Actually, I found considerable value in the article. For whatever the anecdote is worth, at one given time in Canada there were no neonatal units available that could accomodate this woman's needs. If it had only been one Canadian hospital in this predicament I would have cast the story off as a meaningless anecdote as we are all familiar with horror stories regardless of the system. Assuming the story is accurate we are talking about an entire system that was overloaded and therein lies the difference.

UJ - If Carlito had posted a story reporting that all of Canada's ERs had been shut down and a woman died as a result would you cast if off as anecdotal and the product of "intellectual laziness" to suggest there were a problem? You know, not all anecdotes are created equal.

UltimateJoe, I'll admit that throwing in an anecdote without answering the debate questions was lazy, but geez. As noted, a rural hospital in a Montana town of 50,000 succeeded where the entire Canadian health care system failed. Other than some prescription drugs, you'd be hard-pressed to find such a systemic failure south of your borders.

In the long-run, say twenty years from now, what healthcare system would you like to see in the United States:
Capitalism. A market in which free men paid money to doctors for medical services, and insurance was available in event of medical emergencies and long-term care needs. Reduce the size of the FDA until you can 'drown it in a bathtub.' Eliminate all restrictions on cross-border trade of medicine and care.

I can think of no good reason for medical care and medical insurance to be tied to employment, other than artificial reasons created by tax law. De-couple employment from health care, and introduce a truly free market. We will no longer have to argue about whether HMOs or government are better bureaucracies, because there won't be the need for one. Anyone who has visited eBay knows that consumers will drive down costs better than some big agency or company.

Why in the world do we use "insurance" to pay for the following normal, predictable, planned expenses?

• Medical checkups
• Prenatal care
• Child birth
• Bi-annual dental cleanings and exams
• Contact lenses and eyeglasses

What other purchase in our lives happens on a normal, predictable schedule, with costs known in advance, yet we "insure" ourselves for them? I can't think of any offhand. Using medical insurance to pay for routine medical expenses brings inefficiencies and extra costs, and for no good reason at all. The fact that it's creeping into vision and dental only shows how mission-creep works when you partially socialize anything.

As for more unpredictable expenses, we should buy insurance. It works OK for floods, fire and car accidents, why in the world wouldn't it work for medical expenses? Just like hurricanes or disasters, you could have big underwriters like Berkshire Hathaway underwrite the 'super-insurance' for epidemics and things, "insuring the insurers." If something was truly epidemic, the government could step in and subsidize or provide relief.

So, my short answer is to have private insurance for emergencies and unpredictable expenses only, a free market for health care and drugs, and government-subsidized insurance purchased for the truly indigent. Eliminate the FDA and the VA, and have for-profit healthcare for everyone. It's the only way to deliver the best care at the lowest cost.

I'm with you all the way with one exception; Immunizations need to fall under the government-subsidized. Better to prevent the epidemic than fight it once it starts.

Paying for all of the school and the lawsuits would still be a cost driving factor that would leave us short of medical 'professionals' willing to cost effectively handle everyday needs like checkups IMO though. For example, (this is very anectodal but it is a story that I have heard from lab workers more than once) if you are showing certain systems that 99.9% of the time can be explained by one of three things, it makes sense for the doctor to first check for those three items only. Doctors don't do this though. They test for all 50 things that have ever resulted in those systems because the cost of getting sued by that 0.1% is very high and the insurance company is footing the bill so why not increase your revenue? Of course, this in turn increases our insurance costs, but at the time we never see it.

I would like to see a system of levels for doctors that determines their rate of accountability. For example a level 1 doctor has to go through all of the training done today and could be sued under the same standards. A level 3 could be anyone with a high school diploma like aevans suggestion of allowing alternative medicine. In such a system you would have plenty of "untrained" people who could specialize in areas that the community needs in a very low cost manner. As long as the levels are clearly marked outside the door, the consumer can choose what they want to pay for. No more splinters being removed in the emergency room.

Every government financed and operated health care plans are facing bankruptcy.

When everything fails give Capitalism and Free enterprise a chance.

My friend, when you make a statement like this -

Every government financed and operated health care plans are facing bankruptcy.

you should expect to get a question like this -

Really? Which nations and plans? What is your source? How many years do they have before bankruptcy?

