[nvaughan3]

http://www.techcentralstation.com/101403D.html

[shmerek]

Originally posted by nvaughan3:


http://www.techcentralstation.com/101403D.html

Is the thumbs down your brilliant analysis of the system?

[voodoo]

I'm sure that the healthcare systems of both countries are just fine. What was the question again?

[christ]

Yup. Universal access healthcare is less than perfect. But

From the article

Tens of millions of Americans lack health insurance

and so these 'tens of millions of Americans' are worse off than the Canadians

the way Canada's federal and provincial governments guarantee universal access without busting their budgets is often at the expense of patients' health and well being.

This is not quite true, as the 'patients' whose health and well being is being addressed is all Canadians, and this may be seen to be at the expense of insured (ie 'rich') Canadians if they followed the American model.

It is my understanding that all Canadians are better off under their 'universal' health system than the 'tens of millions' of US residents that don't have health insurance, and the cost of this is that the rich Canadians are (slightly) worse off than their rich US counterparts.

In the UK we have a system that addresses this - a universal (but admittedly threadbare) system to guarantee access for all, and a second tier private system to give higher levels of healthcare to those that can afford it. This seems to work, about right, as both sides seem to complain about the same amount as each other.

[finboy]

Originally posted by christ:

and so these 'tens of millions of Americans' are worse off than the Canadians

Can't really say that without knowing 1) how many in the US chose to do without health insurance, and 2) how many in the US don't receive medical care. You can't really equate health insurance with adequate care, as made clear in the UK and Canadian case.

[DBursey]

... as made clear in the ... Canadian case

Oh? Made clear by whom? Please, do tell.

My family's experience with health care has been excellent. Let's not confuse a few criticisms with 'inadequate care'.

[christ]

Originally posted by finboy:
Can't really say that without knowing 1) how many in the US chose to do without health insurance, and 2) how many in the US don't receive medical care. You can't really equate health insurance with adequate care, as made clear in the UK and Canadian case.

I don't understand the second sentence, unless you are saying that the UK and Canada experience adequate care without health insurance.

In response to the first sentence, I would ask how many in the US receive adequate healthcare without insurance. My assumption is not many (for if it were adequate, then no-one would get insurance), but you seem to be disputing that.

In fact, I don;t really know what you are saying.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by finboy:
Can't really say that without knowing 1) how many in the US chose to do without health insurance, and 2) how many in the US don't receive medical care. You can't really equate health insurance with adequate care, as made clear in the UK and Canadian case.

And how many in the US get turned away for emergency procedures? NONE

Even those in the US without insurance get procedures done quicker than Canadians who must often sit on a waiting list.

[christ]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
And how many in the US get turned away for emergency procedures? NONE

Even those in the US without insurance get procedures done quicker than Canadians who must often sit on a waiting list.

How is emergency medicine relevant? No-one gets turned away for emergency procedures in any of the countries mentioned, so that's a wash.

The second part of your post is nonsense. Those in the US without insurance do not get elective procedures done quicker unless they elect to pay, which is certainly also possible in the UK, and (I would guess) in Canada.

I say again, if your uninsured medicine is so great, why do so many people pay their insurance premia?

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by christ:
I say again, if your uninsured medicine is so great, why do so many people pay their insurance premia?

Because Charity Care (healthcare services for the poor) designation is dependent upon income levels.

If you are well-off, then you must pay for your care (or insurance) yourself. Since healthcare can get costly, it makes sense for a lot of middle and upper-class people to obtain health insurance.

[finboy]

Originally posted by finboy:
You can't really equate health insurance with adequate care, as made clear in the UK and Canadian case.

When people are dying on waiting lists, can you really call that "adequate care?" Most of us wouldn't.

[thunderous_funker]

Is this thread about weaknesses in the Canadian system or a feeble attempt to dismiss the concept of universal healthcare by pointing out that the Canadian system isn't perfect?

[Mithras]

[Mithras]

Avoidable Mortality in the United States and Canada, 1980-1996

The lowest mortality ratios in Canada were for disease groups in which public health or primary care was expected to play a major
role...

