Canadian Health Care We So Envy Lies In Ruins, Its Architect Admits

[mont974x4]

of course it failed...but they just need to throw more money at it, that always solves everything...right?


I've had VA and military care (government run) and I've had private insurance. I'll take my private insurance any day of the week. I'd be in sad shape if I relied on the VA.

 

[Dale]

Several posters have said that medical care should be private, and apparently for profit. Yet traditionally, in the US, while doctors worked for profit, hospitals were usually non-profit. That is one reason that many hospitals have a religious affiliation, they are considered charities. A number of hospitals are operated by the Sisters of Mercy and other Catholic orders, for instance, and other denominations have sponsored and supported hospitals. The Seventh Day Adventists run a surprising number of hospitals for a group their size. Other hospitals are run by the Shriners or the Masons, non-profit fraternal groups.

For those posters who insist that medicine be private and for profit, does this mean you are against all the non-profit hospitals just mentioned: Sisters of Mercy, Seventh Day Adventist, Shriners, Masons, etc?

 

[mont974x4]

Nope, so long as they have limited government influence and I can use my insurance and my choice regarding my care.

Most of the hospitals raise funds through membership dues and other fundraisers. And more importantly thay do great things.

 

[Illuminatus]

Illuminatus,
Thank you for your response.

My relative's name is Bobby and I am sure that he could not afford a $200,000 operation followed by expensive drugs and medical tests. His wife's name is Beverly and she has been with him constantly during this ordeal. While Bobby's medical costs are covered by the Veterans Administration, his wife Beverly would not be covered if she had the identical condition.

This is one of the strange things about the politics of medical care in the US. Some people have good insurance provided by their employer. Others are covered by various government programs. Those who have good insurance don't see the need for everyone else to have the same access to medical care that they have.

And that seems to be the main motivation of people who are against public health care. They don't see a reason that they would need it, therefore, why have it at all? The political philosopher John Rawls said, (paraphrasing), "Imagine you haven't been born yet, and you have no idea what sort of family you'll be born into, how rich they are, what their circumstances are. Now, design a socioeconomic system."

Profit shouldn't factor into healthcare.

 

[mont974x4]

profit motivates the quality of care and quality of care and cost mostivates the consumer to shop more wisely.

I need healthcare. I have a chronic and painful disease. If my care was left to the government, I'd be a drunk because I wouldn't get that care I need. In fact, when I was limited to government run healthcare I was a drunk.

 

[Illuminatus]

profit motivates the quality of care and quality of care and cost mostivates the consumer to shop more wisely.

Except we know that's not true - the overall quality of healthcare in the United States is generally rated below that of nations such as Canada and the Scandinavian countries. The select few who can afford it will most likely get the best healthcare in the world - but the other 95% won't.

 

[mont974x4]

So, you opinion is based on guesses about what will happen?

1. There's a way to reduce cost and most of them involve less government influence. Like getting rid of regulations that limit choice in health insurance companies that are in place in many areas, getting rid of the FDA and lowering the cost of drug R and D.


2. We are all free to work harder to provide better things for ourselves and buy the things we need...like insurance.

 

[Illuminatus]

So, you opinion is based on guesses about what will happen?

Err, no. My opinion is based on personal experience and comparing the state of affairs in countries with and without public healthcare.

2. We are all free to work harder to provide better things for ourselves and buy the things we need...like insurance.

I'm not sure if you've been paying attention. Insurance companies frequently refuse to cover treatment. What happens then? What about the millions of people who work full-time jobs and still can't afford insurance? Your argument seems to be "Rich people can afford insurance, therefore everyone can afford insurance."

 

[mont974x4]

ummm no you guessed that the rich would get care and that 95% would be out of luck. In fact, you used the phrase "most likely".


I am by no means rich and we have health insurance. My bride and I work hard to provide for our family of basic needs. Everyone in free to do the same. And I have had some treatments uncovered, you know what, we worked hard to pay off the debt. We skipped a few things that we wanted and we sold some things we didn't have to keep.


Health care is not a government protected right, however, we are free to work for what we want and what we need.

 

[Aerika]

profit motivates the quality of care and quality of care and cost mostivates the consumer to shop more wisely.

I need healthcare. I have a chronic and painful disease. If my care was left to the government, I'd be a drunk because I wouldn't get that care I need. In fact, when I was limited to government run healthcare I was a drunk.