Etc.

Sources and links are welcome. As are paragraphs and specific arguments.

US MEDICARE

France:

Businessweek:

"Despite this, rising costs and an aging population make it a struggle for France to finance its system. On May 29, the government warned that health-care inflation this year is running ahead of projections, threatening to deepen an already worrisome $5.2 billion deficit.

Britain:

the National Health Service presents a much grimmer picture. "

I agree and what do “governments” do when they are over budget – they cut back on services, on what is covered and how service is rendered.

The delays in Canada are imo a result of this issue.

I got these in my inbox, both are commenting on the healthcare funding that president Bush cut despite congress and the country being in favor of its continuance: http://gloob.tv/life/kids_dont_know_bush_h...em?article=1976 and http://gloob.tv/tv/daily_show_bush_s_evil_veto?article=1976. At least the latter gives me some laughter on the subject. I can't believe he took such an unpopular stand. Any other news on this?

*sighs* Why not have the government provide health care for every citizen and we keep private providers? Rather than employee and employer plans doing it all, have the government cover it and have the private doctors and hospitals bill the gov.

I'm a state employee and belive me, no private company provides a better health plan for any employee compared to me. I have a $15.00 co-pay and a $500.00 deductible. The birth of my third child was covered 100%. My wife's bills have yet to arrive, but I'm pretty certain the cost will be minimal for us. Private coverage is absolutely laughable. 401Ks are subject to the whims of inflation and emergencies. Most wouldn't make it past cancer treatment or a lengthy rehabilitation from say,a spinal or CNS injury stay. Private companies can't afford to provide generous plans, only the governmetn can. Give them a 15% profit rate above cost and have the government pay out.

Because this is exactly the system that works the worst and has the most fraud now- Medicare. A total disaster. Giving all “providers” the right to just bill the government is a formula for double digit rise in costs until the “government” then does what all governments do and cuts the things covered or the fees and creates the mess that have in Canada or UK.

No thanks.

Certainly you as a state employee get good coverage paid for by the state taxpayer. No doubt you legislature gave you what they voted for or wanted for themselves. Try covering everyone in the state with it and come back and tell me where they found the money.

Whatever the perceived problems of the Canadian and European health care plans, I think it's important to remember that these programs are all in their historical infancy, and that solid conclusions as to their inefficiency are premature. Possibly, all that's needed is some tinkering to make them both economically efficient and responsive. I'm not ready to write off Canada's system after, what, about 40 years? That's a work in progress, not a finished product.

Providing health care for your population (one way or another) is unquestionalbly the right thing for any able country to do, and that MUST include the poor. That alone eliminates the 100% free market solution. But giving Americans unlimited free health care would certainly lead to abuse and waste. I'd like to see the government pick up most of the tab, paired with a minimum required copay requirement for the insured. $25 or $50 minimum to see a doctor. Give the poorest enough copay credit for a few visits a year. Let the rich buy whatever services they please. Allow doctors to set their own prices within their particular market.

Notice that private insurance has no place in my plan. Some things simply were not meant to work together, like any for-profit entity that has to weigh their profit against your welfare.

Well if “private insurance” has no place in your plan then imo it is a disaster. I, for one, will not wait 40 years for a plan to work. Canada and UK started off great and have since gone in the tank and will continue to be a disaster.

The issue is “management” and for profit competitive businesses just do it better. Check out your local RMV and see. Or look at socialism in any country in the world. The Soviet Union tried to run “socialized” industries for 80 years and it was always a disaster.

To believe a building full of bureaucrats in DC can run a healthcare system is ludicrous. Fraud and bad management would sink it in no time.


What we need is public money to the poor and needy to buy insurance competitively. Given good competition the prices will stay reasonable and the quality high.

We are living the free market "solution" right now, and it's not working out so well for about 47 million uninsured Americans. I would also challenge your characterization of prices as "reasonable," whether you meant medical care or health insurance. Try paying for either one out of pocket if you are lower middle class or below. Quality of medical care, I admit, is very high - and that's good news for those people with insurance, and not such a plus for those without.

