For those who want a socialized medical system, read this.

phsk8

Member
There are arguments for and against socialized medicice and I think before you pick sides research because it is a major issue. Heres a start:

'Single Payer' Health Care Is Hardly Free

Opinion Editorial by Paul Hsieh - Sep 19, 2007

13 reader ratings

Michael Moore’s latest movie “SiCKO” sings the praises of the Canadian “single-payer” socialized medical system. Some Americans want a similar system implemented in the United States.

Defenders of the Canadian system frequently claim that patients don’t have to worry about money when they’re sick — the health care is free. But is this really true?

No.

First, it is ludicrous to think the system is free. Each citizen is forced to pay for his neighbors’ medical care in the form of high taxes. (As a percentage of GDP, total taxation is 28 percent higher in Canada than in the United States.) The government, rather than individuals, then decides how that money is spent.

Even worse, in the name of “equal access” the government generally forbids patients from purchasing medical services outside of its system. Canadian law makes it difficult or impossible for citizens to spend their own honestly earned money on medically necessary care for themselves or their loved ones, even when both the doctor and the patient are willing.

To control costs, the government restricts access to crucial medical services via infamous waiting lists. This imposes a second, hidden, cost on patients: their time.

According to the Vancouver-based Fraser Institute, “Canadian doctors say patients wait almost twice as long for treatment than is clinically reasonable, ... almost 18 weeks between the time they see their family physician and the time they receive treatment from a specialist.”

Because of the waiting lists, mortality rates for treatable conditions such as breast cancer and prostate cancer are significantly higher in Canada than in the U.S.

A Canadian woman who discovers a lump in her breast might wait for months before she receives the surgery and chemotherapy she needs, with the cancer cells multiplying rapidly as each week goes by. If she lived in the United States, she could receive treatment within days.

This tax on time is especially cruel because the burden falls hardest on the sickest patients, i.e., those with the least time to spare.

Consequently, Canadian patients routinely suffer and die while waiting for their “free” health care. The National Center for Policy Analysis notes, “During one 12-month period in Ontario, ... 71 patients died waiting for coronary bypass surgery while 121 patients were removed from the list because they had become too sick to undergo surgery.”

To guarantee “free” health care, a government must force the individual to pay for everyone else’s medical care and limit his freedom to pay voluntarily for his own.

With bureaucrats deciding who receives what, the individual is therefore forbidden from spending his money according to his own rational judgment (and the advice of his doctors) as to what’s best for his health.

When a government forces people to act against their own interests, it’s no surprise that the results are misery and death.

Fortunately, Canadians are starting to recognize the problems inherent in “single-payer” health care and are taking very small steps towards limited private medicine. America must not repeat Canada’s mistakes.

As P. J. O’Rourke said, “If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it’s free.”

Paul Hsieh, MD, is a practicing physician in the south Denver metro area. He is a founding member of the Colorado group Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (www.WeStandFIRM.org). His personal blog is at geekpress.com.

Also I'd like to add that since there is not compitetion between surgeouns the procedures are not as good and that is the reason they come to the U.S.A. for higher end procedures

 
finally someone who agrees with me ^^^^^ i challenge anyone to respond with a good well thought post rebutting this information

internet (high five) to the author of this post
 
sorry to double post.. here is the post i made in another thread, and i think it helps drive this guys point home,about social (UNIVERSAL) health care binging total CRAP

for starters universal health care will be a mess.. And if you need an example go look at Canada(sorry all peeps from Canada)

how many people have come to America to have a surgery because they get better care here, than they can get in Canada??

I know people who have done this because the wait was to long and there are better qualified doctors here in the USA..

Another example of social health care gone nuts, is in Europe where a man broke his ankle and is being refused care because he is a heavy smoker, and smoking makes the chance of recovery go down.... source http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1896536/posts

now imagine this scenario, you have been diagnosed with cancer and you have a slim chance to live. You are discussing your options with your doctor and he says this, "we are not going to fight the cancer because the chance is to high that you wont live anyway and it will cost the system to much money ". This is a very real possibility in the distant future because think about how much it costs to fight cancer, compared to fixing a simple ankle problem.