One of the most frequently cited differences between Canada and United States is the degree to which comprehensive health care is freely available at the point of use.

Another difference is the Canadian em-phasis on primary care, demonstrated by a higher per capita proportion of primary care physicians than in the United States

It would be unwise to conclude, solely on the basis of differences in mortality, that the Canadian health care system performs better than the United States system. Yet the differences in avoidable mortality between the United States and Canada warrant further investigation, given that reducing mortality is a major objective of the health care system.

[Mithras]

It boils down to this:
1. I'd rather be sick and rich in the United States.
2. I'd rather be sick and not rich in Canada.

P.S. My father, sister, and wife are doctors. They have the same opinion of our/their health system that I do.

[BlackGriffen]

Why didn't you just dig up the old single payer health insurance thread? Or do you not have the intellectual balls to put your word up against the JAMA?



BlackGriffen

P.S. Praise goes out to vmarks, Spliffdaddy, cjrivera, davesimondotcom, and finboy for having the intellectual backbone to post replies in the con to connish range in that thread.

[Mithras]

Yeah, it's an old, sad argument. It's the single most stupefying fact about living in this country.

Anyway, one more, for laughs:

Thirty-one cents of every dollar spent on health care in the United States pays administrative costs � nearly double the rate in Canada, according to a new comparison that sees colossal bureaucratic waste in the American system.

article
source

Who's against bureaucracy now?

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Mithras:
Who's against bureaucracy now?

Hmmm. The estimates do not include health care industry profits. Why not? That makes a quite a difference in determining the true cost of services.

Also, from your article, an interesting note at the bottom of the article...

_But in an editorial in the journal, Henry Aaron of the Brookings Institution in Washington, said the administrative costs in the United States may be 24 percent lower than the Woolhandler estimate. He said the excess spending on health care administration in 1999 was probably closer to $159 billion, not $209 billion cited in the study.
_ _ _ _
Aaron said it also doesn�t prove the United States would save a lot of money if it converted to the Canadian system. _While Aaron characterized the U.S. health care system as �an administrative monstrosity,� he said the latest comparisons �clearly exaggerate� the differences between the North American neighbors.

Regardless, the following quote from this article highlights the two points Ihold dear with regards to this issue - timliness and quality of care, and financial feasability of a national healthcare system:

Canada has been struggling with its plan for more than 50 years. Early in 2002, Ottawa created yet another royal commission to study its plan and offer proposals for keeping it from bankruptcy -- and to improve medical services so Canadians don't have to wait months for procedures considered routine in the United States.

I'd much rather accept higher administrative costs than risk installing a system mired in bankruptcy, with patients across the nation waiting months and months for procedures that should be routine.

[Mithras]

Spacefreak,

1. I agree the Canadian system, like all systems everywhere, has problems. I also agree that the American system solves some of those problems (while inevitably creating others). The question of which provides the best care (for whom? by what measure?) should be an empirical one.

And good catch on the editorial; while that wouldn't bring US costs down to Canadian levels, I admit that I missed that bit in my partisan zeal to read a favorable article. Conceded.

2. Though my paranthetics above indicate the problem -- this ultimately boils down to value judgments, which are political. How do you define 'best care'? Is it overall public health? Highest possible quality of care for those who are able to afford it?

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I'd much rather accept higher administrative costs than risk installing a system mired in bankruptcy, with patients across the nation waiting months and months for procedures that should be routine.

I'm happy for you that you feel that way. What about these people?
Percent Uninsured in 1997 by Race/Ethnicity

[dtriska]

It's almost as if bitching about the health care system is a national pastime now or something. I've never had to wait long for any medical treatments.

It's also important to note that health care is a provincial responsibility. So, someone in Ontario might complain about waiting times, while someone in Alberta gets the procedure done the next day. This is something the various governments are trying to smooth out by allowing patients to travel to other provinces with shorter waiting times, if they want.

[moki]

Originally posted by nvaughan3:


http://www.techcentralstation.com/101403D.html

Careful... you may get labeled as being anti-Canadian...

This is the exact issue I brought up in another thread, but concerning healthcare in some countries in Europe. As the article points out, an MRI would have diagnosed the problem, but it wasn't done for cost reasons.

