understand the vast amount of people who are able to obtain treatment despite wait lists who otherwise would not have had the funds to obtain treatment in a wholly privatized system. I don't know the numbers, but I suspect far more than 200 people die each year in the US for want of surgery. that said, I've never seen canadians claim their system was a panacea. Even they agree that changes could and should be made. and quite often I see them suggest a two-tiered system might address many of the concerns others raise about their system. but then to take that into a leap of logic and declare the entire system should be scrapped doesn't serve the patients' interests--for certain. publicly available health care, ideally, should guarantee a baseline of treatment. not much more, and certainly no less. elective surgeries shouldn't even be the purvue of such a system, in my view. the wealthy have always been welcome and able to spend their money elsewhere when they want particular treatments their nations don't or can't provide. eliminating the public guarantee of health care in canada would obviously only benefit a select few at great expense to many who do benefit from such care. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

03-01-2006, 06:14 PM	#4 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	When you see what Canadan's really PAY in taxes for this 'universal' coverage, you have to wonder if math scores are as bad in Canadian schools are they are US schools these days. Good luck saving that system, but I've done this one too many times on the board to get into it another time. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

03-02-2006, 02:38 PM	#23 (permalink)
Rodney Observant Ruminant Location: Rich Wannabe Hippie Town	There are other options: for example, a government-mandated system of private insurors. One big pool -- no exclusions -- with varying rates based on socioeconomic status. Insurers make money by maximizing efficiencies within the gov't-mandated set of outcomes and coverages (with certain subsidies available as necessary). Apparently the Swiss -- hardly wild-eyed free-spenders -- run their system that way, and provide excellent healthcare to the entire population for ~11 percent of GNP. The population has choice between insurors, there is competition -- and even some public control of policy. I hear it's an expensive system; but it's in good shape and gives good service. And as a percentage of GNP, it's less than what the US spends on health care (15 percnet). Here's a report: http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/Switzerland.pdf My point: there's a point between private healthcare and public healthcare -- and that's private healthcare that does business under a set of national standards, regulations, and policies. Last edited by Rodney; 03-02-2006 at 02:41 PM..

03-03-2006, 07:35 AM	#31 (permalink)
BigBen Comedian Location: Use the search button	What have Canadians produced? Two words: Medicinal Marijuana. Seriously though, I am with Ustwo on this one (a little shiver just went down my spine... I love you, Ustwo!). I am walking away from this thread, as I have done all that I can to talk about this. If you don't like our system, then vote against it when some nutjob tries to implement it in your region. And to educate yourself further, I would recommend the collective works of "Barrer and Stoddart", two healthcare economists that objectively looked at the system. Roy Romanow chaired a Royal Commission on canadian healthcare just a few years ago, and the report is free to download in .pdf format from the Government of Canada website. If I was so inclined, I could cut-and-paste the whole damned thing here, but at over 200 pages long, it would get a little tiresome. Kirby and Fyke had some good thoughts on their commissions, but it is a little bit dated. Oh well, if you are a fan of history, you could check those old guys out too. Finally, talking shit about our healthcare system is a social faux pas. When asked "What makes you Canadian?" in a recent poll, National Healthcare ranked number 1. Taking time to let that soak in; It is like I am burning the ol' Stars and Stripes while taking a shit in the Liberty Bell. __________________ 3.141592654 Hey, if you are impressed with my memorizing pi to 10 digits, you should see the size of my penis.

