Money shot's really at 3:38, although 5:35 is very interesting too.

Quite possibly a muzzle, a la Hannibal Lector, would be indicated too.

Or maybe just a good remixer.

we only deserve a health care system that's second best if we allow a public option or single payer system to pass. if we want to follow the mistakes of the rest of the world, then we deserve what we'd get.

Leaders of every other country come here?

The truth is that in every place there is a clinic which is best in its special field. Rich people come here all over the world to receive virus therapy for their difficult cancer from a private clinic.

In EUrope there are different health care systems, but emergency rooms are open for everyone. The home country of the non-EU patient is billed later, if there is a mutual agreement.

Here the law defines that the municipality has to provide (buy or produce) basic treatment in clinics. The state hospitals provide special care like surgery, intensive care etc.

No common 24/7 cancer treatments are available from private sector.

Queue to see a doctor is designed to be 2 hours in emergency rooms. It seems to be often 3 hours and at worst 11 hours. No private 24/7 emergency rooms are available.

Universities and bigger employers must provide (buy or produce) their own daytime health care too.

Does it work? A student with broken knee was ordered to travel his home town to receive the municipal health care because he was resident there. There is sometimes some hairsplitting what is an emergency and what is not.

When a non-resident of a countryside municipality needs a regular, for example weekly, care and there is no private alternative either, it is troublesome. Many people have two houses, which causes that non-resident problem.

_{--Sell Texas to China!}

If u can wait 11 hrs to be seen- it isnt an emergency

Broken bone- with no vascular complications is not life threatening (as long as theres no shock symptoms)

Emergency rooms are abused-- folks with non severe ailments will wait until they are off work etc and go be seen in an ER- many ailments could be self treated with over the counter meds- Americans especially think if they have pain- feel lil queasy- its an emergency--

but they're abused because most folks with health insurance don't have a co-pay for emergency visits. Spend a shit-load on insurance and then have a large co-pay, or even a pre-pay situation because your provider no longer has your family doctor on the list. Then, wait a god-awful amount of time to be reimbursed for what little is covered. Looks like the insurance companies have created the ER abuse to me.

Distrust anyone who wants to teach you something.

is why i self treat - if I cant handle it just call the coroner

... an appendicitis. Easy to fix but if you want to self-medicate this you should invest in a very sharp kitchen knife.

I really hope you meant your comment as a joke.

have numerous scalpel handles and a good assortment of blades - and no not totally

...because your provider no longer has your family doctor on the list.

Do US insurance companies determine which doctors you can visit? Hmmm. I did not know that. How does that work in practice. Do they provide a list of "acceptable" physicians to insurees? How does a doctor get on an insurer's list?

at least my insurer works that way. There is a list of doctors that are "in the system". If your family doctor is not, then you have a higher co-pay (way higher), and, depending on the doctor, they may not even file the paperwork on your behalf. If that's the case, then you get to pay, then file your own paperwork, and wait for a reimbursement check. The fun part comes when you open the envelope and find pennies on the dollar.
For example,(true story),I had some jaw surgery. (The doctor was even in the system.) Left the office paying co-pay of appx. $140.00. Had surgery a week later, then when the statement came, insurance denied the anesthesia...paid the surgery, but I owed another $400 because the anesthesia was not a necessary part of the procedure. WTF?

Distrust anyone who wants to teach you something.

I'm just a bit dumbfounded by it, though. They opined that anesthesia was not a necessary part of your surgery? Yikes! In the alternative, maybe you should have put in for a bottle of whiskey?

I'm finally understanding why there is resonance in the US to the false assertion that governments in countries that have universal health care decide what doctors you may visit .

Frankly, I've never encountered such a limitation on care in either the basic health system or in the extended health private insurance add-on.

I wonder what is required for a US doctor to position him/herself on an insurer's list and stay there. Do they pay for this privilege?

Interesting.

My jaw surgery was a tooth extraction, which wasn't covered by my dental coverage. Came to $ 800.00, half of which was for the general anaesthesia.

Doctors get onto the list of approved providers by agreeing to the prices set by the insurance companies. (Yes, there's a list of approved providers). We've changed health plans several times, and always my doctor was on the approved list. But I'm from near Boston, where things are probably better than average.

Raja, are you saying that a visit to the same doctor could cost 2 patients different amounts, depending on what insurance they carry?

Co-pays could be different, as well as reimbursement rates for tests, etc.

There are other differences in coverage, too. One plan could provide for an annual physical every year, and another could cover one every two years, for example.

a cap on the total paid per year. My wife just had a tooth problem. I was unaware that our dental plan has a $1500 yearly maximum. This also includes preventative care, i.e. cleanings, etc. The extent of her problems will cost us another $1300. Ouch!

Distrust anyone who wants to teach you something.

is essentially pay-as-you-go. The "insurance" the company pays for covers cleanings and other preventative care at 100%, but other coverage is both capped at a fairly low amount, and it may only cover 50% or so of actual costs.

Normal medical coverage will cover dental work if it's the result of injury or disease, but not otherwise.

Orthodontia is usually not covered at all...

Dental care is not covered in Canada either except in extended health (private) plans. However, the moment one's dental issue turns into a matter of real or potential medical concern, then the dentist immediately refers you to a specialist (fully covered) or in an emergency, to the hospital (fully covered.)

These extended health plans are not common (unless you belong to a union) because they primarily include basic dental care - with an annual cap on use and private or semi-private hospital accommodation, should you wish to have it. (If you actually NEED private accomodation, this would be covered under universal care provisions at no cost.)

It is not advisable to get sick at a weekend night here when the queue is the longest.

Now at holiday season 3 emergency rooms had 20-minute queue and 2 had 1-hour queue at day time.

_{--Sell Texas to China!}

quote..."unemployment by rich people like Glenn Beck"?

unemployment is caused by rich people? because so many poor people give people jobs? think before you make comments like that. glenn runs a company and covers 100% of the health insurance for his full-time employees. how many poor people do you know that do that?

eom

i can't find anything about healthcare in the constitution. can you point me in the right direction please?

"promote the general welfare"...

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

There's no explicit right to privacy in the Constitution, but the courts have determined it to be present.