The cost of private health insurance is already rising WAY faster than the rate of inflation. (see below) Simply giving the poor money to buy private insurance would only exacerbate that problem - prices would surely spike from the huge influx of tax dollars being dumped into the laps of insurance companies. (In fact, I'd be surprised if insurance lobbyists aren't already pushing that idea.) The effect would probably be to make insurance less affordable for everyone else.

At the heart of it, I just don't trust insurance companies to look out for my welfare. They are there to make money. Take the above example of pre-existing conditions - it took LEGISLATION to solve that problem, not the free market. AIDS treatment? Fertility treatment? Experimental procedures? Insurance companies are against all of that (and a lot more), because to them, it cuts into profits. But the country has a real interest in all of them, and the government might well decide that it's worth the extra cost. Given free reign to insure as they see fit, insurance companies will maximize profits by cutting back on care, unless you can pay the difference - and once again, you will be stuck with a rich-have, poor-have-not system like we have today.

_______________________________________


>>NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Health insurance premiums this year rose 7.7 percent, the lowest growth rate in six years but still more than double the growth rate in inflation and worker earnings, according to the latest survey from Kaiser Family Foundation.

Indeed, that outsized growth has been the case in at least 12 of the past 18 years. Since 2000, premiums have risen 87 percent while wages have only gone up 20 percent and inflation has increased 18 percent.<<


On the privatization of Medicare Pard D (prescription drug) coverage: from WebMD
>>Administrative Costs
The report concludes that administrative costs run nearly six times higher in private insurance companies than in Medicare's traditional fee-for-service programs. According to the report, $4.6 billion went to into administrative costs and other company expenses in fiscal year 2007. Nearly $1 billion of that amount was steered toward insurance company profits, the report concludes.

The report also criticizes insurers for gaining smaller cash rebates from drug companies than the Medicaid health program for the poor typically receives.<<


From epinet.org (Economic Policy Institute), on Medicare's administrative overhead:
>>Medicare is a widely popular program, but its pioneering
role in restraining health care costs is one of its many unheralded
successes. Over the past 30 years, growth in spending
per beneficiary has been slower in Medicare than in the
private sector, and Medicare’s overhead costs are tiny compared
to those of private insurers. However, with demographic
changes (like longer life spans and the aging of the
baby boomers) and the high cost of health care in the U.S.
overall, Medicare spending, like all health care spending, will
rise substantially in the future.<<

This has absolutely nothing to do with what I have said. The “government” can solve this by giving the uninsured credits or money to buy insurance on the competitive market.




We need more competition to reduce prices further. And a bigger market. Covering all Americans would do that.




Well maybe not. It could bring in more providers and better competition. IMO the Medicare disaster is a big part of the problem.




The govermnment makes the rules but in my staste my dad had Medicare ()10 years ago) with no drug coverage and he GOT drug coverage by switching to an HMO.

Do you drive a car made by any “government”? Would you? Insurance companies pay the “providers” and we need them to keep them honest – before this oversight the increase in cost was even higher and unnecessary surgery and other procedures was out of control. The proof is in the pudding – the results are better.



This is the usual crap. The “administrative costs” are lower because they shift the “administration” to the doctors and providers and all the stupid bureaucrats do is enter data from the millions of forms they demand – and this stupidity is one major reason for the fraud.

http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resource...Publication.pdf

http://healthcare-economist.com/2006/07/27...strative-costs/

Thats sounds like socialism to me Ted. You want the government to give money to the ones needing it? Gosh, i would never have thought that of you Ted.



Thats the point Ted. The american market can not compete with the rest of the world. Whatever it be medicare of car production, China and India can do it better and cheaper, sorry, but thats Capitalism. But i guess if your on the other side of the scale its "unfair", right?

What would you think about a Main PUBLIC healthcare, and then the possibility to choose Privae Healthcare if you want to (some ort of voucher system). What would you say about that Ted?



Good for him. But what does that have to do with anything?



Are you saying COMPANIES are HONEST?????



Wow, you got some true insight into this Ted. You really know how to formulate your given knowledge to us as well, vey impressive indeed.