If you dont think i know what im talking about here is a story from my family, my great uncle was diagnosed with terminal cancer and was told by the first doctor he visited to "go home and settle any family problems you might have because there is almost no chance you will survive". my great uncle wasnt going to role over and play "dead" so with the first doctors words in mind he went and got a second view from a doctor at a special cancer clinic.. and he got the same diagnosis about the severity of the cancer, but these doctors agreed that some chance was better than no chance .. this story all took place three years ago, today he is alive and the cancer is still there, but he is ALIVE and the cancer is slowly going away.. this whole story would not have turned out the same in a country with social medicine where there is no competition between doctors.

sorry for the rant but i love this country, and way of life , way to much to just role over and watch it go down the drain
 
You cant say a system is shit just because one country who uses it does so badly. Universal healthcare has worked for many other nations. Though the US is probably too large and pre-set on federal vs private healthcare for it to realistically happen here, its not an entirely bad model. Our healthcare system is fucked worse than Canada's in many ways. To totally dismiss an alternative when ours sucks so hard is idiotic.
 
no no no thats not the way it works we need to see stories and specific country's where it has worked..

i dont mean to piss anyone off but we can not let hilary do this to OUR great country
 
Hahaha, way to try and turn this into an election debate. Most developed countries (eg, Europe, Japan, Australia, NZ, etc) used a scaled down system of Universal Healthcare. Not completely universal, but incorporating many elements. And for the most part, it works. The US hasn't, and our healthcare system is struggling. If you want proof of that, go visit your local VA hospital and ask one of the clinicians how his day has been. Our country isnt so great when it comes to healthcare.
 
Here, take Sweden vs the US:

Sweden -

Life Expectancy: 80.5

Infant Mortality Rate: 3

Doctors Per 1000: 3.28

Nurses Per 1000:

10.24

Per Capita Cost for Healthcare:

3,149

% Govt Revenue Spent on Health:

13.6

% Health Costs Covered by Govt:

85.2

USA -

Life Expectancy: 77.5

Infant Mortality Rate: 6

Doctors Per 1000:

2.56

Nurses Per 1000:

9.37

Per Capita Cost for Healthcare:

5,711

% Govt Revenue Spent on Health:

18.5

% Health Costs Covered by Govt:

44.6

I'm sure you can attribute some of the life expectancy issues in the US to obesity, but come on, the numbers speak for themselves. Incorporating elements of a universal healthcare system is better for your country.

 
thats still not an answer give us some fact's on how much faster and efficient socialized health care is, like the guy how started this thread did about privatized health care.
 
The guy copy-pasted an article that was more of a dig at Michael Moore than the system. It cited times spent waiting for treatment and how much Canada spends on healthcare. Give me numbers to prove that its worse.
 
And here we have an example of the number one way to completely invalidate all of your points: quoting the Fraser Institute!

"According to the Vancouver-based Fraser Institute, “Canadian doctors say patients wait almost twice as long for treatment than is clinically reasonable, ... almost 18 weeks between the time they see their family physician and the time they receive treatment from a specialist.""

FYI, everything you just posted was either wrong or horribly skewed.
 
"Fortunately, Canadians are starting to recognize the problems inherent in “single-payer” health care and are taking very small steps towards limited private medicine. America must not repeat Canada’s mistakes."

Yeah, that's about as likely as the government banning gay marriage. This dolt needs to get a clue... PJ O'Rourke is not someone to rest a point on.
 
So here was my last run-in with the Canadian health care system... my friend's car got rear ended about a month and a half ago at 100 kph (roughly 65mph?), I got some whiplash and concussion-like symptoms. I ended up in Richmond General Hospital, they did some tests to make sure my neck wasn't broken and there was no bleeding in my head. They wanted to make sure, so they kept me overnight and ran a CT scan the next morning (a delay of exactly 9 hours only due to the fact that my case wasn't "high risk"). One hour later a specialist had gone over the results and gave me the ok, and I went home. This whole process took less than one day. Yeah, real slow.