There's no explicit right to health care in the Constitution, but the people have decided that there ought to a right to proper health care. Not all of our rights come directly from the Constitution, but from the courts and from legislation.

Rights, dating at least as far back as the Magna Carta, are usually established when the people decide that there should be a right, and champion the cause against the status quo. This is one of those times.

that the civilized world now recognizes as fundamental are expected to be either predicted by, or defined within, the Constitutions of their respective nations. The lack of their consistent presence across all Constitutions is exactly why we have the notion of the universality of certain rights.

it's fine to have the debate over whether it should be a right. currently in america, it is not. this country was set up differently than the rest of the world, and we enjoyed the prosperity of that design for a long time. if we prefer the mediocrity of canada and europe, then we should continue down this path.

we do need change in this country, but this isn't the kind we need. bush was marching down the football field toward the endzone of facism when he fumbled. obama recovered the fumble, but kept running in the same direction. and what's worse, he's a lot faster than bush. ron paul is about the only politician in america trying to head in the right direction.

"When a man assumes a public trust he should consider himself a public property." - Thomas Jefferson.

But the current is very strong.

At least he's swimming in roughly the right direction; if it had been Palin and McCain, you'd have been over the falls by now.

mccain and obama are both socialists. what we needed was ron paul.

can anybody buy tickets on your fantasy train? I miss Disneyland.

McCain - and Obama - socialists?

i'll concede this one to you; they're not socialists to the letter. what they do want is for the government to control as much of our lives as they can get away with. they also support redistribution of wealth. you can decide what "ism" that most closely resembles. their ideas just sound a lot like the ussr system, which is probably what led me to use the term "socialist". in fairness, fascism is probably not far off either.

some €€ to see a public sector doctor or a dentist. Hospital stay costs too.

I've heard that it is £££ to see a public sector dentist in Britain. Much more expensive in private sector.

_{--Sell Texas to China!}

Apparently, in a shocking statement artfully designed to thwart health care initiatives in the USA and trash Canada at the same time, the awful facts have emerged. Apparently some doctor in Waterford Ontario didn't properly diagnose the severity of a patient's condition. Terrible to be sure and indicative of.... indicative of... well, I dunno actually.

Incidentally, are there any studies to determine the number of unnecessary surgeries carried out in the US surgeon-for-hire system? Personally, I'd want a due diligence on a doctor's financial status before I'd bare even my tender tonsils to his/her scalpel. Recent divorce settlement? Big mortgages? Gambling debts? Unpaid credit cards? "That's ok, doc. I'll just suck a lozenge instead."

Anyhoo.....

City woman recruited by health-plan foes in U.S.
July 19, 2009
Joan Walters
The Hamilton Spectator
(Jul 18, 2009)

A Waterdown woman has become the darling of the American conservative movement -- and the face of a U.S national ad campaign -- in a lobbying battle over President Barack Obama's health-care plan.

Shona Holmes tells Americans in a toughly worded TV ad they should reject government health care because it failed in Canada for her.

Holmes is a brain tumour survivor who mortgaged her home and went to a U.S. clinic because of a six-month wait for care in Canada.

"If I'd relied on my government, I'd be dead," she says in the ad.

Holmes has already done one round of U.S. talk shows, congressional testimony and a Republican caucus. She leaves for Washington again Monday, just as the "Shona's Story" ad campaign expands.

Holmes is a hot property for the political advocacy group Americans For Prosperity Foundation, which opposes government involvement in health care.

"I don't know how this little girl from Waterdown is suddenly the biggest ticket in Washington," Holmes says. "But when they approached me, I felt I had to act."

and get a second opinion from any doctor in the book (even though she would have been completely covered if she chose to do so)?

Pity.

Ian has more

on this subject, imo.

The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF), a right wing organization, is using Shona Holmes's story to undo Canada's universal healthcare system. The CCF is funding Holmes's lawsuit which is currently before the Human Rights Commission and plans to take her case all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. The CCF's intent is to strike down a Ontario provincial ban on private medicine, private MRI clinics and private health insurance.

Who would have thought that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which ensures equality for all, is being used by the right wing to take away affordable access to healthcare for every Canadian. However, this will never happen if we keep electing minority governments. No politician is willing to mess with Canada's sacred cow during an election. Although the cow would be safe with a Liberal majority government.

More on the CCF

The Calgary-based CCF is an extremely right-wing legal advocacy organization (and registered charity) that uses Charter challenges and public campaigns to promote its vision of "constitutional freedom"- specifically individual and economic "freedom", property rights and the restriction of government - and to defend the Constitution against "improper decisions or actions of governments, regulators, tribunals or special interest groups." The CCF is radically ideological and strongly linked with other right wing causes and organizations, most notably the Fraser Institute.

.....the CCF's strategy is to 'expropriate' the Charter and use it to promote their right-wing 'liberty and property' conservative agenda. Source

_{Tolerating prostitution is tolerating abuse and torture of women and children.}

if this case reaches the Supreme Court, I'll be there with my pitchfork. Really! I'll just have to find a way to attach it to my bike.

_{Tolerating prostitution is tolerating abuse and torture of women and children.}

And she's got red hair like me. The only thing missing is my bike.

_{Tolerating prostitution is tolerating abuse and torture of women and children.}

I never figured you for the 'Maryann' type :D

Shona

To my US friends:

Apparently you’ve been watching a commercial with a Canadian comparing our health systems.

To hear the Canadian tell it, if it hadn’t been for the Mayo Clinic, she’d be dead.

She’s lying and getting paid to do it, and she is also doing the talk show circuit in the US for PatientsUntiedNow.
She knows she is lying.

It’s no big deal if a Canadian choses to go to the US for treatment.

Dealing with the fear of a cyst is one thing, lying and shilling is quite another.
She is also suing the Ontario government because she didn’t want to deal with triage and wait.
Her lawsuit however, is about more than her money and her fear.

Her name is Shona Holmes.

Buckets at Bouquet of Grey has dug up who is funding her lawsuit against the Ontario government.

She knows she is lying.
The group funding her in Canada knows she is lying.
They dug deep for the US lobby group, Shona Holmes went to the US four years ago.

Shona Holmes was not denied treatment in Canada.

