The Government In Charge of Our Entire Health-Care System?

McGentrix wrote:

maporsche wrote:
I agree that there are simply TOO many posts generated with the same topic.....make 1 thread and we'll discuss it for months, this is just getting messy Miller.

I have seen too many posts regarding the Iraq war. I think they should be limited to one thread as well.

You're in a grumpy mood today, McGentrix, eh?

While I personally don't really care (not because it wouldn't be nice, but mainly because those kind of "rules" are completely unenforceable on a board - much like the request to not post on specific threads if one happens to disagree with the author's premise), I think the request was not entirely unreasonable, given the huge number of threads that this one poster has started on the very same topic.

So if you think that a specific poster starts too many threads on the Iraq war, why don't you go to one of those threads and ask him to put everything into one thread as well?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

HokieBird wrote:
Well, have you also complained about those posting their anecdotal evidence that there aren't any wait times?

No, I haven't. But if you followed the numerous threads on the topic, you will have noticed that people posted their positive anecdotal evidence in reply to people posting devastating anecdotal evidence that the Canadian system was <ahem> merely days away from a total collapse.

Days away? Who said that?

old europe wrote:

You may call this an exercise in futility, and we can probably all agree that you can find horrible stories where the system miserably failed patients from almost any country, but it will lead us nowhere.

No system is perfect. Michael Moore, however, seems to think Canada's is. Hopefully he'll move there.

HokieBird wrote:

I think the lawsuit story is informative because it tells us that there will be some major changes in Canada's health care program.

old europe wrote:

Yes. Good for them. Studies have in fact shown that among countries with universal health care systems, no matter whether those were single payer systems or not, the Canadian system does have some problems.

You'd never know that listening to Michael Moore. Are you saying he mislead?

old europe wrote:

Surprisingly, those studies have also shown that the Canadian system is still a bit better than the American one. So if Canadians are now working to improve their system, more power to them.

That it's better is just your opinion. How many medical innovations have come out of Canada in the past few decades? If a Canadian has to fork over half his paycheck and pay additional taxes on top of that and yet can't go to the doctor he wants, when he wants, how is that better? They may love their system - doesn't mean it would work here.

HokieBird wrote:

As I understand it, the Supreme Court's ruling affects only Quebec, which now can allow private clinics on a limited basis. For the rest of Canada, I believe it's still illegal to operate in the private sector.

old europe wrote:

We will see what this will result in. I'm not at all opposed to a privately operated system, as long as it can provide universal health care coverage. Chances are that some level of government regulation will be necessary to achieve that goal, though.

Some level of government regulation = higher taxes. Constitutionally, the people deserve the right to choose - whether it's private or state-run.

HokieBird wrote:

The Canadian Medical Association seems to think there are problems that need to be addressed:

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/health/070730/x073006A.html

old europe wrote:

Oh yes. Analysing the problems is the first step towards improving the system, isn't it? And contracting the private sector to deliver publicly funded health care services doesn't seem to be such a bad solution at all.

Correct. The very fact that there are now Guaranteed Wait Time programs seems to reveal there could be a serious problem in Canada. Why would they need to 'study' the problem if it didn't exist? Michael Moore, however, in extolling the wonders of "free" care in Canada (yes, he used the word 'free') conveniently omitted that tiny little fact.

Again, no one system for any particular country is perfect. There are drawbacks to be seen in every single one. Either lack of equipment and personnel or exhorbitant taxes or high costs. But, what's good or working for one country might not work in another.

America leads the way in medical innovation and has for the past 25 years at least. This is possible due to the high cost of healthcare in this country but the gains from it are even higher (and benefited from by countries all over the world).

As Economist Tyler Cowen (NYTimes) wrote:

"]The U.S. "could use its size, or use the law, to bargain down health care prices, as many European governments have done," Cowen writes, adding, "In the short run, this would save money but in the longer run it would cost lives."

He concludes, "The American health care system, high expenditures and all, is driving innovation for the entire world" (Cowen, New York Times, 10/5).

0 Replies

HokieBird wrote:

Days away? Who said that?

Nobody. Figure of speech. I added an

old europe wrote:

<ahem>

in case somebody wouldn't catch it. I'm sorry if you didn't catch it. So. Nobody said that.

HokieBird wrote:

No system is perfect. Michael Moore, however, seems to think Canada's is. Hopefully he'll move there.

I don't know about Michael Moore. I haven't seen his movie. But I'll submit that the "If you don't like, feel free to leave the country" line is becoming a bit worn....

HokieBird wrote:

You'd never know that listening to Michael Moore. Are you saying he mislead?

I don't know. I haven't seen his movie.

HokieBird wrote:

That it's better is just your opinion.

Yes. It's my opinion. But as I said, I base my opinion on studies (by the WHO and OECD, for example) that seem to confirm exactly that. Actually, that's why I said "studies have shown."

