Your video, FOX's Shep Smith: Was that Canadian Health Care Story Fair?, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Where is Canada? If America can pay for all the Mexican illegal invaders' emergency room visits, shouldn't CANADA, who believes the WHOLE WORLD should have "free" health care, step in and rescue this poor woman?


SOMETIMES WE DO. YOU'RE WELCOME.

We also fight your war.


*edit*

There are plenty of recorded incidents where U.S. citizens cross the border, and go see Canadian doctors. Your ignorance is astounding, your argument patently false and indicative of many of your nations citizens who are poorly educated about Canada.


The Difference between Canadian health care and American health care.

"On average, U.S. citizens experience some of the shortest wait times for non-emergency
surgeries among industrialized countries, although the waiting times vary considerably by
procedure [11]. Furthermore, the short waiting times apply mainly to those who have insurance;
for those who do not, the waiting line is arguably infinite."

See the words "for those who do not" in this report on a comparison between US and Canadian waiting times. Yeah, we have some pretty weak things that are going on in our country, in regards to health care. No one is perfect. However, that line, that simple statement "for those who do not" does not exist in Canada.

That is why any argument you can put forward, ie. advances in equipment, wait times, or by my accounts minimal (or, in redneck, - fascist) government oversight, or the treatment of our aboriginal population, any of these arguments fall flat in the face of these following arguments

- Everyone is on the waiting lists that need to be, yet the quality of care does not go down, and we live longer, and people can move up on the waiting lists in case of urgency. (If you show up at the emergency room and need an operation or procedure to save your life, it is provided, free of cost, as with your recuperation and aftercare. Waiting lists are in part a result of brain drain to your stupid country where doctors are paid more, to prescribe unnecessary care to people who don't know any better to enlarge their paychecks, while patients are dropped at fire halls upon discovery that they are uninsured, disgusting behavior I might add.)

- Everyone, including the aboriginal populations in our country, get health care, instead of being denied. Fuck, you almost completed a genocide against your population, am I incorrect? Anyways, I digress. What I love about our system, is an accurate quote from an msnbc article, that reads, "Most have made their appointments that day. None will receive a bill." - You also tax your citizens to go to war in far flung corners of the earth for national security, a government run entity, and yet you balk at the very idea of sending tax dollars towards health care, which SHOULD be a government run organization.

- Our prescription drugs cost much less in our country because pharmaceutical war- i mean, druglords, aren't giving us hourly corporate mandated rectal exams here in the great white north. Huzza! That is why there is a billion dollar industry for us, and that market comes from desperate Americans, unable to afford the medicine that allows them to function, add to their economy, be productive in their society, and not worry about their health care, and thus are free to pursue their liberty, and justice for all. Cue Metallica. (?)

Idiot.

Thanks, from a fellow Canadian for the intelligent and insightful comment, I agree 100%.

In reply to this comment by geo321:
Basically what happened with health care in Canada is that the last two liberal governments were corporate liberals that slashed corporate taxes and to balance the budget cut health care funding to the provinces. And the present conservative government did the same thing. From the 1950s to the early 1990s there wasn't a problem with health care in Canada. But there is a problem now in that we don't train enough doctors by a huge factor. It's the result of systemic cuts over almost two decades.
The truth is that Canadian politicians from both major parties have bought into Thatcherism, Reaganism, whatever you want to call it. The two main political parties in Canada, like the US are dislocated from the people in that they are ideologically bent on serving those that control our resources. For Canada it's oil locally and mining internationally. Popular social programs like a universal child care program in Canada, which had overwhelming support, is relatively cheap, and the program it was based on in Quebec cut child poverty in half in under a decade, will never be considered by our modern liberal or conservative leaderships. They don't listen to the population.
Alright I'll stop ranting.

I'll say again, that if you need something to be treated in Canada, you will get treated right away

I disagree with your assessment that you get treated 'right away'. Every paper on Canadian health care delays indicates that is not true. I think what you mean to say is that they 'get treated for emergencies'. IE If you go into a hospital with a broken leg or with cancer they don't just toss you in the street.

If that is the standard you are using, then the American health care system is no different. People that come to a doctor with a medical need are not turned away. They are not denied care. They are not thrown in the street and told, 'sorry'. They get the care they need the same way you do. And if they don't have money or insurance then they don't pay for it.

Since we already HAVE this 'universal care' inherently active in our current system, I see no need to throw the baby out with the bath water and conduct a MASSIVE national experiment with Obama's plan all in a rush. If his plan is so fantastic, then implement it small scale and prove it. Then do it in a couple big markets and prove it again. Learn from mistakes and prepare for issues by doing a few practice runs. Above all, let's wait for a point in time when our economy is not in a massive recession, don't have almost 2 trillion in debt, and our unemployment isn't at almost 10%. Maybe his plan will be OK. Fine. But NOW is not the time.

