State of The Union

Ragu,, I'm not sure what you're arguing. That your present system is more efficient, less costly and provides better healthcare to the majority of Americans than the Canadian model? The facts prove otherwise.

I'm not sure what you mean by "recent". Canadians have had some form of universal health care starting with Saskatchewan in 1947--60 years ago.

As I've pointed out several times, your privatized system is more costly than our "socialist" system. Yes, Canada spends 10% of its GDP on healthcare but the U.S. spends a whopping 14%. (Be careful when you throw out statistics without any context). That doesn't indicate any special efficiency in your market driven system, does it? I know it's fashionable to assume that all government-funded programs are inefficient and more costly than privately run ones, but it's right-wing verbage--nothing more.

And yes, we have "warts' but I'd submit that it's not systemic, anecdotal evidence notwithstanding.

Canadians life expectancy is approximately 2 1/2  years longer than Americans and our infant mortality rate is 30% lower. That doesn't happen because Timbits are healthier than Krispy Kremes.

And where is  your evidence to support your argument that we're not known for "medical innovations or quality of health care"?

And yes, there are instances of waits for certain procedures and yes, there are instances of overcrowding, particularly in cities like Toronto; however, much of the blame for that can be placed directly on the government of the former Premier of Ontario Mike Harris who cut back funding for nurses and hospitals while he was in power. We are still feeling the effects of his catastrophic years of mismanaging Ontario. 

And yes, there is anecdotal evidence of the apparent "failure" of our health care system in newspapers and magazines, but it's just that: anecdotal evidence. And a few visits by Canadians to American specialists doesn't prove that our system is bankrupt or unworkable  because for every one of those examples, I'd submit that thousands and thousands of Canadians have survived life threatening illnesses and accidents because our system is open to everyone, not just those with fat chequebooks.

If you work from the premise that equal access to healthcare should be a given in a civilized society, the challenge is to find a delivery system that works for all those involved: the doctors, hospitals, caregivers and patients and not to assume that if it's government-funded, it can't possibly work.

 

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA547ComparativeHealth.html

Don't Fall Prey to Propaganda: Life Expectancy and Infant Mortality are Unreliable Measures for Comparing the U.S. Health Care System to Others
by David Hogberg, Ph.D.

 

Sorry MB, you should have read the article more thoroughly.

I could argue on the basis of the website merely being a propaganda site for "big business" but what is alarming is that this is the guy's basis for the argument:

The author's first criteria gets trumped over because of the fact that not everyone has access to the healthcare system here due to its excessive privatized nature.

The author wants to argue that our healthcare is better based only on those that visit the doctor. Thus, he misses the point that it isn't just the quality of doctors it is the access to those doctors.

Then, the author goes on to use this same theory regarding life expectancy. Sorry, but part of the reason other places live longer is due to the availability of the health system.

 

What? The approval rating of a sitting president might play a factor in the midterm elections? When did this start happening?

 

You people are obsessed with a meaningless stat, at least in regard to the 2006 elections.

Remember: The U.S. does not have a parlimentary system.

 

If Canadian health care didn't have a built-in safety valve called the United States, it would be even worse.

 

Lyman, come back when you have a fucking clue what you're talking about.

 

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I think I do have a clue here, considering I had a relative in Toronto who was sent to Buffalo for cancer treatment because of overcrowding. Hers was far from being the only case.

 

Funny, I have had at least four acquaintances who've had cancer and funnily enough all of them received prompt treatment here you.

So I'm calling bullsit on you.

Come up with something that ressembles critical analysis other than "My sister's best friend's nephew...."

 

JR.....my aunt and cousin on PEI both had to travel to Halifax for their treatment, about 5 hours away, actually not only their treatment, but to actually get their diagnosis.

That was about 10 years ago,.....so maybe the Island can treat cancer patients now.

 

I actually agree with DyePack on this. It's fine to live in a free-market economy where making a profit is encouraged, but at some point, there ought to be better mechanisms in place for the necessities of life, health care being one of them. Everyone pays, everyone has coverage. Call it whatever name you want, I don't care. I just don't want the health of Americans to be balanced on the back of the need to make a profit.

If you argue otherwise, then essentially you're saying making a profit is more important than health insurance for people.

 

But Ashy, that's a different issue than shuffling off to Buffalo

. People from rural and Northern Ontario have to trek down to Toronto all the time for complicated diagnoses or treatment. If you have a seriously ill child, the best facility in North America is Sick Kids Hospital here.

No one can expect the same sophisticated level of care across the province. It's not realistic nor was it ever intended.