PS, in the emergency room there were 5 groups waiting at just about all times, each got triaged and in to get checked out in less than 20 minutes from when they got there. Just sayin'.
 
Yes I did copy-paste so the credit dosent go to me.

There are numbers but even without it does make sense.

One, if no one can be denied and everyone pays for everyone people will want there share and be getting checked for everything which would cause the wait list. Also government pays the doctors what the citizens pay in taxes. What happens when the procedure cost is greater than the taxes? I think that is what is currently happening with social security right now or if not in the near future. Also where it says total taxation is 28% higher means that for some people that would make taxes over 50% of their paycheck.

 
please use some facts. That considered a logical fallacy: Saying that the information cant be true because of the source it came from. If everything was wrong or horribly skewed what are the facts and what are your sources.
 
Here in Canada, I break my arm, I go to the hospital and wait less than an hour, depending on how many people with deathly bleeding there are, the doctor slaps a cast on it and I don't drop a cent. I'll agree that old people waiting for hip replacements can wait for almost 6 months and that's ridiculous, but it's because they're old and going to die soon anyway. Plus what we pay in taxes you pay in insurance anyway, although it does seem stupid that my taxes go to pay for the 95 year old obese man's 15th heart surgery.
 
I prefer to choose what doctor I want to see. Although I do not live in Canada, it is hard to imagine a government run health care system that would be run efficiently. When was the last time any government ran a smooth operation? Theres a right way, a wrong way and a government way. There are major problems with the US system but switching to a national system is the not answer and won't happen. Hillary tried once over a decade ago and failed. She's trying again now but she'll just get the same results.
 
So.... what if I cite Hitler? Does that make the statements any less credible? The source totally matters, and you picked one from a skewed narrowistic point of view.
 
"I'll agree that old people waiting for hip replacements can wait for almost 6 months and that's ridiculous, but it's because they're old and going to die soon anyway".

ok wtf is your problem?? just because they are old they dont deserve the same care you get..

how would you feel if that was your mom, grandpa, or other relative who is suffering on the waiting list for surgery, just because they are old!!!!

 
Not unlike saying I have to present facts to refute a study published by the firm of Coulter, Hannity and Limbaugh... no. It is, prima facie, wrong.
 
I could go thru the first post and counter every point that horribly biases article with citations by for-profit doctors who benefit most from a privatized healthcare system, but it's not worth the time.

And anyways, the stats of Canadians dying while waiting for treatment can be dwarfed by the Americans dying because they cannot afford to go to get medical treatment at all.
 
I wonder how many people died waiting for / because they were denied surgery in the USA last year. I bet it's a lot more than 71.
 
Or the people who had private insurance, went and got a needed procedure, and then had their insurance rescind their policy and refuse to cover the costs, and are now staring at massive medical bills.

Not saying socialized healthcare system is flaw-less, but the current system in the US has some MAJOR flaws as well.
 
Ok, what americans can't see (also some Canadiens) Canadien health care is controled by the provicial government, not the federal. But, laws are made to make sure that the provincial governments spend enough money to the health care system. Medical procedures are all payed my our tax money. Non essential healthcare such as dental and therapy are private companies.

In Canada, the overall healthcare quality is suprior to the american system. Its a statistics thing, less patients can afford healthcare so less people are going to the hospital and the ones that do, often die. In Canada, people come in for many reasons...even hypocondria. The public system makes sure of equal rights to healthcare, unlike the US, if you can pay for it, the doctor will do their best to heal you.

Now, why are some doctor want to privatise. Its easy, money. An american doctor gets payed more because their income comes from customers, in Canada, it comes from taxes. So, there are 2 ways to get richer:

1. Move to the US

2. Privatise their service

The Canadien government tries to stop privatisation of health care for 2 reasons:

1. If one doctor does it, everyone will do it...and the less competent doctor will work in the public system.

2. Its unconstitutional, people shoulnd be discriminised due to the lack of income, hence, social class. Everyone has an equal right to healthcare. Nobody choses to live and cant control fate, unlike an object that you have choice to purchase and maintain, a human cant simply be bought again.

