Gathering Place: Canadian health system

It just shows how ignorant politicians are when they open their mouths to babble "universal healthcare".

VFW wrote:

It just shows how ignorant politicians are when they open their mouths to babble "universal healthcare".

I agree VFW. Who really wants the same folks who brought us $500 hammers running healthcare?

Before some bleeding heart liberal pops up and says "Look what Bush is spending in Iraq" I would like to remind you, the war will end someday but if universal care is adopted it will never end and will just cost more and more every year for less and less coverage. The consitiution or the Bill of Rights do not say you have a right to "free" healthcare or heathcare funded by the taxpayer...period.

Every other industrialized country has universal health care. The majority of those systems are superior to Canada's. Japan, France, Switzerland are very different from each other and from Canada. Using Canada to shoot down the entire concept is like saying democracy doesn't work because it failed in Iraq.

American's pay more than the citizens of any other country and receive less care. Only two-thirds of Americans are covered, despite paying more than any other country by a long shot. We deserve better.

Since Canada's system is not attractive, we should continue exploring the other plans in this world. I'm sure we can shop for the best practices from the various experiments other nations are performing and like our democracy, set a new high standard of medical care and coverage.

I have friends in Canada and they have to come to the U.S. if they want fast healthcare. And the taxes they have to pay... well you don't even want to know about that. The people that are the worst off in the U.S. are the middle class. The rich have lots of money for health care and the poor get it free. Once the middle class is pushed into the mostly poor class there will be universal health care for all. With no added taxes.

DevilDog wrote:

Every other industrialized country has universal health care. The majority of those systems are superior to Canada's. Japan, France, Switzerland are very different from each other and from Canada. Using Canada to shoot down the entire concept is like saying democracy doesn't work because it failed in Iraq.
American's pay more than the citizens of any other country and receive less care. Only two-thirds of Americans are covered, despite paying more than any other country by a long shot. We deserve better.

How would know that Japan et al have a better system than Canada's? Did you know that in Japan, many hospitals are doc owned, and that meals have to be provided by the family, and sometimes even nursing care?

"Every other industrialized country has universal health care."

That argument is just too funny for words.

If your friends jumped off a brige would you jump too?

Give me a break, we are NOT every other industrialized country in case you had not noticed. If you think you would be better off somewhere else, move.

About the only country I have personal experience with which has Honest-to-God "Socialized Medicine" is Britain - Socialized Medicine, in the true sense: physicians are (mostly) employed directly by the government. No doubt this system has its drawbacks, but if you actually go to Britain & talk to people, you will find that even the Conservative Party no longer suggests that the National Health System, as it is called, should be abolished - that would be political suicide, which they understand clearly. Compared to the US, the British seem to believe that they get better outcomes & an all-around value for their money. Funny how in US media all you hear about is the negative side of the NHS - as if the people there unwillingly chafed under the yoke of an oppressive state-run system - but Britain is, in fact, a democracy, & people there are not stupid or brain-washed. If they hated their system, they would change or jettison it. It would be refreshing to see in US media more objective, fact-based comparative analyis (including cost vs. outcomes)of the advanced nations' health care systems, instead of the usual propagandistic editorializing by the self-interested, which is what we Americans are typically served up.

something is very wrong when almost everyone i know here has no insurance, when people like me at age 71, now a citizen of the u.s., cannot buy private insurance because of my age, and cannot get medicare until my 40 quarters are earned (yes i will keep working until i am 87) even if it kills me. insurance companies like hmsa ought to accept older legal immigrants. i was willing to spend 300.- per month to get any, even high deductible, health insurance and i have no pre-exisiting conditions except elevated bloodpressure, and that is probably caused by these injustices getting to me. obviously i stay away from doctors. they priced themselves out of my pocketbook.

Universal healthcare won't work here in the U.S. We've gotten so used to "you get what you pay for". Most know that healthcare costs have to go up to fund new technology, treatments & access to a good doctor. If not we would look like third world country healthcare. No one wants that after we have come this far.

Much of healthcare costs now go to executive salaries, corporate lawyers and stockholders. The "not-for-profit label" is being abused by healthcare corporations to collect medicare/medicaid while at the same time their attorneys look for loopholes in state and federal laws that allow them to have an unfair advantage over other businesses. Additionally they spend millions to Washington, D.C. lobbyists who "fix problems" for them. I call that playing poker with a stacked deck!

Speaking of Britian, friends there told me a major factor in their health care system overall is the absence of malpractice judgements.

Over there, if a doctor really messes up and you are left in some disabled condition, the state will pay for whatever care you may need for as long as you need it...BUT...there is no recourse for "compensatory or punitive damages".