Well, we know where you stand on Medicare, anyway. But it is really such a disaster? Keep in mind that Medicare covers the old, the disabled, and the very sickest - not the kind of customers that private insurers are looking for. And that is why Medicare exists - because private insurance will not do the dirty work. Once you become unprofitable, they don't want your business. I can't even imagine what those premiums would look like.

You can always make a decent argument that private anything is (or should be) more efficient than the government equivalent, but until you really see how those unprofitable groups are going to be treated, you won't know for sure. So here is why I want the government to be my insurer: when I'm 80 years old, and I'm probably not making much money, and I'm breaking down physically, I don't want some cubicled actuary looking at my file, looking for ways to somehow make more profit. I don't want to be put onto a list of unprofitable customers, tiered into a bad situation, with insurance industry lobbyists constantly leaning on Congress to let them cut my benefits. I want to be seen as a citizen with a vote that counts as much as the next guy's vote, with AARP giving me a bit of a voice in the matter of my own health care.

Also, I don't see the insurance industry helping to keep down medical costs any better than Medicare does, as you seem to. To me, they are a third wheel in the doctor-patient equation, meddling in the question of what (or whether) treatment is appropriate. My original post mentioned some fairly substantial (and mandatory) minimum copayments, which would serve to keep patients from overusing the system, and allow doctors to adjust the cost of their services based on market forces, with the government picking up most of the tab based on a set schedule. (Ex. you get a sore throat and want to see a doctor. The govt pays $50/office visit, your copay is $20 minimum: doctors can charge $70 to $whatever, as they see fit.) Just some example of a tweak that could serve to make universal coverage more efficient - isn't that why most insurance plans require some sort of copay? In the name of efficiency? There is no reason that government-provided universal health care can't run efficiently, satisfying both patients and doctors. It might take some new ideas, but there are no shortage of good ideas out there.



And, no, I wouldn't want to drive a car made by a government. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to drive a car that our government had no hand in regulating, either, because it would probably be a leaded-gas-eating monster with no seat belts, spewing out carbon monoxide. Business needs regulation. We've all seen the direction that business takes when the government drops the reins. And that goes for insurance companies, too.

Gosh we do it every day James – probably more than or as much as your country. And we give money and military support to half the damn world as well.

Not that its appreciated everywhere mind you.



Cannot compete? You are really clues on economics and capitalism.


Would be fine with me since I would have an alternative and the “Main PUBLIC” would not have a chance in hell – all things being equal of course James.

?

Because YOU said that the government gave better coverage than private HMOs and you are wrong – that’s what.



Are you saying governments are HONEST????




Obviously you did not read the data on the links James. Try - then comment on them.




I mean a financial disaster. Fraud is rampant because the people who run it are not close enough to the providers. I support the coverage – not the method of administering it.



Medicare allows the providers (and doctors) to “over prescribe” over operate and generally to increase profits – often at the expense of the patient. The “old” system, before HMOs and insurance companies that watched was fraught with unnecessary surgery ample – which cost many their lives. After HMO most of it stopped and the health results are better (fewer deaths).

In twenty years I would like to see healthcare to works. The reality of already supporting emergency room medicine is a dismal failure trapped between radio stations really. I would like to see a streamlined program that is in any possible facet such as technology made as efficient as possible. I am a firm believer of preventative medicine. As medical science has evolved early detection and treatment is and continues to advance. I think the system needs to be responsible to Americans though, such as fines and civic duty for utilizing such a system along with known health killers. If you need to rely on something that is not paid by you, the contract should be modeled around as no free ride as possible, this I think is a key in fiscal and responsible use of tax funds, minimal footprint while obtaining solid healthy goals. This of course requires teamwork, and well, sometimes America is sourly poor in such a resource.

The reality though is healthcare is crushingly expensive, even if you only have to utilize insurance a few times in your life depending on circumstances that’s all it takes for a bankruptcy to occur. To many the idea of such money to go to preventive healthcare is simply not something that will occur as often as it should, from dental to anything. If in reality this is occurring economically to a large extent, and is regular in occurrence as in non dissipating then I don’t see how our government could turn a blind eye to such really.

Integration of proper respect for ones health should also occur in education all through public education. If big mac consumption drastically spiked in our nation healthcare costs would probably also spike up I would think private sector wise.