Now, granted, this kind of screwup happens in any kind of healthcare system, but still, I don't think it's improper to look at the failings of other systems before we decide to adopt them here in the USA.

[moki]

Originally posted by Mithras:
I'm happy for you that you feel that way. What about these people?
Percent Uninsured in 1997 by Race/Ethnicity

I'm rather sure that there is a direct correlation between the lack of health insurance for various ethnicities, and the unemployment rate for the same ethnicities, no?

[Mithras]

Originally posted by moki:
I'm rather sure that there is a direct correlation between the lack of health insurance for various ethnicities, and the unemployment rate for the same ethnicities, no?

Probably. So what? Unemployed people shouldn't have health insurance?

[moki]

Originally posted by Mithras:
Probably. So what? Unemployed people shouldn't have health insurance?

If they are impoverished, they can use Medicaid. However, not everyone believes that healthcare is a "right" that every citizen should have.

Let's face it, there are a huge number of people in the USA who are not unemployed because they are actively seeking work and just can find a job. There's a huge underclass that simply doesn't want to work, didn't bother attempting to get a decent education, and has underachieved intentionally.

I view it more as a cultural issue than anything else -- take a look at how well Asian immigrants do in the USA. The opportunity is there for anyone who wants to take advantage of it. For those who don't, I have a hard time feeling all warm and fuzzy for them.

[Mithras]

Holy shiite. Well. I'm glad that ugly opinion was drawn out into the open.

Incidentally, having people go without health insurance costs YOU more money in the long run.

Also, as you note, all those lazy ethnic people with bad values are eligible for Medicaid if they're dirt poor.

It's the working poor (possibly from a culturally backward ethnic minority) that most often
(1) Don't have employer-provided insurance
(2) Can't afford individual insurance
(3) End up costing us all more money if they get catastrophically sick due to a lack of preventive care
(4) Increase the total amount of human suffering thanks to their lack of insurance. Thanks to the structure in this country, which (as noted above) has a hugely wasteful bureaucracy, more wasteful than the monopolistic, government-run Canadian system.

Oh, and:

About 12.4 percent of Hispanic males and 11.1 percent of Hispanic females were unemployed in 1993.

Source: http://www.census.gov/population/www...e/hisppop.html

Yet 34% lack health insurance.

[moki]

Originally posted by Mithras:
Also, as you note, all those lazy ethnic people with bad values are eligible for Medicaid if they're dirt poor.

bzzzzzzzzzt. Don't attempt to turn this into a racial/ethnic issue. There are people from ALL CREEDS AND COLORS that fit into that category I mentioned, which is, people who simply don't want to work.

It is true that it is more prevalent with certain ethnicities, but I think this has more to do with the cultural situation they are thrust into than anything else.

Look at the crime rate for blacks for instance (brought up in a recent thread):



Yet it's clear that this has absolutely nothing to do with "being black" -- immigrants from Africa come over here and achieve remarkable success. Why the disparity? Because for decades, blacks were treated horribly in this country (and other countries as well), and it seems to have morphed into a disfunctional culture that doesn't want any part of the mainstream.

So before you go off on a racial rant, let's be clear here. I think the fault of the situation lies with the white people who lived in this country that created an unhealthy situation for other races to participate in.

Granted, that situation is largely gone today, but the aftereffects are still here. Attempting to state that there aren't problems in this country that fall along racial lines is just putting your head into the sand. More useful is to discuss why (which I touched upon), and how to fix it.

Somehow I don't think giving out free healthcare is going to do much of anything to solve the problem, do you?

[Mithras]

Let me try another tack:

I'm a young white male. I'm employed, a nice guy, and healthy.

I was unemployed for 4.5 months a couple of years ago. During that time I had the option of
(1) Purchasing very expensive COBRA continuing coverage
(2) Purchasing pretty darn expensive 'individual' coverage, or coverage with a convenience group like the independent contractor's association or somesuch.
(3) Going without coverage.

I went without coverage.

Now, it all worked out okay for me -- I didn't get hit by a bus, and I didn't turn out to have testicular cancer or an STD or Huntington's chorea.

