When people who can't get or can't afford health insurance get the
sniffles or a hangnail or the flu, they go to the emergency room because
that's the only access they have to health care. Hospitals do not turn
away ER patients because they cannot pay. As a result, all of us pay, and
we pay a whole hell of a lot more than if there were some comprehensive
system to take care of these people.
And even the best and poorest of us bleed when cut.
You seem to be confusing me with someone who thinks the US should have
nationalized health care.
You seem to know nothing about the level of service in Canada. In Canada,
most people with most ailments get the treatment they need quickly and
efficiently and with great competence. (How do I know? Well, I've lived
here for the past few years. How do *you* know? Sumpin' you heard on Rush
There is no lack of choice in doctors and hospitals in Canada. The notion
that Canadians don't get to choose their doctors or their hospitals is a
HMO's are "great"? Horseshit. If you want to talk about lack of choice in
doctors and hospitals, HMOs are what we're going to discuss.
If you have a problem with your HMO, you have the wrong HMO. I
have been covered by an HMO for nearly twenty years. There are
page after page of doctors, both GP's specialist, hospitals and
pharmacies where I can go for treatment or medications. There
are no lifetime limits
or high deductibles, $10 for a GP, $25 for a specialist. I have
never had a problem obtaining the superior services offered by my
HMO and the fee is less than for lower, less comprehensive
coverage, offered under Medicare or my previous BC/BS coverage.
"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
Yep. And when a lot of those same people with hangnails need a ride to
get to the ER, they call 911. There's another flagrant abuse. Do we need a
'comprehensive system' to cover taxicab service too, Dan?
I'd like to know what you're calling your 'comprehensive system' if
socialized medicine (a.k.a. nationalized health care) isn't the correct
You like punitive taxation for little in return, eh? Or is it maybe the
100 km/h national speed limit that was the big attraction?
Perhaps it was the climate!
How do *you* know? Sumpin' you heard on Rush
Actually, no. My source of information on the state of Canadian health
care is from my Canadian co-workers who commute here from Windsor. And
the truth is, they all carry U.S. health insurance at extra cost to
themselves, because when they really need care they want to come *here*.
Anecdotal, I know. So is your assertion that 'most people with most
ailments' blah, blah blah. In addition, I'll see your 'most people with
most ailments' and raise you to 'most people with *all* ailments' --
which is the situation in the US.
And Canada's isn't a particularly bad socialized system. From my
co-workers in Great Britian, I hear that the situation is truly dire.
Emergency room queues that can last for days. (DAS care to comment?)
Maybe in Greater Toronto this is true. I occasionally listen to
*Canadian* talk radio (you know, during the hours that Limbaugh isn't
on here in the US) and hear the locals out in Canadian farm country
bitch about how poor the health care is in southwest Ontario. I'm sure
its worse in the other provinces, I just don't pick them up on my car
Y'know Dan, Canada is just a few miles away. It's not hard for somebody
in Detroit to know what the score is across the river. All I have to do is
flip around the tuner and pay attention to what's going on.
You, on the other hand. are living in the single richest town in Canada,
the one that Canadians all bitch about getting the lions share of the
tax benefit. Then you try to extrapolate your experience to that of
Canadians in general. Somehow I doubt that's close to being the case.
That being said, there are places in rural America where you don't have
as many choices as we do here. That's one _big_ reason why I won't
live in 'em.
There's a parallel health care system in America provided for our
military veterans. My father-in-law is stuck with that beast of a
system. I'm sure most anyone subject to the VA system would agree that
*government run* system sucks ass. Who in their right mind would want
to turn over more of our health care to the government after seeing its
performance in the VA system?
I don't have an HMO. I've got PPO coverage. And it's just
fine, thank you. I go anywhere I want to *in the world* and it's
covered. And for the price of selecting a doctor that participates
'in-network' -- and it's a big network -- I go for just a minor
deductible in addition to my monthly premiums. Paying for medical care
just is *not* a concern for me.
I've had a choice of cheaper HMO-style coverage. I turned it down,
knowing full well that you get what you pay for. So my paychecks are a little
smaller than my HMO-choosing co-workers.
So what? Me, my wife and two kids are covered by the best damn medical
system anywhere in the world. I'm willing to pay for that. Why isn't anyone
It all comes down to choices and priorities. If your priorities are
such that taking care of your health and that of your family isn't
paramount, then I guess you will eventually have reason to bitch about
the cost of health care in America. Too friggin' bad.
What I truly dislike is the idea that because *my* priorities are such
that health care IS paramount that I'm accused of being somehow less
than compassionate when others who made poor choices complain and I turn
a deaf ear. Natural selection at work, IMO.
Funny, there's a pattern here. I buy and pay for medical insurance the
same way I buy and pay for automobile insurance. My risks are managed!
So what's the problem?
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 15:40:24 -0400, Geoff
I agree with a bit of what written in this portion
Not if you've got BUPA ( British Private health insurance) It allows
for the 2 tier system to operate efficiently. Worked wonders for my
In-laws to que jump when they needed to.
Here in Canada when we want quicker / more personal service we've got
to travel to the US.
Any one that's truly happy with the CDN system either does that, or
has been brainwashed into believing the propaganda that the
politicians and health unions spread. (And yes that would be the same
politicians who fly to the states for same day MRI scans etc)
I like the private choice of the US system. Though I do believe that
a health "floor" should be provided for. i.e. ER & communicable
Just some recent news to consider when comparing CDN socialized health care
to the US system.
