1
   

Universal Health Care Canada Style

 
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2004 12:24 pm
Nobody bought the McLean because without the fat, it tasted like crap. I remember, believe me. McDonald's strength is consistency, and value. Also, depending on the franchise, those nutritional values are not always readily available. From a legal standpoint, I see a distinct difference between McDonald's and the tobacco industry. While it may not be healthy, McDonald's provides food, a human neccessity. The case against them withholding evidence from the public regarding how unhealthy their food is is weak at best. Tobacco is not a neccessity, and there was clear evidence of a cover-up on the part of the tobacco companies. So, I don't McD's is going down any time soon.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2004 01:39 pm
But don't you see the same hypocrisy? Tobacco's coverup was counteracted by bold print warnings on their product and in their advertising: CIGARETTE SMOKING IS HARMFUL TO YOUR HEALTH and also listing all the health problems associated with it. When I started smoking, they were advertising that certain brands were preferred by doctors with the implication smoking was just fine. There was nothing illegal about that however dubious it was ethically.

Tobacco is a legal substance in the U.S. and the tobacco growers are subsidized by the U.S. government. It is taxed heavily to provide substantial revenues for both the state and federal governments.

To give an industry the legal go ahead, cater to it, tax it, subsidize it, and require it to post health warnings on all its products and advertising, and then allow opportunistic lawyers to sue the pants off it is, in my opinion, the height of hypocrisy even considering the sleazy tactics practiced by big tobacco to enhance appeal of their product.

I hope you're right about McDonalds. It is a decent company providing good jobs to support many and providing entry level opportunity for first-time employees to many thousands. But the legal vultures are circling and I have no confidence they'll leave it alone.
0 Replies
 
jpinMilwaukee
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2004 01:45 pm
The "Super-size Me" movie isn't helping much with that either... but there was another woman who ate McDonalds twice as long but exercised and actually lost weight (I'll find a link). It is the lazyness of our culture and unwilliness to take responisibility for anything that is wrong...not McDonalds withholding evidence... we all know it is not good for you.
0 Replies
 
jpinMilwaukee
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2004 01:48 pm
Link for "Downsized":

http://www.washingtontimes.com/business/20040704-111251-1420r.htm
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2004 02:05 pm
Wow Jp, that's fascinating. Wonder what the lawyes will come up with to prevent that being offered as evidence by the defense?
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2004 02:06 pm
It should be noted that tobacco companies only started using warnings on their product after a long legal battle.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2004 02:14 pm
Well yeah Cav. What company in their right mind wants to broadly publicize the bad stuff about their product? Should fast food restaurants have to put in bold type on their sandwich wrappers: "WARNING, EXCESS CONSUMPTION OF THIS PRODUCT WILL MAKE YOU OBESE, CLOG YOUR ARTERIES, AND PUT YOU AT RISK FOR HEART DISEASE"?

Hey I'm no fan of the tobacco companies. I think some of their tactics were despicable. My mother, a heavy smoker, died of lung cancer. But she would tell you nobody tied her down and forced her to smoke.

If companies need to be 'punished' then do it via fine with specific orders to clean up their act about whatever or be subject to addtional and larger fines. But I am so opposed to these class action legal leeches who attack companies and make millions upon millions for themselves while the people they 'represent' are lucky to get more than small change. There is nothing right about it.
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2004 02:23 pm
The point is, the tobacco companies duped people for years about knowledge that their products were harmful. Long-time smokers who grew up on cigarette ads where even doctors appeared to hail the relaxing benefits of a cigarette were taken as gospel truth. McDonald's never claimed to be good for you. In fact, most of their advertising rarely mentions the food at all. They sell a lifestyle. That might be a contention, legally, in terms of misrepresenting their product. However, the recent class-action suits agains the fast food industry are to me fallacious, based on the fact that evidence regarding the potential health risks, combined with McDonald's (France at least) public declarations that eating their food more than once a week could be harmful, has been widely availible for some time now. I absolutely do not believe in the right to sue for personal stupidity, so on that point, I think we agree.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2004 02:31 pm
Yeah we're pretty much in agreement. I would just like to see punitive damages go to those who, through no fault of their own, were harmed or go into the government coffers to help prevent further harm. I hate seeing sleezy attorneys lining their own pockets while benefitting the 'victims' little or not at all. There is nothing so profitable for a law firm as a successful class action suit.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2004 02:32 pm
Well, I know that they think in the UK about a "low fat tax" but I totally missed this McDonald''s France declaration.
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2004 02:55 pm
I've been trying to dig up a link, to no avail. It used to be there....I guess I don't know how to find it. Anyway, just to add to the conversation, here are a few more reasons the world hates McDonalds, and the US. http://www.mcspotlight.org/campaigns/tactics/unionall.html This is all meant to be provocative, so carry on whether or not I personally know if this is truth or not.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2004 03:00 pm
Well, I've met some regional managers of McDonalds .... at seminars on labour law (which they attended "illegally", because forbidden by their superiors).
0 Replies
 