Of course, I didn't go to a doctor during that time. So even if I had contracted cancer, I wouldn't have found out until I got coverage again 5 months later. I did have one minor condition I developed during this time, but I ignored it until I could go to the doctor again.

I would argue that this was the worst possible choice in the global scheme of things. If any of those bad things had happened, it would have been ruinous for me, or my family, or the taxpayers. And the fact that I wasn't getting preventative care meant that any latent problems were lingering untreated.

A much saner system would have kept me covered, no matter what, even during that period of unemployment.

[Mithras]

Originally posted by moki:
bzzzzzzzzzt. Don't attempt to turn this into a racial/ethnic issue.

Interesting charts, thanks.

But dude. We're talking about health insurance here. The chart I posted happened to be the ethnic breakdown one, but I was talking about healthcare, not race.

'Giving out free healthcare' won't solve our racial/cultural/violence/poverty problems, no. But it might help solve our healthcare problems...


Back to our program...

[moki]

Originally posted by Mithras:
I was unemployed for 4.5 months a couple of years ago. During that time I had the option of
(1) Purchasing very expensive COBRA continuing coverage
(2) Purchasing pretty darn expensive 'individual' coverage, or coverage with a convenience group like the independent contractor's association or somesuch.
(3) Going without coverage.

If during the time you were unemployed it could be shown that you were actively seeking work, or taking advantage of the programs that are available for re-education, then I'd be more amenable to offering you state-sponsored healthcare.

Basically what this boils down to is, do you have a right to healthcare no matter what. I don't think you do. Indeed, the lack of healthcare coverage may have made you try harder to get a job, or educate yourself so you could get a job.

However, I do agree that as a society, we are all in it together to one extent or another, so if it could be demonstrated that the lack of healthcare coverage was overall detrimental to society in some way, then I'd be willing to discuss some type of program to help alleviate the situation.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Mithras:
I was unemployed for 4.5 months a couple of years ago. During that time I had the option of
(1) Purchasing very expensive COBRA continuing coverage
(2) Purchasing pretty darn expensive 'individual' coverage, or coverage with a convenience group like the independent contractor's association or somesuch.
(3) Going without coverage.

I went without coverage.

Now, it all worked out okay for me -- I didn't get hit by a bus, and I didn't turn out to have testicular cancer or an STD or Huntington's chorea.

I would argue that this was the worst possible choice in the global scheme of things. If any of those bad things had happened, it would have been ruinous for me, or my family, or the taxpayers. And the fact that I wasn't getting preventative care meant that any latent problems were lingering untreated.

My ex-girlfriend is an executive at a leading health insurer, and she showed me some numbers ...

In a nutshell, young, healthy individuals would be better served purchasing catastrophic health insurance. It's much cheaper than traditional and HMO policies, and if any of those big things should have happened to you (god forbid), you'd have been covered.

Just an FYI.

[Mithras]

Originally posted by moki:
If during the time you were unemployed it could be shown that you were actively seeking work, or taking advantage of the programs that are available for re-education, then I'd be more amenable to offering you state-sponsored healthcare.

Basically what this boils down to is, do you have a right to healthcare no matter what. I don't think you do. Indeed, the lack of healthcare coverage may have made you try harder to get a job, or educate yourself so you could get a job.

However, I do agree that as a society, we are all in it together to one extent or another, so if it could be demonstrated that the lack of healthcare coverage was overall detrimental to society in some way, then I'd be willing to discuss some type of program to help alleviate the situation.

'

Thanks, I'm glad we got back on track.
1) I was looking for work. I have a magna *** laude degree from the #1 university in the nation. You might argue I was being picky and not taking the first busboy job that came along, but whatever.
2) The doctors in my family are pretty well convinced that people not having health insurance is worse for the people, and for the hospitals, and for the taxpayers in the long run. I'm neither a doctor nor a policy expert, but it makes sense to me, given my experience.
Preventative care makes a big difference in longterm well-being, and insurance makes all the difference in whether people take advantage of preventative care or not. Like I said, I certainly didn't go to the doctor about my minor condition while I lacked coverage.
3) So yeah, I'm talking about "we're all in this together", and what will best alleviate the situation. Canadian single-payer may not be it. But universal coverage has to be.