Imo, the Canadian system is still better than the US one, hands down.

Emphasis added to give your statement accuracy. Your opinion is your opinion, and is based on no factual evidence. American health care is just fine. People get care who need it, and it is done quickly, with high skill and great innovation. Both systems have issues. You've shown no quantitative evidence that your system is superior.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

That's the biggest misconception that all you non-Americans need to get your facts straight about. Canadians & Europeans look down their noses and say, "Oh how awful that you evil American's don't 'cover' all your people..." Bullcrap. There is a difference between being 'covered' and being TREATED. I would venture to say that the end result of the evil American system is that far more people are TREATED than in the precious socialized countries where everyone is 'covered' but is routinely denied treatment. I'd rather have a system where 42 million people weren't 'covered', but almost everyone was being treated as opposed to a system where everyone was 'covered' but that people are not treated.


Via Wiki

One complaint about both the U.S. and Canadian health care systems is waiting times, whether for a specialist, major elective surgery, such as hip replacement, or specialized treatments, such as radiation for breast cancer. Wait times in each country are affected by various factors. In the United States, access to health care is primarily determined by whether a person has access to funding to pay for treatment and by the availability of services in the area and by willingness of the provider to deliver service at the price set by the insurer. In Canada the wait time is set according the availability of services in the area and by the relative need of the person needing treatment.

A report published by Health Canada in 2008 included statistics on self-reported wait times for diagnostic services.[47] The median wait time for diagnostic services such as MRI and CAT scans is two weeks with 89.5% waiting less than 3 months.[47][48] The median wait time to see a special physician is a little over four weeks with 86.4% waiting less then 3 months. [47][49] The median wait time for surgery is a little over four weeks with 82.2% waiting less than 3 months. [47] [50] In the U.S., patients on Medicaid, the low-income government programs, can wait three months or more to see specialists. Because Medicaid payments are low, some have claimed that some doctors do not want to see Medicaid patients. For example, in Benton Harbor, Michigan, specialists agreed to spend one afternoon every week or two at a Medicaid clinic, which meant that Medicaid patients had to make appointments not at the doctor's office, but at the clinic, where appointments had to be booked months in advance.[51]

In Canada, waiting is prioritized by patient according to relative urgency, with urgent patients receiving immediate access and the least urgent waiting longer. [52] Studies by the Commonwealth Fund found that 42% of Canadians waited 2 hours or more in the emergency room, vs. 29% in the U.S.; 57% waited 4 weeks or more to see a specialist, vs. 23% in the U.S., but Canadians had more chances of getting medical attention at nights, or on weekends and holidays than their American neighbors without the need to visit an ER (54% compared to 61%).[53] However, statistics from the free market think tank Fraser Institute in 2008 indicate that the average wait time between the time when a general practitioner refers a patient for care and the receipt of treatment was almost four and a half months in 2008, roughly double what it had been 15 years before.[54]

A 2003 survey of hospital administrators conducted in Canada, the U.S., and three other countries found dissatisfaction with both the U.S. and Canadian systems. For example, 21% of Canadian hospital administrators, but less than 1% of American administrators, said that it would take over three weeks to do a biopsy for possible breast cancer on a 50-year-old woman; 50% of Canadian administrators versus none of their American counterparts said that it would take over six months for a 65-year-old to undergo a routine hip replacement surgery. However, U.S. administrators were the most negative about their country's health care system. Hospital executives in all five countries expressed concerns about staffing shortages and emergency department waiting times and quality.[55][56]

In a letter to the Wall Street Journal, the President and CEO of University Health Network, Toronto, said that Michael Moore's film Sicko "exaggerated the performance of the Canadian health system — there is no doubt that too many patients still stay in our emergency departments waiting for admission to scarce hospital beds." However, "Canadians spend about 55% of what Americans spend on health care and have longer life expectancy, and lower infant mortality rates. Many Americans have access to quality health care. All Canadians have access to similar care at a considerably lower cost." There is "no question" that the lower cost has come at the cost of "restriction of supply with sub-optimal access to services," said Bell. A new approach is targeting waiting times, which are reported on public websites

>> ^quantumushroom:
If an American with a serious illness that requires expensive treatment knocks on Canada's door seeking asylum, do they let him in? Any Canadian sifters, let me know.


It depends on the province and the circumstance. There isn't a universal Canadian health care, it's run by the provinces and territories. The only thing the Federal gov't really does is keep pumping money into it. Every province has different rules. I know in Ontario, if it were desperate enough, they would. Eg. It needs to come out, or you've been in a car accident etc. If it's someone in the US who came to Canada to get treated, they would either charge them, or not admit them. It depends on the situation. The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto is famous for taking in families with kids in dire need, and charging OHIP for it, which no one seems to mind.