The US group running the commercial (Americans for Prosperity) was a lead group in the recent US tax ‘tea parties.’ I’ll get to the Canadian group in a sec.

What is bizarre about her decision to seek treatment in the US is that on her Mayo Clinic testimonial page, she states she flew to Arizona a day after phoning the clinic, then had weeks of tests before surgery to remove a cyst which was possibly threatening her vision.

She had a 50% loss of vision in one eye, 25% in the other, so she obviously wasn’t asymptomatic.
I can appreciate some people would freak out if they were experiencing headaches, dizziness and vision loss from what is called a Rathke’s cleft cyst. Treatment is conservative, they are drained or removed.

A Rathke cleft cyst is not a tumour, they are benign.
Shona Holmes did not have cancer.
Death was not knocking at her door.
The mortality rate for a Rathke cleft cyst is zero.

In her own words she admits it took weeks before The Mayo Clinic did surgery.

And this from the Buckets of Grey blog site

Holmes returned to Mayo Clinic for several weeks of tests, and then got ready for the surgery. This time, her husband, David, was by her side.

By accessing Holmes’ brain through her nose and sinuses, surgeons were able to remove the cyst without a single incision on her face. Holmes was discharged from the hospital four days later, cured of her disease.

Her vision is normal, she has paid a chunk of change for peace of mind, has a mortgage to pay the 97 thousand dollars, noteriety and a lawsuit.

NINETY SEVEN THOUSAND BUX US???? (Yowza!!!)

MUCH MORE at the links

The Calgary-based CCF is an extremely right-wing legal advocacy organization How ironic. I'm old enough to remember when "CCF" was the acronym for the "Co-operative Commonwealth Federation", a depression era labour party and precursor for the much more moderate present day NDP, and about as far left in the socialist stratosphere as you could get.

Even more ironically, the original CCF in fact created the Canadian health care system.

Those old timer CCFers must be spinning in their pine boxes at the idea they'd have anything in common with outfits like this "Canadian Constitution Party" or the hideously partisan Fraser Institute. Sadly, I have a neighbor who is an influential member of the latter named frat house. (I've attempted to knock sense into him by fixing him with my amateur evil eye when I see him at the local coffee shop. So far it hasn't worked. He just keeps on reading his copy of the New York Times and doesn't look up.)

Now the CBC is reporting that Shona Holmes hasn't been paid a red cent for all her efforts to trash Canadian health care as part of the multi-million dollar anti-reform campaign in the USA. Huh? What chu talkin' 'bout, girl?

Under those circumstances, it's astonishing that she went ahead and mortgaged her home to pay for the surgery that she says saved her life. (Otherwise delays in Canada would have killed her.) At the very least she should have politely asked those rich anti-reformers to help her out with the bills.

But then, it's not that easy to believe Shona about most things. For instance, what about that life threatening brain tumour she says was killing her? Uhm.. not exactly. What she had was a Rathke’s Cleft Cyst on her pituitary gland. To quote an American source, the John Wayne Cancer Center, “Rathke’s Cleft Cysts are not true tumors or neoplasms; instead they are benign cysts.”

So the truth is that what she had was something that was not cancer, not a tumour and, while some of the symptoms can be distinctly unpleasant, many people with these cysts have no symptoms whatsoever. These cysts are not life threatening! There was absolutely no urgency for this treatment and her Canadian doctors were quite right, in my opinion, to place her in line for surgery well behind those truly needing emergency care.

Basically, what Shona Holmes had was a pimple under her brain.

And for this, the entire country has to put up with the aggravation she's caused?

Not only that but, like most cysts, this one is likely to recur! Does this sound like a job for JDFTexas and his handy scalpels? Considering the patient's history of willing vulnerability, I think he can name his price.

hanging in there.....

to welcome you to the Agonist, independent133. I gather from your posts that you are well employed. ("Let them eat cake", etc.) Do you mind my asking if you still work in the health care field in the US and, in general, what medical insurance is widely available in your employment?

As you must know, I'm sure, England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland (the UK) have rather different healthcare systems. Did you mean that you were working in England? Incidentally, here's a link for England's 18 week surgery wait times.
However, there, as in other countries, such waits are not unusual for non-critical surgeries, regardless of who pays insurance premiums. In other words, this is wholly with reference to internal efforts to improve a health care system which is often rated among the best in the world.

International comparisons of health care stats for several countries, including the US, are available at here

A primary indicator of the quality of health care delivery in any nation is the health status of its people. Many factors can affect the health of individuals and populations: heredity, race/ethnicity, gender, income, education, geography, violent crime, environmental agents, and exposure to infectious diseases, as well as access to, and availability of, health care services.

Still, in the nation that spends the most on the health of its citizens, it seems reasonable to expect to see tangible benefits of expenditures for health care—measurable gains in health status. This section considers three health outcomes—measures used to assess the health of a population—including life expectancy at birth, infant mortality, and the incidence of cancer, to determine the extent to which Americans citizens derive health benefits from record-high outlays for medical care.

Overall life expectancy at birth consistently increased in all thirty OECD member nations between 1960 and 2002; however, in every year including 2001, U.S. life expectancy was slightly below the OECD median (half were higher and half were lower) for males and females. (See Table 7.10.) Infant mortality also declined sharply during the same period but the United States fared far worse than the majority of OECD countries—in 2001 the United States had the sixth-highest infant mortality rate. (See Table 7.11.) Finally, despite the well-funded U.S. battle against cancer, in 2000 the incidence rates of cancer per one hundred thousand were higher than seven of the sixteen OECD nations reporting (321.9 per one hundred thousand). (See Table 7.12.)

Reinhardt and his colleagues suggest that part of the explanation of why exceedingly high U.S. health care expenditures do not produce better health outcomes is excessive spending on health care administration. The researchers note that financing a less complex and less costly administrative bureaucracy might enable the United States to focus more resources on direct provision of health care services.