I agree somewhat, however private healthcare will co-exist with public healthcare. And the cream will still rise to the top.

 

[ACougar]

Canadian (and German) Health Care expenditure per capita is roughly half that of what we spend in the United States...

We do have the highest quality Health Care sysem in the world... and yet most Americans can't afford to use it. Most Americans would be much better off with Canadian or German Health Care Systems which cost half as much and cover everyone.

 

[Avatar]

The political philosopher John Rawls said, (paraphrasing), "Imagine you haven't been born yet, and you have no idea what sort of family you'll be born into, how rich they are, what their circumstances are. Now, design a socioeconomic system."

Very thought provoking. Thanks for sharing that.

 

[jsn112]

WinAce, who used to frequent these boards, died two years ago because his insurance company refused to pay for a lung transplant, as it was too "risky". The procedure is regularly performed in countries like Canada and Norway, where there is exclusively free healthcare, and for-profit healthcare is banned. If Allan had been a millionaire, he'd most likely be alive today. But because he couldn't afford to pay for the procedure out-of-pocket, he died.

But what you neglected to say is that IF you made it through a LLOONNNGGG line for this transplant in Canada. Otherwise, you're not going to make it anyway. FYI, do you know that your pets get better treatment and timely than humans in Canada? How is that better than the US?

About the insurance company, you have to select the right company and coverage at the beginning. And if you're rich enough, you can forgo insurance company's approval. This is called life. Nothing is fair. Otherwise, my wish list in life would include 30,000 sq. ft mansion, 5 exotic cars, 10 girlfriends, a maid/butler/chef, and etc.

 

[jsn112]

And that seems to be the main motivation of people who are against public health care. They don't see a reason that they would need it, therefore, why have it at all? The political philosopher John Rawls said, (paraphrasing), "Imagine you haven't been born yet, and you have no idea what sort of family you'll be born into, how rich they are, what their circumstances are. Now, design a socioeconomic system."

Profit shouldn't factor into healthcare.

This is a scary comment because without profit there would be no incentives for innovations and technolgical improvements, or to be in the field of medicine by great thinkers.

 

[Caylin]

So basically you should only be able to afford health care if you are rich?

 

[jsn112]

Except we know that's not true - the overall quality of healthcare in the United States is generally rated below that of nations such as Canada and the Scandinavian countries. The select few who can afford it will most likely get the best healthcare in the world - but the other 95% won't.

If this is true, then why more and more people are seeking private sector in Canada? Hmmmm...

 

[IisJustMe]

Except we know that's not true - the overall quality of healthcare in the United States is generally rated below that of nations such as Canada and the Scandinavian countries. The select few who can afford it will most likely get the best healthcare in the world - but the other 95% won't.

I see you get your medical information from Michael Moore ...

If this is true, then why more and more people are seeking private sector in Canada? Hmmmm...

... and why do Canadians come to the US to be treated for heart disease and cancer?

 

[jsn112]

Err, no. My opinion is based on personal experience and comparing the state of affairs in countries with and without public healthcare.

Not true, US does have public healthcare. It's called Medicare and Medicaid. They are what has caused the price of health service up exponentially in the US.

 

[Aerika]

Not true, US does have public healthcare. It's called Medicare and Medicaid. They are what has caused the price of health service up exponentially in the US.

I'm not convinced that's a fair representation.

Nonphysician providers of medical care are in high demand in the United States. But licensure laws and federal regulations limit their scope of practice and restrict access to their services. The result has almost inevitably been less choice and higher prices for consumers.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1105&full=1

 

[IisJustMe]

I'm not convinced that's a fair representation.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1105&full=1

MIdwives and nurse practioners are quite common in the Midwest, Rocky Mountain states and the Southwest. I'm not sure how CATO reached it's conclusions, but I believe they are in error. As for chiropractors, I wouldn't trust one as far as I could throw him or her, and I don't believe they qualify as "medical professionals." That's just my opinion though. One of those quacks almost cost one my friend's wife her life because he claimed he could manage her pregnancy, and when the child was a breach, he had no clue what to do and didn't want to call an ambulance. They are nothing but spinal manipulators. Claiming they can cure cancer or heart disease through spinal manipulation makes them dangerous, not professionals.