03-03-2006, 08:27 AM	#33 (permalink)
BigBen Comedian Location: Use the search button	...sigh... Like calling Healthcare "Free" instead of "Universal", I must object to the use of the term "Illegal" when discussing private medical clinics. You are allowed to open a private clinic in Canada. You must be a member of good standing in your area of specialty, and you must also provide competent care. The confusion comes when it is time to pay the bills. The Canada Health Act forbids the use of Federal funds to pay for private clinics. What we have here is federal government matched funds, or in layman's terms, "50 cent dollars". When the bill comes to the public clinic, they only see half of the costs. When the bill arrives for a private clinic, they see the true, unsubsidized cost. Private clinics cry foul, and say they are being penalized. In reality, they are not being compensated for following our rules. If you are a public clinic, and you see 10,000 patients every year, and you charge a fee to one patient that contravenes the Canda Health Act, then you are at risk of losing half of the compensation for the 10,000 visits. Is this illegal? Technically, no. It is the old philosophy of "Carrot and the Stick". Play by the rules, and you have access to federal funds. Fuck around, and we cut you off, and you soon find out how expensive healthcare really is. Please stop calling the private clinics "illegal". __________________ 3.141592654 Hey, if you are impressed with my memorizing pi to 10 digits, you should see the size of my penis.

03-02-2006, 01:58 PM	#20 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	If you have the 'truth' then go ahead and enlighten us. I already posted that I was paying 20% of my pre-tax income towards health care expenses.

03-03-2006, 08:45 AM	#34 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Thank you Ben... As for the wait times... I can give all the anecdotes you would like. I have never had a problem with wait times. Then again, I live in Toronto and have an adundance Hospitals and clinics to visit. Go to the north. This is not the case, especially where things like MRI machines are concerned. Then again, given the population, private clinics are less inclined to set up their either as they would see little return on their investment. Most of the complaints on wait times that I hear about have to do with elective surgeries rather than emergency surgeries (i.e. life and death). Wealthy people like to go and spend the money in clinics in the US rather than wait a couple of months. I don't think monetarily challenged US citizens could afford to do this sort of thing either so I see it as a wash. I can tell you that my father-in-law waited no more than a few weeks to have his heart valve replaced from diagnosis to replacement. I can tell you that when I showed up in emergency with my daughter, fresh from getting her head kicked by a horse, was seen in triage within five minutes of arrival (maybe less). I have seen people showing up with flu symptoms wait for hours in the same emergency (my advice to them is suck it up or go to a clinic... what the fuck are you doing in Emerg with flu symptoms anyway?). I've said it before. Our system, though flawed, provides service to 100% of our population for less than the US system that doesn't even provide the same level of service (i.e. millions go without coverage). I have never bought into the belief that private can always do something better than public. All I have to do is look at the rolling blackouts of California (I'm talking about Enron and their ilk here). There are other examples. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

03-03-2006, 09:05 AM	#36 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	It's really just a matter of how you look at it. I don't have a problem with paying more in taxes to ensure that there is Universal Healthcare (amongst the other things we get for our taxes). Some would rather see a system where everyone fends for themselves. It's a good thing that I live in this country and you live in yours... this way we both get the system we like. No? __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

03-03-2006, 09:35 AM	#40 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Thanks Uber... they aren't illegal. Get your head around the concept. Are wait times getting worse? At this moment, reports say they are. One of the problems with wait times though is that there is no agreed upon way of keeping track of this data. Different provinces track it differently. That said, it seems to be a hot item with politicians of late so I would say that either a) the wait times are bad or b) the wait times are slow but people want them to be faster and policians smell a way to get votes It's probably a bit of both. Again, from what I have read, the wait times are typically around elective surgeries (i.e. not life threatening). One of the ways that has been suggested to solve the issue is to allow private clinics to open and dip into the public stream. There are examples where this has been done and works well. Our system has it's flaws (what system doesn't?). It's just a matter of looking at what you are trying to accomplish and how you are going to acheive it. We want to offer Universal Healthcare. You have pointed to some stats that show a number of people have died because of wait times. It's not the greatest news. I can reverse this, how many people die every year in the US because they cant' afford a proceedure? How many people let an illness slide because they can't afford to get it treated at the treatable stage? I don't have those stats but I would like to see them. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke Last edited by Charlatan; 03-03-2006 at 09:46 AM..