Also, may I suggest that anybody seriously interested in this subject read the World Health Organization's World Health Report 1008

-universal coverage reforms that ensure that
health systems contribute to health equity, social justice and the end of exclusion, primarily by moving towards universal access
and social health protection;

-service delivery reforms that re-organize health services around people’s needs and expectations, so as to make them more socially relevant and more responsive to the changing
world, while producing better outcomes;

-public policy reforms that secure healthier communities, by integrating public health actions with primary care, by pursuing healthy public policies across sectors and by strengthening
national and transnational public health interventions; and

-leadership reforms that replace disproportionate reliance on command and control on one hand, and laissez-faire disengagement of the state on the other, by the inclusive, participatory,
negotiation-based leadership indicated by the complexity of contemporary health systems.

I would be particularly interested in your review of any of these stats, findings and recommendations.

great advice in general. While you're at it, don't get rear-ended by a drunk driver. Select parents with better genes so you don't get a hereditary disease. Don't marry someone whose genes are the tiniest bit irregular. Don't get sick while you're young and getting started in your career; if at all possible, begin your career already rich.

Don't get struck by lightning, don't have an accident caused by someone else's negligence, don't get *mugged or shot*, don't find out your children have cancer.

Get lots of excercise but never ever tear a ligament or get bursitis or tennis elbow from working out. Don't fall off a mountain bike getting exercise. Bike to work to get exercise but never be such a lazy irresponsible freeloading slackass that some driver knocks you down from behind.

Don't eat contaminated spinach, particularly before anyone knows it's contaminated. DO NOT under any circumstances get pregnant.

No matter how healthily someone lives, they will probably be born in a hospital and they've got pretty good odds of spending their dying days there. *Everybody* needs medical care sometimes, not just irresponsible, slack-assed, pork-rind snarfing chain-smoking couch potatoes.

my apologies for not listing out all the things we should keep insurance for. many of the circumstances you listed do warrent a legitimate need for health insurance. i'm talking about making people pay directly for their everyday healthcare. things like allergy medication, going to the ER for a sinus infection, etc. if people had to pay the actual amount for this type of treatment, they would pay closer attention to the costs involved, rather than looking at it as only costing whatever their co-pay is. the costs are there regardless, they're just hidden in the current system, which inhibits the market from setting reasonable prices.

people also might think twice about jumping straight to medicating when a lifestyle change might work better and cost less (i'm talking about situations like when parents buy their kids 32 oz soda's regularly and then turn around and say the government should provide diabetes care for them). the more people are responsible for their own care, the more they'll do to better their own circumstances.

obviously there are many exceptions...things people don't have direct control over, which is why there is a place for insurance, but it's expanded into every aspect of care, and it's putting too much strain on the system. if we try to fix it by allowing the government to control the care, people will only be further removed from the process, and will have even less incentive to make good life choices for their health.

that health care costs per capita for Americans presently far outdistance equivalent costs in comparison to other nations. Please check the WHO stats on this.

if we try to fix it by allowing the government to control the care,

The Canadian and UK Governments have nothing. what. so. ever. to do with controlling the care. The *doctor* determines the care needed, and only the doctor. Full stop.

Government involvement stops at billing; government officials, to the best of my knowledge, are never even *informed* of the medical rationale for any given decision.

They are certainly not asked for their *opinion* - much less their *permission*, like Americans do with private insurers. Doctors determine the care, not bean-counters without a medical degree - the very idea is farce. They discuss it directly with their patient, and when the proper course of treatment is determined they transmit it directly to the patient and any other professionals required.

people will only be further removed from the process, and will have even less incentive to make good life choices for their health.

Absolutely untrue in practice. We make good choices about seeking care when we need it because we don't have to factor finances into it; we seek care when we need it, not when we can afford it. That's a big part of why many other developed nations tend to live longer and more healthily than you do.

"The Canadian and UK Governments have nothing. what. so. ever. to do with controlling the care."

that's simply wrong, at least in the UK. the government decides what procedures are cost-effective, and who should be elidgible for them. read this article...'UK government denies healthcare based on costs'.

http://www.speroforum.com/a/16956/UK-government-denies-healthcare-based-on-costs

one particular quote from that article..."If a treatment is found to cost more than about $30,000-$45,000 per "quality-adjusted life-year," it is rarely covered.[5] This approach has led to the denial of valuable care:".

quality-adjusted life-year? so if i'm 70, and my quality of life is deemed lower than a 20 year old's by the government, i may be refused treatment. look a little further down that road, and see if you can spot hitler. he's down there. might as well just kill the old guy straight away. you'll save a lot more money that way.

"We make good choices about seeking care when we need it because we don't have to factor finances into it; we seek care when we need it, not when we can afford it."

so who cares how much it costs. someone will take care of it for me. why should i practice any restraint, or look for more cost-effective ways to improve my health. you think that is compassion? that's selfish. you're spending money, through the government, that doesn't exist. it's gotta be paid for by someone. just because you don't have to worry about it directly doesn't mean other people aren't getting screwed over (particularly future generations).

at the point where *basic decisions of what is and isn't covered* are made. If parameters aren't drawn, some scammer will try to argue that getting their skis waxed is a health-related, thus insurable, expense. I'm saying "individuals are not triaged based on non-medical criteria". You don't like age being one of the criteria, that's fine by me, argue against it - I could imagine it being easy to argue it as medically valid, since many procedures also carry far less *risk* and far higher *odds of recovery* at younger ages.

Bureaucracies move more slowly and conservatively than private corporations, which is fine by me - I'd far rather be treated conservatively than, say, be prodded into an unproven course of "the newest and greatest cure" by companies who might just turn out to be flash-in-the-pan scammers. That conservatism keeps you from leaping on the bandwagon with, say, pain cures that are later recalled because they're linked to death, or anti-depressants that are found to be linked to suicide. If a Canadian cancer patient wants to move more quickly than the bureaucracy thinks is safe, they're always free to fly to Mexico and take Laetrile.

so who cares how much it costs. someone will take care of it for me. why should i practice any restraint, or look for more cost-effective ways to improve my health... just because you don't have to worry about it directly doesn't mean other people aren't getting screwed over (particularly future generations).

The most serious and costly health issue in my life (so I'd guess - I never saw a bill) came from an accident while exercising, taking care of my health. Pretty irresponsible of me, I'd say.

Yeah, I'll feel pretty good if I leave my kids access to a health system that functions as well as the Canadian one does. The fact that our system also costs far less than yours per capita is just gravy.