 
Yeah... that's not necessarily a good thing legally speaking since they're inflicting themselves pretty heavily on areas of provincial jurisdiction by attaching conditions to the money they provide... but whatever.
 
The Canadian government kinda cheaps out on the health care I think. They need to put more money into it if they're going to do a system like this, but yes I do still think this is a better system than the US system

what makes the rich more deserving of better health care than the poor? Let's say you're a poorer citizen and simply can't afford health care, isn't not getting any health care much worse than having to wait for it?

It all comes down to the same debate as always though, capitalism vs. socialism so I'm gonna just cut it off now before I get that far
 
Read the article itself... it's pretty clear that the issue here wasn't that the american system was better or faster, but that her Toronto doctor referred her to a particular specialist who he thought would be able to help her (rather rare) condition... and that specialist happened to live in California.
 
I think thats a good explanation.

what it comes down to is whether you believe some people deserve to die or suffer because they lack money.

its as simple as that. dont try to frame it any other way.
 
I know what you wrote. I'm saying that in acknowledging the contents of the article in that way, you're putting a sign on a duck that says, "this is not a duck". You say those qualifications are immaterial. I say they completely invalidate your point whether you acknowledge their existence or not.
 
i'm canadian and i'm pretty anti-government, anti-legalization of society (anti everything)

but the one thing i do like is our health care system. i know i got a good deal when i got a nose job here (broke it 6 times) for free- in the states i'm sure that would have cost me more than 5 g's
 
i will expect you to give that same latitude to everything where there are qualification of facts. i somehow doubt it will happen across the board. theres so many statements and stories that have qualifiers that are tossed aside depending on what point you want to make.

maybe a more interesting observation is that the toronto paper feels compeled to write an apologist piece lest anyone should think that this lady abandoned her sacred liberal duty. to me the fact that this article exists is putting that same sign on a duck saying "this is not a duck" or, "this might look like a duck, but i assure you, wood ducks arent actually ducks... this particular du..er, watefoul, does not have webbed feet on one foot... therefore, a witch! besides, we never have ducks here this time of year..."

you know as well as i do that if there were a bunch of qualifiers coming across in some article from the wall st. journal that they would be trashed on here as biased an immiterial. speculation i know, but i think we can conceed that one.

so i guess if you want to take the facts as theyre reported here, empty of guile, slant, or agenda, i dont want to hear about it next time this kind of thing comes up on the other side.

i also anticipate with warmth and happiness in my heart all your minions (fanclub memebers? wasnt i going to start one of those for you a while back?) who jump on this with something witty to say that probably wont relate much.
 
Apologist piece? Hahahahahaha. I love how, on the rare occasion that an American cites a Canadian newspaper, they treat it like Canada is some monolithic entity, wherein every cog is designed to support every other cog to keep the whole pseudocommunist regime functioning! Pastor Mansbridge would be most pleased with your analysis.

If Belinda Stronach (who happens to be a pretty controversial individual due to her defection from her former party) does anything even remotely controversial, the media is all over it. Our papers don't write apologist pieces for them, we rip them to shreds, just like you guys do down there. Well, most of you. Why? Because it sells more papers. What distinguishes us apparently is a notion that there is a "beyond the pale" principle in play when it comes to journalistic integrity...
 
well i have to admit im not an daily reader of canukian news... but, knowing what i know about the majority of papers in the states, or the big ones at least, you cant fault me for assuming that the news would be similar north of the 49th.
 
Just out of curiosity, since we're all skiers here, does anyone know about how long it takes to get a procedure like an acl reconstruction in canada?
 
who cares if you have to wait long, the treatment is there, your survival/health is all that matters. its not like in canada if your having a heart attack you have to wait in line. if your condition is life threatening you'll immediately get the treatment.
 
an ACL can be done privately by a physiotherapist, but if there are complications suck as a total rip with internal bleeding, your on the operation table faster than it took you to come in.

 
I prefer Canadian system WAY MORE than the US one because

we pay less (I don't want to pay 80,000 for my grandmother's treatment or something, and I don't want to drop 3,000 for a night stay in a hospital bed.)