[Mithras]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
My ex-girlfriend is an executive at a leading health insurer, and she showed me some numbers ...

In a nutshell, young, healthy individuals would be better served purchasing catastrophic health insurance. It's much cheaper than traditional and HMO policies, and if any of those big things should have happened to you (god forbid), you'd have been covered.

Just an FYI.

Interesting point. I did look into that.

As it turned out, my state (New York) doesn't have short-term catastrophic coverage, for some inexplicable reason. It's available in most but not mine.

Of course, the liberal in me points out that if we were ALL in ONE BIG pool, rather than cherry-picking who had which coverage, then it'd probably work out best for everyone... I mean, an insurance pool consisting only of old sick people wouldn't do anyone much good...

[moki]

Originally posted by Mithras:
Thanks, I'm glad we got back on track.
1) I was looking for work. I have a magna *** laude degree from the #1 university in the nation. You might argue I was being picky and not taking the first busboy job that came along, but whatever.

Yeah, then my sympathy would be a bit less for you. I have one friend of mine who lost his job last year, he took advantage of the situation to get his MBA via government-sponsored programs.

Another friend of mine was in your situation. I told him he should probably just take any old job that he could (ie, be a bus-boy) and look for a job in the meantime.

Originally posted by Mithras:
2) The doctors in my family are pretty well convinced that people not having health insurance is worse for the people, and for the hospitals, and for the taxpayers in the long run. I'm neither a doctor nor a policy expert, but it makes sense to me, given my experience.

Well, with all due respect to your family, I'd want to see the hard evidence on it. Exactly why would it be better to have universal coverage that is paid for by people who are working to support those that aren't?

[Mithras]

Originally posted by moki:
Exactly why would it be better to have universal coverage that is paid for by people who are working to support those that aren't?

Here's another interesting breakdown I found:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00051237.htm

Nationwide, 11% of those working for wages are uninsured, 6% 'underinsured' (not sure what that means). In Louisiana, 21% of those working for wages are uninsured.
The figures are higher for the self-employed and the unemployed.

As you said above, the very poor unemployed are covered by Medicaid. So it's the recently unemployed, or the unemployed with some savings but not enough, that are uninsured.

It's better to have those uninsured people (working or not) covered by universal coverage, because sooner or later they will end up one of:
(1) very poor, and in Medicaid
(2) old, and in Medicare
(3) insured, by becoming employed, or changing jobs to an employer that provides coverage
(4) still uninsured, and very sick

Any of these 4 outcomes involves you and me, either as taxpayers, or fellow insurance-pool-mates, paying for the health care that results when these people have not had access to preventative care.

Again: if health care were like cable TV -- if you don't have it, you don't miss it, and once you get it again, you pick up where you left off -- it wouldn't matter. But people get more sick (hence more sad, and more expensive) if you don't give them health care.

[moki]

Originally posted by Mithras:
Nationwide, 11% of those working for wages are uninsured, 6% 'underinsured' (not sure what that means). In Louisiana, 21% of those working for wages are uninsured.
The figures are higher for the self-employed and the unemployed.

Alas, those figures are almost 10 years old.

Originally posted by Mithras:
Again: if health care were like cable TV -- if you don't have it, you don't miss it, and once you get it again, you pick up where you left off -- it wouldn't matter. But people get more sick (hence more sad, and more expensive) if you don't give them health care.

Sure, and if a sane plan were introduced that had safeguards to ensure it wouldn't spiral out of control like Social Security, and required people who were capable of work to prove they were looking for work to be covered, I'd probably support a nationalize healthcare plan.

[khufuu]

Most Canadians 'like' the way we have our health care. I don't know anyone who would want an American style system (here in Canada).

Most Canadians see this a right of citizenship. We pay our taxes; most to the federal government and the rest to the provincial government. Each year the federal government gives some of that tax money back to the provinces to cover their own health-care costs; each province runs their own affairs as each province's needs are unique.