As for direct government influence, I think an overall program should exist. I think though that such a program should offer many possible programs and options. Such as if a company wants to provide healthcare, to what healthcare an insurance company will make available. I like the idea of government based tactics which help economy and people at the same time. I think this should be a prime use of tax money, more so directly as consequence of large scale social issues, such as healthcare or global climate change, green technology finding its way more and more into the market and so on.

Lets not shoot ourself in the foot her Ted.

United States is one of the lowest aid givers in the western world (link), and it seems that does 'evil' socialist countries are the most generous givers in the world. What irony, eh Ted?






So explain to all of us how the U.S can compete then, as this is an issue on our contemporary rich world. Explain to us, please.



Of course, im curious, what would be subsumed in this 'equal' fight for profit? Or maybe you forgot, the government is not for profit, but for serving the society, whiles private enterprise is for profit.



Which government Ted? I said could, and you seem to have decided thats its 'impossible', for some reason.



Answering a question with a Question. Indeed.

Well Ted, the 'government' is the people of the country, the more honest the people of the country are, the more honest the government are. As you should know, the Scandinavian countries have one of the lowest 'corrupt' points in the world, whiles its citizens enjoy a long healthy well educated life. Are you seeing a pattern?



I apologize, i shall later on.

Having read most of the democratic candidate's and their respective health plans, prevention is a big component. In that regard, it appears that the canddiates "get it" and that there should be some rewards if a person does do that, though some would argue having steady and consistent check-ups is "socialist" and "nanny-government" intervention. I recently had to have some immunization shots updated and retaken again as I'm studying to be a volunteer EMT. Insurance covered it 100%, I was quite shocked. If more insurance companies favored preventive efforts, perhaps folks would do a better job of getting in and taking care of problems, as opposed to just toughing it out and skipping the doctor entirely.

The problem with the "no free ride if possible" item is that health problems often times are not indicative of a person's work ethic or desire to take care of themselves. If your wife or children have to have expensive cancer treatment, the cost will outstrip any effort you have made to responsibly pay into the system. You can't call for a bean for bean counting system, many people get socked for doing nothing more than playing by the rules and then they are hit with a debilitating disease which ruins their bank account. And don't think for one minute that a tax-free 401(k) type account would even come near to touching a treatment for a debilitating disease whose cost is three or four times a person's salary.



I concur entirely.


I wouldn't mind public payment for private insurance, we could run with that. Those companies that "dump" people with pre-existing conditions and what not, should be frozen out of the system. Without government programs, private insurance companies will cherry-pick patients and coverage rates drop like this study documents.

Discontent is out there, check out some interesting readings.

Bluecross sucks.com

Only if you don’t count the contributions of American citizens like Bill Gates who gives 10s of billions. And only if you value our military (and its protection) at 0.






Compete in what sir? Food? No one can beat us. Cars? We make millions sold all over the world. Electronics? What are you talking about. US workers are the most productive in the world.
GENEVA (AP) -- American workers stay longer in the office, at the factory or on the farm than their counterparts in Europe and most other rich nations, and they produce more per person over the year.
They also get more done per hour than everyone but the Norwegians, according to a U.N. report released Monday, which said the United States "leads the world in labor productivity."

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070902/un_labor_pr...ivity.html?.v=6




Forget profit. I am talking services rendered for a price. Government has no chance – just as the stupid postal service here cannot touch FedX and UPS. Their “costs” will sink them.

What will FedEx and UPS do for 41 cents?

This is illustrative of the biggest hole in your free market solution - you tout the efficiency of private enterprise over government, but you fail to consider that insurance companies cherry pick the best, most profitable customers (i.e. those least in need of insurance), and leave the rest out in the cold. Like FedEx and UPS, who are only cost efficient while delivering certain size packages in certain time frames, private insurance companies decide which segment of society they would like to service, and price accordingly. The government, like the US Mail, makes no such distinction - they are there for the welfare of their citizens, not the welfare of their stockholders.

The benefits of universal coverage go beyond the price tag. You may see Medicare as wasteful (without doubt, it could be improved), but I see it as the country taking care of its people. The government initiated the program, because the free market did not (and never will).