A lot of what Americans think about Canadian health care is inaccurate at best, and cherry picking at worst. I challenge anyone on the sift, from countries with public health care, to come out and ask: Would you trade your current public health care for the American one?

America is a great place, and their quality of health care may be amazing, for those that can afford it. There's a reason why America is listed 57th (last I checked) for global health.

Also, was that Howard Dean doing a broadcast on MSNBC? That's getting into Fox territory right there.

the free market system has proven so efficient at providing lean, unpadded, cheap healthcare to America's public

The theory is a single payer would implement price controls & decrease costs. That's not what happens in practice. Contracts which pay $400 for a toilet seat or $150 for a lugnut are not 'lean, unpadded, or cheap'. And yet that sort of malfeasence goes on all the time in centrally planned systems.

Without central government the result is always a feudal system with unelected, undemocratic localized dictator

You're having a different discussion with some other hypothetical person. I never said, 'abolish central government'. A central government is fine, but it does not mean that government needs to be in charge of the personal, private decisions of citizens. It certainly doesn't need 2 trillion dollars a year. Those are different concepts.

As if it is limiting someones freedoms by socializing medicine. Here in Canada, I can choose my own family doctor, choose which hospital I go to, etc.

You are talking about simple "What building do I go to?" freedom. I'm talking about the much more important issue of economic freedom. When government siphons wealth from citizens it means there is less money that could be donated to charities, start businesses, hire employees, educate, care for others, pay for commerce, contribute, save, or invest. The result is less capacity for individuals to live, pursue happiness, and be at liberty.

"But all the goverment helps those things so you don't have to!" Go to the projects and ask how free they feel. Ask the guy living off Social Security how free he is. Ask the guy who has to beg the government to approve his surgery if he is free. Being on the dole doesn't make you free. It makes you a slave. Are there people who need help? Sure. Permenant, expensive 'one-size' social programs are not a proper solution to the temporary needs of small percentages of individuals.

Centralized education, prevention, and screening is much more efficient than privatized health care treating late stage disease.

I don't mind government spending a few million a year on PSAs and flu shots. The government taking hundreds of billions every year to run health care is totally different. Peas and apples.

Just where are these "badly run government systems"?

Google "Canadian health care crisis" or "British health care crisis". There are thousands of articles discussing how problematic the public health care systems are. In fact, private health care in Canada and Britain are quite popular because the public systems are so lousy. When anyone has enough personal financial freedom (IE money) they opt out. There's that issue of financial freedom again... Hmmm...

Not everyone gets health care in public systems. People are denied care ALL the time. So it is a myth that a public system will care for more people. Public systems are not free. They require co-pays, taxes, and even insurance premiums. So it is a myth that public systems are cheaper.

So if public health care doesn't treat more people, isn't cheaper, and decreases freedom then why would anyone want to touch it with a 10 meter cattle prod? I think it's because large numbers of people are (A) ignorant of basic economics (B) ignorant of basic civics and (C) are easily manipulated by politicians and the press. IE Lots of ignorant, gullible voters.

Socialized medicine sucks.

The US Postmaster General is now weeping to Congress that the PO has "run out of money". The USPO is a government-monopoly that claims it can no longer deliver the mail 6 days a week and wants to cut back.

Are American liberals now demanding Post Office-quality bureaucracies run the 14% of the US economy health care represents? Do they want FEMA-quality bureaucrats deciding whether your heart operation is in the budget?

The following is from a 1992 article about Canadian health care. How much worse it is today?

"Canada has had socialized medicine for 20 years, and the same pattern of deteriorating facilities, overburdened doctors, and long hospital waiting lists is clear. A quarter of a million Canadians (out of a population of only 26 million) are now on waiting lists for surgery. The average waiting period for elective surgery is four years. Women wait up to five months for Pap smears and eight months for mammograms. Since 1987, the entire country spent less money on hospital improvements than the city of Washington, D.C., which has a population of only 618,000. As a result, sophisticated diagnostic equipment is scarce in Canada and growing scarcer. There are more MRIs (magnetic resonance imagers) in Washington State, which has a population of 4.6 million, than in all of Canada, which has a population of 26 million.

"In Canada, as in Britain under socialized medicine, patients are denied care, forced to cope with increasingly antiquated hospitals and equipment, and can die while waiting for treatment. Canada controls health care costs the same way Britain and Russia do: by denying modern treatment to the sick and letting the severely ill and old die.