HokieBird wrote:

How many medical innovations have come out of Canada in the past few decades?

I don't know. Do you?

HokieBird wrote:

If a Canadian has to fork over half his paycheck and pay additional taxes on top of that and yet can't go to the doctor he wants, when he wants, how is that better?

Wouldn't be. But you don't know that for a fact. Actually (and factually), you, as an American, have to fork over twice as much of your paycheck (yes, privately, but still) as a Canadian.

How is that better?

HokieBird wrote:

They may love their system - doesn't mean it would work here.

Well. Okay. I haven't said it would, have I?

HokieBird wrote:

Some level of government regulation = higher taxes.

Huh? You have to get a drivers license to drive a car. That's some regulation, too. It's not the same as higher taxes, though.

Really, that doesn't make any sense.

HokieBird wrote:

Constitutionally, the people deserve the right to choose - whether it's private or state-run.

Right. And again, I have never said otherwise.

HokieBird wrote:

Correct. The very fact that there are now Guaranteed Wait Time programs seems to reveal there could be a serious problem in Canada. Why would they need to 'study' the problem if it didn't exist? Michael Moore, however, in extolling the wonders of "free" care in Canada (yes, he used the word 'free') conveniently omitted that tiny little fact.

You seem to have an argument with Michael Moore rather than with the concept of universal health care, HB. So, again, I can't comment on that factoid, as I haven't seen the movie.

But let me say that there are better indicators of whether or not a system might be working than the mere fact that people are trying to improve it. "They're trying to make it better, so it must be really, really bad" doesn't seem to cut it.

HokieBird wrote:

Again, no one system for any particular country is perfect. There are drawbacks to be seen in every single one. Either lack of equipment and personnel or exhorbitant taxes or high costs. But, what's good or working for one country might not work in another.

Well, we can always compare systems. The American system is, without doubt, the most expensive one. Both in terms of percentage of GDP as in terms of annual cost per capita.

But numbers of doctors per 1,000 persons are below the OECD average. Numbers of nurses per 1,000 persons are below OECD average as well. The equipment is pretty good (high number of MRI or CT scanners, for example), but less people get to profit from it.

Actually, given the money you are paying and the equipment that would be available, your system should be outstanding. It should be better than any other system in the world. But the fact is that it is merely below average.

I don't understand how people can be satisfied with the current situation, given that the average American seems to end up both with lack of availability of the really excellent equipment and personnel and exorbitant high costs.

HokieBird wrote:

America leads the way in medical innovation and has for the past 25 years at least. This is possible due to the high cost of healthcare in this country but the gains from it are even higher (and benefited from by countries all over the world).

I've heard that a lot.

Could you please back that up with some data? Maybe a study that compares these factors across countries?

And what, exactly, do you think are the "even higher" gains from the most expensive system in the world?

(Not saying that you're necessarily wrong. I'd just like to see some data on this.)

HokieBird wrote:

He concludes, "The American health care system, high expenditures and all, is driving innovation for the entire world" (Cowen, New York Times, 10/5).

Okay. So we've got yet another opinion. From an economist.

Again, I'd like to see that backed up by some data. Just curious.

0 Replies

This is from the OECD Health Data 2007 report

The interesting bit in the second graph is that the United States are in no way the only country that has a large percentage of privately paid for health care costs, and that the supposedly "free market system" in the US is already in large parts paid for by the government/taxes.

Here is a PDF, published as an excerpt of the OECD Health Data 2007 report: How Does the United States Compare. Above tables and more to be found there, for a quick glance (short, 3 pages document).

0 Replies

I don't know about all the other Canadians, but I'm not forking over half my pay on taxes. Our taxes are higher, but it's not that bad.

How much is the average rent for a 3 bedroom apartment over there. My son and his girlfriend just bought a 3 bedroom mini home for $14,000 and the going rents for 3 bedroom apartments around here are in the area of $400-$700 a month and some with utilities/cable included.

0 Replies

You can't buy a garage roof for $14,000 here, Montana! Our lowest house price is around $300,000, with the average being $550,000... a 3 bedroom apartment would run you at least $1500.00, monthly.

My daughter just bought a 4 yr old large 3 bedroom house in London, ON for $260K and my son bought a small 2 bedroom townhouse in Calgary for $250K. My house is worth about $900,000. My sister bought a house in Miscouche, PEI for about $48,000. Look at the differences, eh?

0 Replies

Montana wrote:

I don't know about all the other Canadians, but I'm not forking over half my pay on taxes.

And certainly not for health care. Two years ago, Canadians were paying, on average, 3,326 USD per capita/per year for health care. Americans, in comparison, were paying 6,401 USD.

Now bear in mind that those are average numbers. And that more than 45 million Americans don't have any insurance (read: are not paying for any insurance).

(The current projection by the US government is more than 7,000 USD/year/capita for 2007.)