Just to add some further weight to past arguments:

And just to add some perspective from the health editor for U.S. News & World Report:


The rest of the column is interesting as well.

Well since they are not allowed to carry first class mail we will never know. But my bet is they would do it for 30 cents or less and the damn post office would be open more. In my town the idiots open at 8:30 and close at 4:30 – and i/2 day Sat. Needless top say FEDX and UPS have far different hours.

And at the registry I would not sit there for 1 ½ hours only to find out the computer is down.




Not so- it’s the state regulators that set the rules. In my state they cannot refuse you and your insurance is portable including existing condition. As for the post office see above. And see my other posts for competition data.

Even when the government “regulates” an industry it is inefficient – as in the airline industry.


I have no problem with universal coverage and would like to see a plan like the one Romney started here in MA. All I will not put up with is government “single-payer” witch imo would be a disaster.

Nebraska, why is it so expensive though? If it's crushingly expensive, which I agree that it is, won't our $7 trillion debt just skyrocket without fixing that in a government run system? The fact is that the current system gives the wrong incentives to doctors, patients, lawyers, government, businesses, and insurance alike. I think that the expensiveness comes from a lot of different things and I'd like to hear more if you have them:
1) why do we let regulated perscription drugs get advertised on television? We end up paying for that, but we don't care because insurance pays for it (or the government). We don't let many regulated "over-the-counter" drugs like tobacco advertise, and when they banned them from TV in 1970 all of the tabacco companies' profits went up because they didn't have to pay for the advertising.
2) Regulation. This is the big one. Government requirements on who can and the standards for practicing medicine drive costs up. There needs to be an accountability/expertise level posted prominently on the office door and that is it IMO. We all end up paying for malpractice suits and right now we don't have a choice in the matter.
This example gives you an idea of how far the problem of malpractice has gone. Who'd you still go to your same doctor for a checkup even if you flat out couldn't sue him/her no matter what they did? I would. You might not because you aren't seeing all of the money that you are currently paying.

The problem with the health care system is simply the costs. I agree with the increase in the cigarette tax that the Democrats have been proposing. If it weren't for the free ride that came with it, it would actually do a lot to help America's overall health. It's all about incentives because incentives drive the costs. I believe that a government system would encourage us all to seek the absolute gold standard for health care every single time, no matter if we have a life-threatening disease or just need a tetanus shot. I don't see how it attacks the underlying problem of costs.

Well, I had my first run in with waiting in line for a DR-

I have been telling my co-workers (venting and joking with them) that the next person that says "In canada you may have to wait months for a Dr" - I am going to punch them right in the mouth and stomp all 260lbs of me on thier foot, and then send them to a podiatrist. Why the vent and rant? I hurt my foot at work when a patient was being assaultive last week, not quite sure what I have done to it- can't even find out.

You see, I can't get an appointment with a podiatrist until late January.

However, the workerman's comp person said that I could pay out of pocket, run over to the Yukon Territory and I can get a doc next week. the Yukon territory has less than 20% of the population of just Anchorage alone IIRC, and they have better access to Drs than we do.

Man that tee-s me off!

Sounds like a local problem that you have somehow extrapolated to cover an entire medical system……………….?


The data on delays in the Canadian system are numerous and far worse than waiting a month or 2. They have people who wait many months or years and some who DIE waiting. Now let us know when you feel you are slipping away so we can get you immediate care CR!

You know, I guess it is the usual we expect from you- take a lie from Rush, regurgitate it and believe it. You say Canadians are dying by the droves, waiting for important care? Well, there are about 43 million Americans in this country that have no care whatsoever, and will die simply because there is no health care for them at all- or financial ruin or both.

Vermillion proved over and over again that everything you type is a straight up lie when it comes to the Canadian health care system- Americans wait longer, spend more money, die earlier, have higher infant mortality rates, more expensive meds, crappier system in ANY measurable way- yet, you still continue to regurgitate the same old crap.