I don't want to deal with thieving insurance companies

.. what people do now is they fly to INDIA and get surgery or whatever there, because it is way cheaper as a total cost.. medical care and shit is way overpriced in the US; doctors make over 300 grand a year which IMO is way too much
 
^heres the story mentioned above for those with slow internet:

Let Wisconsin Experiment With Socialized Medicine

'Healthy Wisconsin' Plan Could Show Other States What 'Universal' Health Care Looks Like

"On, Wisconsin … run the ball clear down the field!"

It's time to amend the Wisconsin football song so we can cheer on the Badger State's politicians as they move toward health care socialism.

Wall Street Journal editorial-page editors are upset that Wisconsin's state Senate passed "Healthy Wisconsin," which will give health insurance to every person in the state. Of course, the Journal editors are right in saying that the plan is "openly hostile to market incentives that contain costs" and that the "Cheesehead nation could expect to attract health care free-riders while losing productive workers who leave for less-taxing climes."

In addition, as the Journal put it, "Wow, is 'free' health care expensive. The plan would cost an estimated $15.2 billion, or $3 billion more than the state currently collects in all income, sales and corporate income taxes."

And, of course, down the road it will cost much more than that. Even the $15 billion is based on the usual Pollyannaish assumptions such as millions in savings "from putting more emphasis on primary care."

As usual, most of the new taxes will be imposed on employers.

Progressives believe money taken from them doesn't cost anything. Rich corporations will simply waste less on lavish perks and excess profits. But taxes on business are often paid by workers, stockholders and consumers. Businesses that can't pass the taxes on to someone else will close or move out of state.

But progressives are oblivious to this fact. They see Wisconsin becoming a fairyland of health happiness supervised by the 16-person "authority" that will oversee the plan. Socialism will work this time because the "right" people will be in charge. Does it never occur to the progressives that the legislature's intrusion into private contracts is one reason health care and health insurance are expensive now?

The average annual health-insurance premium for a family in Wisconsin is $4,462 partly because Wisconsin imposes 29 mandates on health insurers: Every policy must cover chiropractors, dentists, genetic testing, etc. Think chiropractors are quacks? Too bad. You still must pay them to treat people in your state.

Want to buy insurance from another state, like nearby Michigan, where an average policy costs less? Too bad. It's against the law to buy across state lines. Your state's Big Brother knows best.

The WSJ writes about a "last line of defense against" Healthy Wisconsin, but I say, let Wisconsin try it! Its suffering will be for the greater good. As I interview people for my health care TV special scheduled to run on ABC this September, I'm struck by how many hate the current semi-free-market system America has now. I say "semi," because it's not a free market when about half the health care bill is funded by government. But it's still better than socialism. It allows for innovation, like the creation of better drugs, pain-relieving joint replacements, artificial hearts, Lasik eye surgery, and who-knows-what-else that may reduce pain and extend my life.

Socialism will kill that, but people seem to like socialism, at least when it's sold as free stuff from politicians. Wisconsin's Capital Times reports that "two-thirds of Wisconsin residents support the Democratic plan -- even when presented with opponents' arguments that it would be a 'job killer' that could lead to higher taxes. … Said Sen. Jon Erpenbach, D-Middleton, one of the plan's sponsors, 'Everything we have heard [against the plan], we put in the poll. And it still comes back at 67 percent approval.'"

That's why America needs "Healthy Wisconsin." The fall of the Soviet Union deprived us of the biggest example of how socialism works. We need laboratories of failure to demonstrate what socialism is like. All we have now is Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, the U.S. Postal Service, and state motor-vehicle departments.

It's not enough. Wisconsin can show the other 49 states what "universal" coverage is like.

I feel bad for the people in Wisconsin. They already suffer from little job creation, and the Packers aren't winning, but it's better to experiment with one state than all of America.

John Stossel is co-anchor of ABC News' "20/20" and the author of "Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel -- Why Everything You Know is Wrong," which is now out in paperback. To find out more about John Stossel and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2007 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

 
Back
Top