Not that it would really matter to me, since like all parents my children's health would still be more important to me than money; I'd rob any other coffer first to secure it.

look a little further down that road, and see if you can spot hitler. he's down there.

Well, that was a fun discussion. Unfortunately, according to Godwin's law, it just ended. In case you were wondering, you lost.

i lose because some guy says so. flawless logic. i'm not too worried about godwin. it was a valid comparison. the nazi's used the same kind of reasoning discussed in that article that eventually led to genocide. i'm not saying that's in our future, but it would be negligent not to point out the similarities in how they got started.

your personal anecdote is a great argument as well. perhaps i'm not aware of the high rate of excersizing accidents that occur in canada. here in america, the largest health risks are things like heart disease, cancer, strokes, etc. you know, the types of things that can be reduced based on healthy lifestyle choices.

if you're truly happy with government bureaucracy, then good for you. enjoy it. i hope your healthcare system does function well for your kids and grandkids, i just don't think that's a reasonable assumption. you'll run out of money. you'd probably run out of doctor's too, but if your friends here get their way, and america follows your lead, they won't have anywhere to escape to anymore. then again, with nowhere to escape, maybe they'll just stop going to medical school, because the rewards won't be worth the effort anymore. only time will tell i suppose.

we're now leaping straight into conventional reductio ad absurdum.

you should be a writer for warner brothers cartoons or something. if you'd read my post, you'd see that i'm not contending that having the government decide on such matters is inherently evil because hitler did it too. what i am saying is that it's worth noting the similarities. our leaders probably don't have the same intentions as hitler, but when you start letting politicians decide what medical care is worth offering, and who is worthy of receiving it, you're heading down a dangerous path. there's nowhere to draw the line.

maybe it starts with not giving the hip replacement to the 75 year old, because that money could be better spent on procedures for younger, healthier people with longer to live. as the plan gets more and more in debt though, more cuts have to be made. that's inevitable. so where do they make the cuts? it's a reasonable assumption that they'd use the same logic as they used to withhold the treatment from the elderly. we can only afford x number of heart transplants, so let's look for the people with the best genetic makeup, in the "prime" of their life, and give it to them. this makes sense if people were no more important than animals, but that's not the case. no one person should be put ahead of another person. let the people decide what's worth it to them. i don't want a government bureaucrat deciding if my special needs child is worthy of procedure. the more power you give to the government, the harder it is to take it away.

that being said, it's much easier to use some fancy sounding fake words and declare the debate is over than to actually address the points i'm making. can't blame you for that.

and she just had *her* hip replacement last month on her doctor's recommendation, no questions asked. Precisely who do you think hip replacements are intended for, toddlers?

Come back to us when you can point to how our plans *are* failing, not merely to how you darkly predict it *might* or *could* fail, or what you think it "might represent" or what slippery slope (that hasn't happened anywhere else it's been implemented) it might enable. Three quarters of your citizens agree that yours is failing their needs *right now* as it stands.

our leaders probably don't have the same intentions as hitler

Oh wow - that's such a relief, you have *no idea*. Can I quote you? Because my Jewish and Gypsy and gay and intellectual friends were *so* concerned - they've been losing a lot of sleep over the fear that supporting a rational, humane healthcare system meant they might get made into soap again or have their hair used to stuff mattresses, just like always happens when the camel's nose gets under that particular tent flap.

Ten years ago you could have this discussion in private and actually fool some Americans, since they generally only knew what they were told by the media - which depended on medical conglomerates for advertising dollars.

Courtesy of the internet, that day is ending; today, we who actually *live under those plans* are here to bat those lies back over to the side of the fence on which they were created by the medical conglomerates and the "think tanks" and marketing organizations they employ.

the hip *replacement* was an example. feel free to plug in any procedure *you'd* like, and then try to pay attention to the point of the example instead *of* fixating on the specific example chosen*.*

you can count me as part of the three quarters of americans who think our system is failing *right now*. it needs to be changed, just not in the way you suggest. if you'd like evidence of the struggles of your system, all you had to do was ask...

"...a poll sent shock waves across the country when 73 percent of Canadians described their health care system as being "in crisis." Reid actually went back and redid the poll six months later: 78 percent of Canadians now thought the system was in crisis."

"The head of trauma care at Vancouver's largest hospital announces that they turn away more cases than any other center in North America. He's quoted as saying this would be unheard of in the United States."

"New Brunswick announces that they will send cancer patients south to the United States for radiation therapy. New Brunswick, a small maritime province, is the seventh to publicly announce its plans to send patients south. Provinces do this because the clinically recommended waiting time for treatment is often badly exceeded."

"MRI scanners are very difficult to get in Canada. There are long wait times. In my book, I talk about a political struggle on Vancouver Island where the wait time for a non-urgent MRI scan was over a year--"non-urgent" being defined by government officials, not by physicians."

"Part of the problem is that we have so few of these (MRI) scanners. Canada per capita has as many MRI scanners as Colombia and Mexico. It wouldn't be fair to try and compare us to the United States or Western Europe."

"One finding: In New Brunswick, people are twice as likely to die from colorectal cancer as a person in Utah."

"The Canadian system is ailing. Why? I believe that Canadian medicare suffers from a basic economic problem. We have a free-for-all system, and, as health economists have well shown, costs are driven up. Patients tend to overconsume health services while providers tend to oversupply health services. The only way we can deal with this is to ration through waiting."

"It's like the old Soviet system: Everything is free, but nothing is readily available. It's very amusing when you're talking about toilet paper in Moscow in 1975; it's far less amusing when you're talking about cancer treatment in Toronto in the year 2001."

________________________________________________________________________________________

"When a man assumes a public trust he should consider himself a public property."

- Thomas Jefferson

Links please. Cite your sources. Let's have 'em.

[enjoy this one, folks - ES]

All cites track back to this:

Buyer Beware: The Failure of Single-Payer Health Care

by James Frogue, David Gratzer, M.D., Timothy Evans, Richard Teske
Heritage Lecture #702

Specifically, I believe all of the cited are from Dr. Gratzer's comments, available here.

Two comments that I would make:

1) Dr. Gratzer's comments focus on events prior to 2001 - that was a period of incredible transition (IIRC in Ontario it marked the initial shift to health spending being larger than education spending). Doubtless one could still find significant challenges, but it is worth noting that this was a particularly stressful period.