0 Replies

Mame wrote:

You can't buy a garage roof for $14,000 here, Montana! Our lowest house price is around $300,000, with the average being $550,000... a 3 bedroom apartment would run you at least $1500.00, monthly.

My daughter just bought a 4 yr old large 3 bedroom house in London, ON for $260K and my son bought a small 2 bedroom townhouse in Calgary for $250K. My house is worth about $900,000. My sister bought a house in Miscouche, PEI for about $48,000. Look at the differences, eh?

Damn! I think I'll hang here in my nosy neighbour town Laughing

0 Replies

parados wrote:

.... In Edmonton, I had to get stitches and it took about 2 hours from leaving the job site until I was back at it. That included the time to fill out paperwork and pay for the medical assistance since I wasn't a Canadian citizen.

In Milwaukee it took about 4 hours before I was back at the job site.

If Parados checks back in, and would like to share, I'd love to hear what it actually cost for each procedure. Just curious, because I have no idea what the real costs are here.

Taxes are relative, and difficult to compare. As a business owner (very small business owner) I pay very little. In fact, I often think that if I died intestate and thereby allowed the government to take a bigger slice of my net worth, it would only be fair for all the benefits I've received.

I know that there are areas of the US where taxes are quite low. But I've had detailed conversations with American colleagues, living in Michigan and New York, about taxes. Income tax level was lower in those states than Ontario, but when all the additional taxes and costs (health care, for example) were added up, my costs were actually lower. It was quite a surprise.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Montana wrote:
I don't know about all the other Canadians, but I'm not forking over half my pay on taxes.

And certainly not for health care. Two years ago, Canadians were paying, on average, 3,326 USD per capita/per year for health care. Americans, in comparison, were paying 6,401 USD.

Now bear in mind that those are average numbers. And that more than 45 million Americans don't have any insurance (read: are not paying for any insurance).

(The current projection by the US government is more than 7,000 USD/year/capita for 2007.)

I don't want you to think I'm ignoring your post. I had a few drinks tonight and I don't do serious talk when I drink, so I'll get back to you on that.

0 Replies

Montana - answer this - what were you drinking tonight? Laughing

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

ebrown_p wrote:
greed based healthcare

Hey! What a nice, descriptive term, ebrown! I like that.....

You have both instead just described yourself as totally ignorant of the realities of the world, that the profit motive and the desire to be good at what you do, to not only profit with money but to profit by being good at what you do, and to profit by earning the respect of your customers and your peers in the field in which you work. And you have also laid bare your total mis-understanding of what "greed" is.

Profit motive is a great thing, because it makes you provide the best health care that you can for your patients, simply because if you don't, somebody else will take your business and your profit. If you provide lousy medical services and if you don't care about your patients, they will go to someone that does. But profit is really only the final aspect of being successful. It is about excelling, it is about pride, it is about self respect and the respect of others, but profit does make the other things worthwhile by rewarding you with things that you have earned, not stolen, or gotten by taxing people forcefully and unwillingly to provide them services that they do not want. Profit results from a willing and able provider of services to a willing and satisfied customer.

In contrast, if the government does it and has a monopoly, its just another day at the office, and who cares, maybe a day at the golf course would be more enjoyable.

If you wish to remain ignorant, that is your choice, but instead I would suggest you read up a bit on the free market system and why it almost always provides a superior product and service as compared to government monopolies.

0 Replies

Hmm, okie. Are you saying that you know the realities of the world re health service?

If 'yes', why do you ignore your comprehensive knowlege in your answers here?

0 Replies

Sorry to rain on your parade, Walter, but not everyone agrees with socialized medicine, and all of us are entitled to our opinion, and some of us have more knowledge about it than you might think.

To summarize, I reject the idea that it is greed that causes people I know to be cared for by our current health care system. I also reject the insult that friends of mine that happen to be doctors do it for greed.

Besides, is it greed that causes you to go to work every day, and I have no idea what your work is?

0 Replies

I still don't know what socialised medicine means - e.g. our system certainly was created by one of the most conservatives we had had during the last 140 years, namely Bismarck, in 1883.

Nevertheless, I wasn't asked about that but about your knowledge about the realities in the world.

So you say you have more knowledge.
Again my question: why do you hide it?

0 Replies

To answer you lastquestion: I don't go to work everyday - at least not to a paid one.

0 Replies

I should apologize for butting into this thread, but I began to read the first page, and again, the definition of greed reared its ugly head again, and I had to respond to it.

In regard to your work, are you retired, or?

0 Replies

Kind of, yes. (Taking care of my mother and aunt)

0 Replies

Fine, and I apologize for asking personal questions, but in reality, you have gained a living from somebody sometime in your life, so whatever you did for somebody, whether it was for the government or people, did you do it for greed?

0 Replies

I don't know what it has to do with healthcare, but to answer that above question: no.

0 Replies

The Government In Charge of Our Entire Health-Care System?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know