Ya, nearly 20 poeple out of 18000 had traveled to the US for health care- I bet Rush forgot to mention that didn't they Ted?

http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/29232

The bottom line is our health care is twice as expensive, fails to cover 46 million people, has questionable quality, kills around 100,000 people a year from error, and for all this we have worse health indicators (i.e. lower life expectancy, higher infant mortality, etc). Other countries do it better, and they do it with the help of government to pay for health costs.



But keep posting Ted- it reminds me to make sure my kids keep up thier education and don't accidently become another conservative that doesn't know how to read or find out facts for themselves, prefering to listen to soliliqies from lying demogogues, and then regurgitating them like they are true or something

You know CR I get tired of your empty rhetoric – POST something to back up this empty claim above as I have done on the failings of the Canadian system – then we can talk.

And V what? I posted right out of Canada. So deam on.

“But don't take my word for it: Even the Toronto Star agrees that Moore's endorsement of Canadian health care is overwrought and factually challenged. And the Star is considered a left-wing newspaper, even by Canadian standards.”
http://wizbangblog.com/content/2007/07/30/...ystem-moore.php

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0828/p01s04-wogi.html


“How dangerous? A cardiologist at the University of Ottawa reported on how delays affected Ontario heart patients. In a single year, 71 Ontario heart patients died before they were able to have surgery and 121 were removed from the surgery list permanently because they had become too ill to operate on. So for 192 people, the wait either led to their death or they became too sick to have surgery before they could work their way to the front of the line. Another 44 who could afford to bear the cost on their own left the province to have surgery – most in the U.S.”http://abducens.townhall.com/g/7af4aeda-941f-46a0-b5d6-70c566dd23c8

Now CR do some work to back up your babbeling and POST something that shows lots of, for example, heart patients DIE in the US waiting for care.


Canadians Agree That A Patient Wait Time Guarantee Is The Most Important Priority For Canada’s New Government

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=3287

Fact- 43 million Americans have NO HEALTHCARE AT ALL- thier only care is hope they don't get sick- if they do, they die- that simple

Fact- Canada has an estimated 33 million poeple in thier country/

That means we have 10 million more desperate poeple with no health care at all than they have in thier whole darn country/

that alone should speak volumes about how badly we suck at health care. We have more poeple suffering in our health care system than they have in thier whole country- any other comparison fails right there. Thier entire country is covered, we have a population of suffering working poor greater than thier whole population.

But of course, you overlook that every time. We have over 100k dead per year from medical mistakes.

Lets go over some facts:

America pays the most, gets the least for it's dollars than any developed country in the world. We have the most poeple in the developed world with no healthcare whatsoever. We have the least healthy population of all developed nations in the world.

Those facts are undisputable, they have been shown to you, oh, 20-40 times throughout your time on this board- yet, you insist that we are okay, or the best, or whatever. I would trade our system for Canada's in a heartbeat, and I have worked in the medical field for my entire adult life. We suck, and should acknowledge it so we can fix it- it is badly broken, and the continued denial of this doesnt' do anyone any good. Not even Ted.

I don't think any facts, no matter how open and shut, will ever convince you Ted, in fact, I believe that is a running joke on this board over a great deal many subjects you have posted on.

I guess you just don't get tired of being wrong all the time/

You kind of remind me of smokers that always say "well, there is no proof that cigaretttes harm anyone" and the way they believed the testimoney of those ciggarette manufacturers back in the day.

Kinda makes me wonder what you do for a living Ted, and your inability to see something that is staring you back, right in the face, and how you can even function in society.

FACT the 43 million without healthcare have instant access to emergency care including surgery. This is more than some sick Canadians get as I have documented.

I am, for the record, in favor of universal coverage – just not the “government run” type that Canada has – and I am sure you endorse.

Apparentely- you haven't been to a county hospital in a big city- that still = dead or no help at all. Even still, "emergency" health care you are talking about either = total financial ruin or some stop gap method. If they have cancer- there is no help at all. If they need surgery after a broken arm- there is no help at all. Emergency help is simply to stabilize- it does NOT equal actual care or fixing what is wrong- it is just to save your life for a few days- and maybe just that time and that is all. We are not talking about welfare moms here- but the working poor that can't afford health care.