Lawyers do not assess your potential future earnings abilities which are now lost and calculate damages. You or your estate, if you die, get nothing.

Therefore eliminating malpractice tort law provisions, rather than capping or otherwise modifying them, is a fundimental requirement of a good universal health care approach.

Two big things that would make our system better is to get those ambulence chasing lawyers out of the picture and stop advertising drugs (medicines) on TV and in magazines. So much money is made on both. Advertising a "new" drug just makes more people want it (just what is the purple pill for?, and ED drugs - arg). While we still wait for 'cures' for many illnesses.

Also in Britain, I read somewhere that many docs in the national system are foreign trained, and aren't paid very well. Many come from India.

The better docs are private and charge a lot more than the national system. I'm sure Prince Charles uses them.

Of the 43 million US citizens who have no insurance, how many choose not to that actually could or should have it and it is offered to them at reduced rates by their employers? I am mostly speaking of 20 or 30 somethings that don't think they will get sick so opt for the cash rather than the insurance. No one ever says, they just say 43 million have no insurance.

willie wrote:

Of the 43 million US citizens who have no insurance, how many choose not to that actually could or should have it and it is offered to them at reduced rates by their employers? I am mostly speaking of 20 or 30 somethings that don't think they will get sick so opt for the cash rather than the insurance. No one ever says, they just say 43 million have no insurance.

I'm guessing not that many. At any rate, it's probably less than 9 million, which is the number of children without health insurance in this country. By the way, the total number of uninsured is up to 47 million now, up from 39 million uninsured when Bush took office.

Re: VFW's comment: I believe it is certainly true that many docs in Britain come from Commonwealth nations. Some of these physicians end up here in the US. Where I live in California, we have quite a few docs originally from India, some of who received their basic medical educations in Britain. My experience with them has been that they are very good physicians indeed.(For one thing, they will take the time to talk to you, & answer as many questions as you may have. This is a generalization of course, based on only my experience.)

There are probably a few factors at work that explain why so many end up here in US. One is that they can make more money here. Another is that Britain probably trains more physicians than they can absorb into the NHS. But the the British system appears to retain enough such that there is not an actual shortage of doctors over there. And the quality of the doctors it produces speaks well for it.

Harley Street in London is synonomous for high-priced private doctors, specialists often. Not only Prince Charlie, but many Arab potentates use them. Whether in Britain or here, there are always going to be exotically priced, high-end services for those who can afford them. But I think the real measure of how good the health care system of a nation is, is seem in how well that system serves the average person in that country.

My niece, a citizen of that all wonderful place known as Switzerland, broke her leg.

The outtanding physicians, employed under the Swiss version of universal health care, fouled up her care so badly that the head quack wanted to amputate, above the knee.

Her dad, a U.S. citizen wisked her off to the United States and the doctors, working within our lousey system saved the leg.

Took two years of surgerys and therapy in the U.S. to fix what was otherwise a simple broken leg.

You can have your Universal Health Care, I'll stick with the best in the world.

BTW, before anyone gets in a huff over a foriegner get free care, daddy paid cash.

alohawaldo wrote: "You can have your Universal Health Care, I'll stick with the best in the world."

When you can afford it, it may indeed be the best in the world. But problem is, many in US can't afford it.

Well if Canada didn't have to depend on itself to defend it's borders and freedoms then I can see how they can spend a huge chunk of tax dollars on healthcare.

But here in the US, we are the world's police and have to spend a big portion of government spending on defense of the free world.

If Canada had to spend as much in military spending as we did I highly doubt if they would have enough financial resources to maintain any kind of government funded health care system.

It seems virtually every other country that has a universal health care system has some military aid or backing of the United States of America. Take that away and suddenly they won't have a universal health care system to brag about.

If those in favor of a universal health care system here in the US want it, please come up with a way to stop those bent on destroying our freedoms. Then we wouldn't have to spend that much on defending our lifestyles, but the US is the top dog and unfortunately we have to walk the talk and talk doesn't come cheap or free.

Plizdas wrote:

alohawaldo wrote: "You can have your Universal Health Care, I'll stick with the best in the world."
When you can afford it, it may indeed be the best in the world. But problem is, many in US can't afford it.

Affordability is a challenge, however so much of socialized medicine, at least what I've seen, is even worse.

Geeez, cut off a 16 year old girls leg because of medicine on the cheap.

Part of the problem with U.S. health care is that people think of doctors as cash cows.

For example, a crack or meth addicted "mother" gives birth to a damaged baby. "Not my fault" she says, "the doctor fouled up... Let's sue him..."