Jer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2004 03:05 pm
Just to jump back to the original topic of discussion here...

44,000,000 people in the US have no healthcare coverage.

The population of the US is: 293,027,571 (july 04 estimate: CIA Factbook)

That means that 1 in 6.7 people can't get healthcare if they get seriously ill.

When you're walking down the street in the US, count off 1 in every 7 people you meet and then tell me that these numbers are acceptable in a country with the most advanced health care in the world.

In real terms, this means that little 8 year-old Sally's Dad could die at 45 because of heart problems because he was laid-off from his tech job and hasn't been able to work in the last year. So he couldn't afford medical.

In Canada he'd have a 1-week to 24-week wait, but he'd still be there to see Sally have kids twenty-years down the road.

In the US, if he was lucky, he'd be able to re-mortgage the family home and sell off all their assets to have the bypass surgery done...and if he didn't have a family home and some assets, well, he'd die.

Money is important for everything, but I fully believe that everyone, no matter where they are born, or how much money they make, should be entitled to the best care that we can provide, as a community. The amount of $$ you make should not result in your life being considered more or less important than anyone else's.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2004 03:17 pm
The thing that statistic doesn't show Jer is that most of those 44,000,000 are temporary. People change jobs and are without health care during the transition. (That happened to my husband and me once and we wound up with a hefty medical bill during that time. But it was our choice to change jobs and we didn't blame the government for not covering us.)

It doesn't consider those who choose not to have health care in favor of having other things they want more.

The actual number of working poor who do not qualify for government health care and honestly can't afford private health insurance is probably much smaller and would likely be addressed by President Bush's more modest health care proposals.

There are all kinds of ways to address the problems of the uninsured without adopting socialized medicine and effectively dismantling the best health care system in the world.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2004 03:38 pm
But those 44,000,000 don't have health care - for whatever reason.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2004 03:42 pm
No, they don't have health INSURANCE. There is a difference.

If they have a medical emergency while they are temporarily without health insurance, they can still get health care pretty much whenever and wherever they need it.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2004 03:44 pm
While I'm thinking about it, there are those of the 'uninsured' who buy much cheaper catastrophy policies for a real medical disaster. They otherwise pay for their routine medical needs out of pocket as they find this cheaper to do than pay high hospitalization insurance premiums.
0 Replies
 
BillyFalcon
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2004 03:49 pm
Yes, Williams is all wet.

Myths & Facts About Single-Payer Universal Health Care
Copyright ©2004 American Medical Student Association
(800) 767-2266 • [email protected]

MYTH: It would cost too much money.
FACT: A single-payer universal system would cost no more than we're already spending on health care, according to studies by the Congressional Budget Office, the General Accounting Office (GAO), the Lewin Group, and the Boston University School of Public Health. The GAO estimates if the United States changed to a universal single-payer system, it would save in the short run: $34 billion in insurance overhead and $33 billion in hospital and physician administrative costs. This savings would come from providing timely care to those who would otherwise delay care, thereby becoming sicker and more expensive to treat.
          The cost of serving the newly insured would be about $18 billion. The cost of providing additional services to the currently insured-due to elimination of co-pays and deductibles-would be about $46 billion.


MYTH: It is socialized medicine.
FACT: A single-payer universal health plan is not socialized medicine. Under socialized medicine, the government owns the hospitals and clinics. Doctors and nurses are government employees. A single-payer universal health plan preserves private ownership and employment. It has no more in common with socialized medicine than does Medicare. What's unique about a single-payer universal health plan is that all health-care risks are placed in a universal risk pool covering everyone.