Canada's problem has been, for some time now, that the federal government has been cutting back on what it's giving to the provinces. So each province has also cut back in the areas that it sees fit. The basic reason for this is because the Canadian people told the federal gov't that it had to get it's financial house in order. One of the ways to do that was to make cuts to health-care.

As the news article had said, the federal gov't had a special inquiry into the system and it was determined that they needed to start increasing these payments (back to the provinces) as the provinces have already reduced costs as much as possible. In fact, they have had to cut back too much so now you have shortage of MRI and PET machines etc. (Not to mention a shortage of nurses and doctors.)

I think that this will now start to change once the federal gov't gets more funding back into the hands of the provinces again.

There are a few provinces who would like to see a two-tiered system in Canada. The first tier being the publicly funded system and the second tier where you pay for more immediate services. It's the richer provinces what would like to see this implemented.

Most Canadians however feel that you introduce a profit motive into health-care (like the American system) that you can no longer trust your health-care provider to do what's best for you; they do what's best for their bottom line instead. This, I believe, is what's keeping Canada's system where it is today; a little too lean for what's demanded of it.

[christ]

OK, I missed the point earlier, so I'll start again:

The American <insert noun, suggestions 'Government', 'Health'> system is the best. Ever.

It is flawless.

Americans cannot learn from anything, anywhere else in the world, as everyone else is non-American, and therefore unable to have good ideas.

(Of course Americans can learn, but only from other Americans. Of the same political persuasion.)

[Mithras]

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Academy Award winning actor Robert De Niro, 60, has been diagnosed with prostate cancer, but his prospects for a full recovery are good, his publicist says.

"Doctors say the condition was detected at an early stage because of regular checkups," publicist Stan Rosenfield said in a statement on Monday. "Because of the early detection and his excellent physical condition, doctors project a full recovery."

(source)

Good thing he gets regular checkups, huh?

[NYCFarmboy]

A sad fact of the matter is the Canadian Healthcare system has made American Healthcare better.

My family's doctor is Canadian.. he got so completely fed up with the "health"care system there that he up and moved to the U.S. about 4 years ago.

Socialized medicine sounds great in theory but in reality the service levels are reduced so greatly that in the end any Canadian with a serious health problem and has the money will seek treatment in the USA to avoid the Canadian mess.

[khufuu]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
A sad fact of the matter is the Canadian Healthcare system has made American Healthcare better.

My family's doctor is Canadian.. he got so completely fed up with the "health"care system there that he up and moved to the U.S. about 4 years ago.

Socialized medicine sounds great in theory but in reality the service levels are reduced so greatly that in the end any Canadian with a serious health problem and has the money will seek treatment in the USA to avoid the Canadian mess.

I don't agree. The Canadian system is this way right now because they made it this way. We told the gov't that they need to get their financial affairs in order (ie: no deficits) and the gov't cut services; one of which was health care. The average Canadian is fairly healthy so they thought this was a good idea at the time.

I think that the American system is over-priced because of the profit motive inherent in the system.

[nvaughan3]

Originally posted by Mithras:

we've discussed in previous threads that that figure really has no bearing on the state of our health care system. poor dumb single mothers hooked on drugs will not suddenly jump up, get a change of heart, and start getting their fetus prenatal care just because it's available. Hell, we've got baby disposal places all over chicago where you can abandon unwanted infants yet every year they continue to find them in dumpsters or trash cans.

[nvaughan3]

"I'm happy for you that you feel that way. What about these people?
Percent Uninsured in 1997 by Race/Ethnicity

As asked in one of the first posts, how many people choose to go uninsured? Give us that figure (the only one that matters!)

[nvaughan3]

.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by khufuu:
I think that the American system is over-priced because of the profit motive inherent in the system.

It's called capitalism, and the drive for profit is responsible for new drugs, cutting-edge diagnostic and treatment equipment, and specialized practitioners who rank globally at the top of their fields.

The whole world reaps the benefits of the US health system.

[christ]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
The whole world reaps the benefits of the US health system.

Whoopee.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by khufuu:
We told the gov't that they need to get their financial affairs in order (ie: no deficits) and the gov't cut services; one of which was health care. The average Canadian is fairly healthy so they thought this was a good idea at the time.