Canadian Physiotherapy Association Calls for Access to Needed Health Care
May 23, 2004
"Ontario's recent decision to delist community-based physiotherapy from
OHIP is merely the latest action in a troubling trend towards reduced access
to needed physiotherapy services across Canada."
Alberta Premier Ralph Klein to roll out details of health-care reform plan
Jun. 29, 2004
"Klein, long known for pushing more private care options as a way to rescue
a public system collapsing under its costs, ratcheted up the rhetoric
recently when he suggested Alberta's changes to health delivery in Alberta
may violate the Canada Health Act.
"Our focus is entirely on strengthening the public system at a time when
substantial underfunding by the Ottawa Liberals over the past several years
has put health systems from coast to coast into perilous situations," he
"On 18 May 2004, Greg Sorbara, the Ontario Minister of Finance, tabled his
government's first budget. The budget focused on health care and education.
As widely anticipated, the government introduced a so-called premium which
will be administered as a personal income tax. This additional tax is
referred to as the Ontario Health Premium" ("OHP"). In addition, certain
services currently covered under the Ontario Health Insurance Plan ("OHIP"),
such as chiropractic services and routine optometry examinations, will be
delisted. Many of the changes introduced under the budget will have an
impact on employers.
Geoff, why is someone in a bordertown, like yours, so interested in the
Canadian medical system? I'll bet that you're crossing into Windsor to get
your less expensive prescription medication! Shame! ;-)
Seems like maybe a year ago that I heard a radio report that said that
the a law had just been passed in Canada (can't recall if it was federal
or for a particular province) requiring that clinics be maintained with
licensed nurses to administer certain drugs (heroine?) by needle to
addicts off the street so that they did not get certain diseases from
dirty needles, etc. What idiots people are becoming!
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
Healthcare is administered provincially Bill. Your recollection is close
though - a couple of provinces have decided that it's better to provide
clean needles to addicts, rather than have them sharing needles (and
diseases!) in shooting galleries. It's not a law, just a practice.
The report I heard siad that the places were staffed with nurses to
administer the drugs - not just handing out clean needles - that much I
do remember. I thought it was a legislated requirement (provincial or
federal?), but maybe I heard wrong - in any case, law or no law,
taxpayer money was being payed out to provide the "service" for those
places that implemented the practice.
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
I think that the government's logic is that some incompetent & deluded
nurse would "lower the number of addicts" just like we hear
occasionally happening in hospitals around the world.
After all Euthanasia is "illegal" But only if it's caught right?
Gov't implements law allowing someone to become disgusted & frustrated
with the system & then gov't washes their hands of the results when
the inevitable results occur.
Wasn't the war on drugs a fund raising effort for the police forces?
I'm always puzzled when one drug ( for example powdered cocaine or
rock cocaine <crack>) is treated differently depending upon the target
But I suppose whatever allows the police to strip search your
girlfriends and frisk your wives to stop "evil dooers" has got to be
Ahh... I should have gone into Law Enforcement..... The perks....
The one's you see on "Cops" aren't getting strip searched on camera &
the one's they enjoy "searching" sure as hell aren't going to be
submitted to "Cops" for their partners to see.....
That's I'm thinking anyways. (probably wrong, but it sounds good no?)
Remember the old oil filter commercial "Pay a little now or a lot later"?
The principle applies here. Pay a little now to provide clean needles and
constant availability of rehab services. Or, pay a lot later to treat them
and those they've infected when they have big, expensive diseases like
Syphillis and AIDS.
It's a strategy known as "harm minimalization". The Netherlands example
shows us it can be very effective at minimizing societal costs of drug
abuse. It doesn't sit well with those who think drug abuse will cease to
happen if they just make enough pious moral denouncements of drug addicts.
And if that doesn't work, make the drug laws sricter!
And if the pushers don't want to be arrested, disarm the rest of
And if money laundering happens, limit how much cash people can hold!
And, hey, using drug money to mount a legal defense is *wrong*, so
confiscate assets before they're convicted! And if they somehow get
off the hook, make 'em sue to get their assets back! Hang on, the
legal procedures to recover the assets are publically available? Tell
the libraries to shred that!
See how much we can improve society by stamping out drugs?
Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605
Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 12:00:42 -0400, "Daniel J. Stern"
Just my $0.02
Most CDN's have a choice of MD's & in emergencies they tend to have
the service they need. (not the best but "usually" good enough)
Why am I in favor of a BASIC level of universal health care? I'll
provide an example and you tell me what you think is the right answer:
A "poor" person with drug resistant TB stands in the DMV office
coughing next to your wife and young child. Do you care? Your
teenager goes out on a group date with some school friends. One of
whom cannot afford full treatment for their syphilis which is now drug
resistant because they only get ER care. Do you care yet?
There's being selfish, and then there's being "penny wise & pound
foolish". I think you can surmise which category I put people in who
cannot see the need for basic universal health care. Polio wasn't
wiped out by only vaccinating those that could afford the vaccine.
Basic yes... which is usually able to be provided through medicare/caid.
Plus there are several free clinics all over, especially metro areas. My
stepmother is a pharmacist at one in Detroit. They have doctors and nurses
there and dispense meds for free or low cost in some cases (low cost like
$1). The only argument I say to that... not really an argument, but a
thought really, is even if basic was provided what is to prevent someone
from not caring enough to go see a doctor to find out they have the TB or
syphillis and still able to spread it to your wife, child, or daughter?
This is a country that has many lazy people, many people with too much
'pride' to go to a free clinic, or just too stubborn to ask for help. Just
a thought. Not bunking ya.
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.