MYTH: Americans would pay more.
FACT: Several studies show costs for middle-class Americans would not increase. All but the poorest Americans would pay more income tax, but in most cases the tax would be equal to or less than what they currently pay for health insurance premiums, co-pays and deductibles, which would largely be eliminated. Money to take care of the currently uninsured would come from money saved by eliminating private insurance overhead costs and by spending less on high-tech equipment that duplicates or exceeds what's needed in any geographic region.


MYTH: It would create a huge bureaucracy.
FACT: Experts say the employer-based managed-care system is already a huge bureaucracy. It consumes 9 to 15 cents of every health-care dollar. Medicare, a single-payer plan for seniors, spends only 2 to 3 cents of every dollar on bureaucracy.


MYTH: It would cost employers more, make them less competitive and force them to fire employees.
FACT: Experts say the employer tax would equal but not exceed what employers currently pay for health-care premiums and paperwork/billing overhead created by the current multipayer system.


MYTH: Medicine would be rationed.
FACT: Managed care already rations medicine. A single-payer universal health plan would ration services based on medical necessity. Managed care rations services based on profit. Under single-payer universal health care, no one would be denied care due to pre-existing conditions.


MYTH: Americans would have trouble getting in to see a doctor.
FACT: Canadians, who live in a single-payer system, see their primary care physicians more often than Americans do now. There are more doctors per capita in Canada than there are in the United States. Yet the cost of physician services in Canada is one-third less than it is in the United States. About half the cost savings in Canada comes not from offering less care but by reducing insurance overhead and paperwork. The rest of the savings comes from allocating money to pay for expensive equipment so there is less excess capacity and duplication. Ninety-six percent of Canadians prefer their health-care system to the U.S. model.


MYTH: Patients wouldn't be able to choose their own physician.
FACT: According to experts, a single-payer plan would give patients more choice than they currently have in most cases. The United States is the only developed country heading in the direction of less choice. Other countries are building more choice into their systems.


MYTH: The United States has the best health care in the world.
FACT: The United States has higher infant mortality, higher surgical mortality and lower life expectancy than Canada. The United States has a much lower rate of access to primary care doctors than Canada. Canada has the same acute care bed-to-population ratio as the United States. Patient satisfaction, quality of care and outcome of care in Canada equal or exceed that in the United States, according to the U.S. General Accounting Office. For this lower quality, Americans pay 40 percent per capita more than Canadians do on health care.


MYTH: There would be waiting lists for surgeries and high-tech procedures, which is why Canadians come to the United States to get health services.
FACT: The United States has waiting lists for specialty care, too. Canadians rarely come to the United States for health care. Less than 1 percent of Canada's health budget goes to paying for care Canadians get in the United States. Canada's waiting-list problem stems largely from underfunding, which is being corrected now. Waiting times would likely be no longer in the United States than they are now, because we would still spend much more than other countries do on health care and still have many more specialists and capacity.


MYTH: Physician salaries would be lowered, as would standards for physician training. It would discourage the best and brightest from going into medicine.
FACT: Primary care doctors would see little or no change in their salaries. Some specialists would see a decline. All physicians would be paid more if they work in remote or underserved areas. Education, training and licensing policies are so similar for U.S. and Canadian physicians that their credentials are virtually interchangeable.


MYTH: Canadian physicians are unhappy with their system.
FACT: Nearly two-thirds are either "satisfied" or "very satisfied." About 500 Canadian doctors emigrate to the United States each year-representing about 1 percent of all Canadian doctors. Some return to Canada.


MYTH: U.S. physicians don't want a single-payer universal health plan.
FACT: Despite pervasive negative spin, 57.1 percent of U.S. physicians believe a single-payer system with universal coverage would be the best option for the United States, according to a 1999 New England Journal of Medicine survey.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2004 04:05 pm
Link Billy? And how many American doctors are emigrating to Canada?
0 Replies
 
Jer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2004 04:14 pm
Here's a link to the site.

AMSA - Universal Health Care

Good stuff.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/25/2024 at 10:04:13