This just proves the sad negative of socialism: Its a nice idea in utopian theory while toking something..., but the reality is that socialism is nothing more than shared misery.

Socialism does work for a short time, a very nice party living off of the wealthy or of taxing the working generation until it has been tapped out. (as in Canada)...but once all the rich folks have been sent off to the gulag, or escape to a country that embraces freedom, and there is no more money to spend it is pretty miserable.

But..that is a political decision made by the people. If Canada chooses to go that way, they are absolutely entitled to do so. But unfortunately in my humble opinion is that it is only a utopian dream that ends up hurting everyone despite everyone's best wishes.

Obviously the Canadian system will be modified over time to prevent collapse.. just as will happen in the USA. The United States certainly has a good health care system, but it could always be improved as anything else in life.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
It's called capitalism, and the drive for profit is responsible for new drugs, cutting-edge diagnostic and treatment equipment, and specialized practitioners who rank globally at the top of their fields.

The whole world reaps the benefits of the US health system.

Not really. Most of the research and innovation in areas that benefit everyone are done through research grants that are heavily subsidized by taxpayers.

The profit motive dumps money into R&D for cures for hairloss, impotence and the myriad of soma pills for kids with bad parents.

Regardless, this issue musn't devolve into a Canadian vs. US system. Both systems have strengths and weaknesses. It should be about reforming the US system to the best possible benefit of all Americans.

Study after study shows that a single-payer system would lower costs for everyone at the same time that it insures everyone. More coverage for less money. That's a win-win in my book.

Most of the shortcomings of the Canadian system are due to budget shortfalls. Since the US spends double per capita what Canada spends, and a single payer system would stretch each dollar considerably further, it is perfectly reasonable to expect a US singple payer system to achieve excellent if not phenomenal service levels.

[moki]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
A sad fact of the matter is the Canadian Healthcare system has made American Healthcare better.

My family's doctor is Canadian.. he got so completely fed up with the "health"care system there that he up and moved to the U.S. about 4 years ago.

Socialized medicine sounds great in theory but in reality the service levels are reduced so greatly that in the end any Canadian with a serious health problem and has the money will seek treatment in the USA to avoid the Canadian mess.

You may well be right on that -- I know a number of doctors who came from Canada to the US because the pay is so much better here.

Granted, that's just colloquial evidence, but given that 7x as many people migrate from Canada to the US than the reverse, some of them certainly must be doctors.

[moki]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
This just proves the sad negative of socialism: Its a nice idea in utopian theory while toking something..., but the reality is that socialism is nothing more than shared misery.

That echos my sentiments as well.

[b]Socialism does work for a short time, a very nice party living off of the wealthy or of taxing the working generation until it has been tapped out. (as in Canada)/B]

A situation similar to the pension system in Europe -- it's sustainable for a generation or two, but after that, the party is over.

But..that is a political decision made by the people. If Canada chooses to go that way, they are absolutely entitled to do so. But unfortunately in my humble opinion is that it is only a utopian dream that ends up hurting everyone despite everyone's best wishes.

Agreed. I think the *idea* of socialized healthcare, cradle to grave taking care of people, etc, etc. is a very noble one. The practice of that idea, however, has many unexpected consequences. As in many things, the rift between the ideal and reality is large.

Obviously the Canadian system will be modified over time to prevent collapse.. just as will happen in the USA. The United States certainly has a good health care system, but it could always be improved as anything else in life.

The US has an excellent healthcare system if you have the money, or if you have no money. If you're one of the 30 million or so that is uninsured but working, then you're pretty much screwed.

[moki]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Most of the shortcomings of the Canadian system are due to budget shortfalls. Since the US spends double per capita what Canada spends, and a single payer system would stretch each dollar considerably further, it is perfectly reasonable to expect a US singple payer system to achieve excellent if not phenomenal service levels.

Well, if that's possible, I'm all for it -- but as I'm sure you're aware, I'm extremely leery of such systems. Look at what happened to Social Security. I don't think anyone in their right mind depends on SS alone for their retirement...