2) One of the key issues that he overlooks in his assignment of blame, IMHO at least, is the rise of the class of "professional" medical administrators. I've been told by dinosaurs who were there that time was when most Canadian hospitals were basically run by comparatively lean teams; commonly a head of medicine and a head of nursing. As related to me, they pretty much ran the show - now everyone answers to a whole mess of folks that fall into the rather more amorphous category of "higher". Old system had some flaws in that it could be remarkably ruthless and quite harsh to those who didn't perform to arbitrary (and sometimes quite irrelevant) standards, but it didn't require an expensive and responsibility blurring, self-justifying headcount.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

Ahh, the Heritage Foundation - a nice right wing/neocon think tank, based on the principles of "free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense."

The Foundation wields considerable influence in Washington, and enjoyed particular prominence during the Reagan administration. Its initial funding was provided by Joseph Coors, of the Coors beer empire, and Richard Mellon Scaife, heir of the Mellon industrial and banking fortune...

Strong supporters of the Contras, if I recall. Questionable financial links to the Korean CIA and the Moonies, too.

How shocking to find a right-wing think tank based on ideals of limited government and free enterprise coincidentally arguing the superiority of free enterprise and limited government. I suppose one shouldn't be too surprised when one squeezes an orange and a cup of milk doesn't drip out of it.

I believe that Canada was also running a significant budget *surplus* at the time the alleged incidents occurred, and thus many of the shortfalls cited in the article, if they actually existed, could have been fixed in the traditional way - by *paying to fix them* - if the government had elected to.

Part of the credit for the fact that this didn't happen, of course, goes to those fighting the proper funding of the Canadian medical system at every turn. With admirable chutzpah, they point at their own minor successes in undermining that funding as evidence that it needs disassembling. Alice, meet looking glass.

"How shocking to find a right-wing think tank based on ideals of limited government and free enterprise coincidentally arguing the superiority of free enterprise and limited government."

you're right, they should argue against what they believe, like everyone on this site does. of course, the quotes were taken directly from a canadian physician. silly of me to think he'd be a reliable resource.

here are a couple more resources if you're truly interested...


"From a health standpoint, the Canadian system's greatest failing is the unconscionable delay citizens must accept to obtain serious medical procedures. From an economic perspective, the costs of the system are extravagantly higher than reported by the government's suspect accounting system."


"Canadian health insurance is compulsory, monopolistic, and administered by the various provincial governments under strict control of the federal government...Physicians are told by the government how much they can charge for their services; drug prices are set by the government. The supply of medical services in Canada is completely rationed, with no significant private alternative."


"The alleged "low cost" of Canadian health care is thus no less a fraud than it was in the Soviet Union. Canadians may not pay the price in dollar terms ... but they pay a steep price indeed in terms of care denied or delayed and the poor quality of service provided by unhappy medical practitioners whose incomes do not match their skill and training."


http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15034/Canadian_Health_Care_Is_No_Model_for_US.html

warning...these next few are from another right-wing/neocon organization...the ny times...


"The country's publicly financed health insurance system...is gradually breaking down. Private clinics are opening around the country by an estimated one a week"


"'We've taken the position that the law is illegal,' Dr. Day, 59, (now president of the canadian medical association) says. 'This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week and in which humans can wait two to three years.'"


"Prime Minister Stephen Harper and other politicians remain reluctant to openly propose sweeping changes even though costs for the national and provincial governments are exploding and some cancer patients are waiting months for diagnostic tests and treatment."


"Canada has a national doctor shortage already, with 1.4 million people in the province of Ontario alone without the services of a family doctor."


"Average wait times between referral by a family doctor and treatment range from 5.5 weeks for oncology to 40 weeks for orthopedic surgery"


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/28/international/americas/28canada.html?pagewanted=1&_r=4

...and not a terribly long service one at that (I'm allowed to call him a head shrinker - we've some in the family). The notion that one physician from one specialty is going to speak as the definitive voice for all aspects of the Canadian medical system is optimistic, to put it mildly. The guy wasn't even a resident at the time that he wrote the book and this is topic that requires a lifetime to fully get up to speed on; hanging on one guy and coming at the issue from one ideological perspective is to doom any hope of understanding to failure.

On a personal note, the fact that the guy ditched for the Manhattan Institute to focus on American health care issues raises questions in my mind about how much he's motivated to help with the hard slog of fixing the Canadian system.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

"From a health standpoint, the Canadian system's greatest failing is the unconscionable delay citizens must accept to obtain serious medical procedures. From an economic perspective, the costs of the system are extravagantly higher than reported by the government's suspect accounting system."

The first sign you're seeing propaganda instead of fact - "got adjectives"? Strip 'em out and see what you get - a fairly rational critique pointing to minor issues that can be addressed with adequate funding.

'This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week and in which humans can wait two to three years.'"

Yeah. Since there's no public health plan for animals, this is certainly a country in which an affluent person can buy their dog a place at the head of the queue.

In fact, that's where private medicine shines - in the treatment of animals. There's no great moral complexity since unlike humans, pets are mere property and decisions about their care and its scheduling are merely financial.

If I'm affluent, I get to buy Muffy's treatment as quickly as I like, displacing all others trying to repair their property. If I'm not, Muffy takes her chances of recovery or goes into the vaccum chamber/gets a lethal injection.

That doesn't work so well with Mom, or Little Timmy. So thankfully Canada's not a country in which folks can buy a queue-jump for a mere hip replacement ahead of Little Timmy's brain tumour - something that any sane person should understand must take precedence.

"'We've taken the position that the law is illegal,' Dr. Day, 59, (now president of the canadian medical association) says.

Maybe afterwards he can take the position that gravity is illegal too (honestly I'd be sad to see gravity go, it's pretty useful).

The vast bulk of the Canadian citizenry loves our system, and it's been enshrined into the backbone of our society for fifty years; we like to call that "democracy" - you know, actually giving people what they want? We voted to support it, we still vote to support it, and we punish politicians that try to mess with it. So he can either get with what Canadians clearly indicate they want or he can go shit in his hat.

"Canada has a national doctor shortage already, with 1.4 million people in the province of Ontario alone without the services of a family doctor."