"Despite standards far below those of the United States, when variables such as America’s higher crime and teenage pregnancy rates are factored out, and when concealed government overhead costs are factored in, Canada spends as high a percentage of its GNP on health care as the United States. Today a growing chorus of Canadians, including many former champions of socialized medicine, are calling for return to a market-based system."

People have to remember that the Canadian health care system has been intentionally starved of adequate funding since 1993. Pre-1993 wait-lists, for example, were unheard of. At some point, perhaps in the event of a Harper majority government, the public relations blitz campaign against public health will begin.

Note: Our current Prime Minister Stephen Harper recently was head of a corporate lobby group (rumoured to front for US HMOs) called the National Citizens Coalition. One of their central aims is to destroy public health in Canada and replace it with a for-profit medical system.

It sucks, but not quite as much as the others I've been exposed to. I amended my previous comment before.

Uhh, you probably know why I was commenting, and its not for the reasons you're implying in the below.

(EDIT: Also sorry for profile replying this, I didn't mean to break it out from the thread)

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
If someone was to point out how great Canadian health care was, we'd probably not hear a peep out of you. But let one descending perspective shine through and the gloves are off.

I'm just going off what I read. What can I say? Maybe you don't have enough of them? Who knows. But, this was a small black eye against socialized medicine. No offense to Canada. It's a beautiful country. I happen to love, LOVE Nova Scotia!

In reply to this comment by NicoleBee:
We have helicopters up here, too. Build them, in fact! We even have air ambulance companies here, too.


In reply to this comment by blankfist:
>> ^NicoleBee:
This seems less of a 'socialized medicine' problem and more of a 'rural medicine' problem, which you folks also have down south.

Yes, but she was at the Mont Tremblant Resort, which is a tourist attraction. http://www.tremblant.ca/index.htm

And, down south, we actually had ("had" because I no longer live there) great hospital care. We had helicopters that fly you to your hospital, and when my uncle was ill before I was even born they had a helicopter fly him from Florida to Duke University Hospital. And most hospitals have a trauma center inside of them. In fact, I've never been inside one that didn't. Just pointing that out.

If someone was to point out how great Canadian health care was, we'd probably not hear a peep out of you. But let one descending perspective shine through and the gloves are off.

I'm just going off what I read. What can I say? Maybe you don't have enough of them? Who knows. But, this was a small black eye against socialized medicine. No offense to Canada. It's a beautiful country. I happen to love, LOVE Nova Scotia!

In reply to this comment by NicoleBee:
We have helicopters up here, too. Build them, in fact! We even have air ambulance companies here, too.


In reply to this comment by blankfist:
>> ^NicoleBee:
This seems less of a 'socialized medicine' problem and more of a 'rural medicine' problem, which you folks also have down south.

Yes, but she was at the Mont Tremblant Resort, which is a tourist attraction. http://www.tremblant.ca/index.htm

And, down south, we actually had ("had" because I no longer live there) great hospital care. We had helicopters that fly you to your hospital, and when my uncle was ill before I was even born they had a helicopter fly him from Florida to Duke University Hospital. And most hospitals have a trauma center inside of them. In fact, I've never been inside one that didn't. Just pointing that out.

Re: Private health insurance. I've found a number of references claiming that some provinces do not allow private insurance at all, but none are what I would call extremely credible so I will take your word at face value on that one. Thanks for the link to the text of the Health Act, but I'm not interested in Canadian health care enough to go through that much lawyer-ese.

Re: The Romanow Report. It's somewhat dated, but interesting. The summary page is interesting in itself and suggests that funding be increased by $6.5 billion. Looking at Canadian-healthcare.org, I see that funding (according to that site) is currently at over $35 billion annually. So, taking those two numbers together and multiplying by 10 to get to the US population we get something on the order of $410 billion US for coverage equivalent to "fully funded" Canadian health care. Ouch. That's a pile of cash. And that's assuming Canadian health care prices, not US prices.

Re: Shooting the Hippo. Hmmm... Just glanced at a couple of reviews and the Wiki for Linda McQuaig, so it's not as if I read the book. But just from what I get from the reviews, I don't see how it applies to a balanced budget. A balanced budget, as far as I understand the term, is one in which out-go is limited to equal that of in-come. Raising the rates on bonds has absolutely no connection as far as I can see (although I'm sure clever politicians might see some advantage in it) to the balancing of the budget. As of right now, the US is something on the order of $9 TRILLION in debt. Looking at recent T-bill rates, they hover around 3.6%. That means that the US is currently paying something on the order of $350 billion a year in interest alone. Raising the rate even just 1% would make that problem worse (call it $400 billion), not better. That seems to have absolutely nothing to do with arguing a balanced budget. In the end, it works out to something like this: If the US was not a debtor nation, it would have about $350 billion more to spend on other things than servicing debt. Seems pretty straight-forward to me.