Regardless, I am more for universal health coverage as well- but we are still the worst of all developed nations in the world, that much is indisputable. We still get the least for the most money, that much is without debate. We still have longer wait times for basic care- EVEN if you ARE covered, though sometimes that does depend on region.

I do think Universal coverage might fix that, or go a very long way towards fixing it, heck, it may make us pass Sri Lanka or something even.

We have a poor system partially because the government is involved = Medicare. Fraught with fraud and abuse this beast hurts the system badly.

That said in most areas of the US if you’re covered and sick you see a doctor. I was at Children’s Hospital last week with my 12 year old and the care was excellent.

What I will never sign up for is a Canadian type system. Just give me a way to stay the hell out of it and YOU can enjoy the “service” – (that you will not get)

And if you don't have insurance, how long is your wait for an MRI in the US? I'm inclined to believe the wait would be until you could afford the few thousand dollars to have it performed.



Having worked for a couple of years in Canada (and made use of the healthcare system), I didn't notice a substantial difference in the amount I paid for taxes there versus here. A person who makes about $35,000 in Ontario pays about 21% income tax (that is Federal and Provincial combined). There is also a health premium of $300/year at that income level. And, if they have a medical problem, it is taken care of... they are not turned away.

So, I don't know where you are getting this much higher tax structure information from.



Support this claim.



And what choice do those without health insurance have? What choice do those who are denied health insurance because of "pre-existing conditions" have?

The biggest problem with the healthcare industry in the United States is the mindset: Make a profit.

In general, I have no problem with that mindset, however when it comes to health, "make a profit" means prevent people from being covered by health insurance.

And now they want to force people to pay for health insurance. And what if you have one of these "pre-existing conditions" that may have prevented an insurer form covering you before? What do you have to pay more because you're more of a risk now... and you are going to be forced to pay that premium? That's choice?


A friend in Canada had a baby almost two years ago - voluntary C-section. $25.00



I wouldn't say it was perfect, but in a province with over 12,000,000 people and an average of about 245 heart related deaths per 100,000 people, those deaths account for only 0.6% of heart related deaths.

How many uninsured people in the United States die without seeing a doctor? 1 out of every 10 cancer patients is uninsured. 1 out of every 5 cancer patients with insurance is impoverished by fighting it. 50% of all bankruptcy filings were due in part to medical expenses. So, yes, people complain about the wait times and the fact that some people may die waiting. But nothing is perfect and I certainly would take it over our system in a heartbeat.

We are less regulated than the health care systems of other nations, which have more regulation. And that is why we are more expensive than them?


As for cost, private insurance is more expensive.



Our private system is broken and cannot cover everyone. It isn't because of privatization that t36 other nations score ahead of us when it comes to healthcare.

I dread the thought of universal health care because historically such programs -even if started as voluntary-quickly become mandatory. -Like Medicare.

Once health care is universal it will be too tempting to increase mandating preventative healthcare measures in the name of cost effectiveness.

I agree that the current system is out of control. The reasons for run away costs are very complex. Some have been mentioned; however, I think the root issue is a sickness vs wellness mentality. I have heard that in a part of ancient China, the local medicine man was paid a monthly sum by each family. However, if someone in the family became ill that family ceased paying until the person was well again. I've never been able to substantiate the story, but I love the concept.

Our current medical system is too often controlled by power hungry individuals in love with expensive, new unproven technologies. The expensive medical toys and unnecessary screenings and tests drive up health care costs. Check out the Nebraska health and human services committee. They are fascinated with unproven expensive screenings like newborn hearing screening which has no scientific research to back it up and costs a fortune to conduct.

I do not want the gov't involved in health care because I do not want anyone forcing me or my children to be screened. I want the right to choose to use herbs to treat my family and not be coerced into a course of treatment that I find objectionable. I am against universal health care because I value my freedom too highly.

I have refuted this line of crap numerous times. The “administrative costs” appear to be lower for Medicare because the government shifts the duties to the doctors and hospitals who have thousands of people filling out the forms.

And one reason private insurance is rising faster than Medicare costs in some cases is they cover more. Notice all the adds for “MediGAP” insurance – to cover the things Medicare leaves out? Want to bet hat your quote above totally ignores all these costs – and of course the GAP coverage is private coverage.