Right - nothing to do with them being bribed away from their duty by America, of course.

"Canadian health insurance is compulsory, monopolistic, and administered by the various provincial governments under strict control of the federal government...Physicians are told by the government how much they can charge for their services; drug prices are set by the government. The supply of medical services in Canada is completely rationed, with no significant private alternative."

I congratulate you on your perspicacity. Stripped of the piddle-down-the-pant-leg "Commies Are Coming" hysteria, that's a just-recognizable description of not only *how* the Canadian system functions, but *why* it delivers longer lifespans, better health and a happier populace than the free market - and does it significantly more cheaply per capita.

"Maybe afterwards he can take the position that gravity is illegal too (honestly I'd be sad to see gravity go, it's pretty useful)."

you're absolutely right. i'd hate to see gravity go too. i can't believe i missed that. thank you.

"Right - nothing to do with them being bribed away from their duty by America, of course."

in all seriousness, that statements says a lot. we're not really talking about healthcare anymore. if you think someone has a duty to work for less money for the greater good, then this will probably be my last post. i have to admit i don't know how to argue against that, because i don't understand that mindset.

freedom to succeed, and to fail, is more important to me than the security of having my needs provided for by others. i have the natural desire to be self-sufficient, and to improve myself and my situation. without that oppportunity, i'm not sure what the point of life would be. if i'm lucky and those providing for me stay relatively good natured and civil, then at best i'm just coasting through waiting until my time to die. i could have kids, but i would be subjecting them to the same monotony. the pursuit of improvement, and the possibility of failure, is what makes life interesting, at least to me.

if you're open about wanting socialism, and as long as your government stays in check and doesn't start getting too power-hungry, it sounds like you'll live the life you want to live. honestly, i think that's great. i'd just like to see the american governemnt be as open with what they're trying to do.

Canadian doctors have the freedom to succeed or fail. A doctor that works harder makes far more money than one that doesn't.

A six-digit income, a cabin in the country, a yacht - there are Canadian doctors that have all of that. A bad reputation and a dwindling client list and a stack of "past due" bills - there are Canadian doctors that have all of that too.

There's a direct connection between "hard work" and "success" in our system since it rewards those who *work harder* rather than those who merely find a way to *gouge more effectively*.

And I do not have to rely on an employer to guarantee my health care. I *am* self-sufficient in a way *you* are not, since it is *you* who are dependent upon your employer, whereas my care is guaranteed by the democracy I partake in, as a direct result of we, its citizens, broadly agreeing it is a basic right.

One guy gets to turn off *your* spigot if you get "uppity". One guy in an insurance office gets to deny you care. Nobody can turn mine off - I'm a free man, living in a free country.

Talk to me about self-sufficiency now.

But it sounds like you haven't the faintest idea of what "success" is. There appears to be some sort of ideological short-circuit that's led you to believe it's defined as *everything your heart could desire, without any sort of limitation to ambition or care for consequences*.

You sound as if success had no other ingredients - not "striving for excellence", not "integrity", not "the respect of one's peers", the "love of one's family", the "satisfaction that comes with doing one's best for one's society", the chance to "make a meaningful contribution to one's chosen field" - nor indeed one's health. Success is just about the bottom line, and you'll *wither and die in apathy* if any limit, no matter how generous, were placed upon your fiscal ambition.

Is that really what it's all about? Untrammelled fiscal ambition and be damned to the social consequences - or death? That's the American dream in 2009?

How utterly sad. How pathetic and trivial.

Why don't you ask a terminal cancer patient what their definition of success would be? Maybe it will be "long enough remission to make it to my kid's next birthday".

"Canadian doctors have the freedom to succeed or fail. A doctor that works harder makes far more money than one that doesn't."

obviously, but my point is you implied that they have a duty to stay in canada for what i can only assume is the good of the society, regardless of whether they want to or not. that's not true freedom. plus (and admittedly i don't know much about the canadian tax system, but..) i imagine you have a progressive tax, which forces that doctor that works harder to support more of those people that don't. yes, america is set up the same way, and it's not right here either. instead, we need the fair tax, but that's for a different thread.

"There's a direct connection between "hard work" and "success" in our system since it rewards those who *work harder* rather than those who merely find a way to *gouge more effectively*."

if the people were responsible for paying for their own routine health care, there would be more competition among health care providers, and the gouging would decrease. it's a result of the insurance companies (one of which being the government) being too involved. in your system, the doctor's can't gouge the people, but the government could. they may or may not be doing that now, but without a market to drive down the prices, they could (and likely eventually will, if history is any indication) start to gouge the people.

"And as I do not have to rely on an employer to guarantee my health care - I *am* self-sufficient in a way *you* are not."

*c'mon*, *now* *you're* *just* *getting* *lazy*. *you* *have* *to* *rely* *on* *your* *government*. *that's* *not* *self-sufficiency*.

"You sound as if success had no other ingredients..."

you're missing the point. you can have success in a lot of areas and still not be given the opportunity to pursue your own happiness. i could demonstrate every ingredient for success that you listed as a slave, but i wouldn't be very happy with my life. i need freedom and self-reliance. i don't have to make a lot of money to be happy, but i do deserve to spend the money i make how i choose to spend it, not how the government chooses to spend it.

as, no doubt, your country's military is usurping too much of your self-reliance. Did you attend public schools? Do you not get around on public roads? Do you inspect all of your food? If you become involved in a dispute do you not engage the legal system?

i'm asking for the minimal amount of government required in order to live freely. this is what the american constitution dictated, we've just strayed very far from it. a strong military for defense purposes is warrented (though our current foreign policy is not).

i did attend public schools, but i don't think they're a great idea. private educations tend to be of higher quality, and cost less.

i do get around on public roads. i'm ok with the government organizing this because there's little room for corruption, as long as they contract private companies to do the actual work. also, most roads are maintained by the states.

i'm ok with them regulating food that crosses state borders to a degree, to ensure that it's safe and whatnot. i do think they're taking that too far too thogh. i shouldn't be told i can't serve trans fat, for example.

the legal system is accounted for within the consitution, so i'm ok with it. the nation was founded on laws. without the legal system, we'd have anarchy.

this is a good clip that explains our intended system of government...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFXuGIpsdE0

if you think someone has a duty to work for less money for the greater good, then this will probably be my last post. i have to admit i don't know how to argue against that, because i don't understand that mindset.

Indeed? Let me refresh your memory - I rather thought most Americans might recognize the concept from your own domestic debate about a little thing called "outsourcing". I was actually under the impression that many folks came out pretty strongly against the notion that people might take the opportunities and advantages given them by the society they were born into, and turn them to the advantage of other nations merely in order to line their own pockets.

So yeah, I happen to agree with those Americans that believe this sort of behaviour smacks of shirking one's duties to one's society of birth in order to selfishly pursue personal gain. On the other hand, as a proponent of a free society, I don't have to like a behaviour to acknowledge a person's freedom to engage in it.

But I suppose others have more of a "context-sensitive" ideology, and that I shouldn't hope for too much integrity, or consistency in philosophy, when there's bucks to be made.

"I was actually under the impression that many folks came out pretty strongly against the notion that people might take the opportunities and advantages given them by the society they were born into, and turn them to the advantage of other nations merely in order to line their own pockets."

you're absolutely right. some americans spoke out against outsourcing, and i'm an american, so i must be against outsourcing. you should teach a class. funny how chickadee doesn't have anything to say about your flawless logical arguments.

since the point was overturning your rhetoric about "being unable to understand the argument" in the interest of somehow casting it as extreme. Pointing out its well-debated analogue in your own political dialogue revealed you as either being dishonest or blind.

Anyway, I'm done with you now. Your arguments require extreme assumptions about the role of government and society that are far out of step with the vast bulk of thinking in the Western world - elected government of your own citizens as the reflexive knee-jerk enemy - free markets governed by the uncoordinated acts of unelected profit-seekers bizarrely the assumed salvation of all. Despite all evidence to the contrary, a blind market will provide better care, a million banana-seeking monkeys on a million typewriters will somehow miraculously type out a policy that will improve American healthcare.

To support this ideology you provide cherry-picked anecdotes, traceable to single sources beholden to "think tanks" whose mission is to promote business interests rather than common interests; your cherry-picked test patients are generally liars, their cases generally exaggerated (even the right wing sites are now beginning to post retractions and clarifications on the Shona Holmes debacle; she does not have cancer as was originally asserted, nor is her life in danger); the anecdotes you produce fail the most cursory tests of real-life experience, and when these anecdotes are challenged you immediately ask us not to dwell on the specifics you yourself introduced.

In short, a dishonest interlocutor, not worth any more of my time. Have a nice day.

"I'm done with you now. Your arguments require extreme assumptions about the role of government and society that are far out of step with the vast bulk of thinking in the Western world"

you're finally getting the point :) took longer than it would for most, but congratulations none the less! the role of governemnt in america, historically speaking, HAS been far out of step with the vast bulk of thinking in the Western world, which is what made this country so great during that time. things aren't what they used to be precisely because we're drifting towards european thinking.

i first supported my ideology using logic and reasoning. then you asked for examples of how canada's healthcare struggles. i gave examples, mostly from canadians. if they are liars, i apologize for not doing a background check on them. some examples came from a right-wing think-tank, others came from medical publications, and others came from the ny times. i didn't mention Shona Holmes once (another brilliant straw man argument...congrats again). you certainly enjoy lumping me in with a larger group that you assume i must agree with, then go after that group. now that you've been called on it a few times, i don't blame you for being "done with me".

so long.

but, to read a private message, please search for the following word on this page .. "Catapultam". Note that "Give me all the money" is, a code within a code and represents the words "Go away soon..."

you wouldn't be trying to silence an opposing view, would you? surely not. :)

i might stick around, i might not. i would think you'd want me here though. wouldn't you like to see me change my mind? it's nice to get a bunch of like-minded people together to tell each other how much they agree with each other, but it can get old after a while, can it not?

anyway, hope everyone has a good weekend!


__________________________________________________________________

don't tread on me.

No, please *do* continue to post, the echo chamber is undesirable.

And if you hadn't, this thread might have passed by quietly without closer examination of the "arguments against", and what they're actually based on. You've even raised some fair critiques that have helped demonstrate the desirability of proper funding.

It's good that we get a real bit-in-the-teeth free market Libertarian here to lay out their philosophy, so your fellow citizens can judge for themselves whether or not your idiosyncratic reading of history, and your ideologically-based interpretation of what America's "about", represents their vision for American society in 2009. Your explanations of why Libertarians would prefer if possible to prevent their fellow citizens from having access to a Canadian-style healthcare system are in fact quite welcome.

sounds like we have some now :) open discourse is good. when you have a certain view for long enough, it's hard to imagine that there are real people out there that have a strong opposite view, who don't also have a hidden agenda (referring to both of us). i don't understand your mindset, and i'm sure you don't understand mine, so this is good.

honestly, the only thing that really gets to me with all this stuff is that most politicians (at least in america), along with the media, refuse to have a real and open debate. they either focus on one relatively minor issue because it plays better as a headline, or they focus on something completely different altogether while they make huge changes elsewhere (i.e., the recent cap and trade bill that passed the house while obama held his primetime special on healthcare).

anyhow, i digress. maybe i'll stick around. who knows, we might find a thread where we actually agree on something :)

I was just making a catapult joke.

I also have an arbalest joke, but it's not in Latin.

I don't even mention my onager joke because it's not fit for tender minds or mixed company, and it's not in Latin either, although the punch line might be better if it were.

when you think they support your point -

maybe it starts with not giving the hip replacement to the 75 year old,

- and when I destroy them -

Grandma is 77, and she just had *her* hip replacement last month on her doctor's recommendation, no questions asked.

- you're suddenly all about not focusing on specifics.

ugh...the hip *replacement* was an example.

Could that possibly be because you're exaggerating/making stuff up to frighten people, and quoting people who are also exaggerating/making stuff up to frighten people?

you should be a writer for warner brothers cartoons or something

I love the anonymity of the internet! LOL. If you only knew. So, anyway. Who do you know at Warners?

LOL. Ok. That's it. I'm out.

ROFLMAO It's all Greek to me!

Distrust anyone who wants to teach you something.