Universal Healthcare & Canada -- Canadiens as to please explain

[elsol]

New Democrat leader Jack Layton said he hadn't received enough assurances the Liberal Party would fight the increased use of private health care in Canada. Martin made the deal for support from Layton's leftist party last spring by pledging $3.6 billion in social spending and promising to delay billions in corporate tax cuts.

Fight the use to of 'private health care'?

Does this mean Person A wants to spend THEIR own money to go to a doctor... and the government says 'IXNAY!'?

Or is it something else?

Thanks in advance...

The quote was pulled from

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10243642/


Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[rgraham666]

Yes, that's exactly right.

And I agree with him.

I wouldn't if the people that can afford to pay for extra health care didn't get so uptight about paying for those people (said with with a sneer on their face, as if they smelt something bad).

Here, in Canada, health care is regarded as a public service, just like the military, law enforcement and the justice system. Private enterprise doesn't work very well for these and most Canadians don't believe it works very well for health care.

 

[Liar]

Fight the use to of 'private health care'?

Does this mean Person A wants to spend THEIR own money to go to a doctor... and the government says 'IXNAY!'?

Or is it something else?

If I was to guess (and by golly, I am) I'd say "fight" is a poor choice of words. "Compete against" would be more like it.

If it's anything like over here, and I've been told it is, private healthcare is on the rise because public heathcare is getting worse. Out public healthcare had been among the best you can get anywhere, private of guvment funded. But it's deteriorating due to budget slashing. And the void has been filled by private sector, who snag the weathy patients, which means that those are not willing to pay for the public healthcare anymore, thus triggering the downward spiral.

What we're left with is less healthcare per spent unit of money, and generally worse quality, even in the private options, because they have profit demands. I guess that O Canada don't wanna fiollow our path.

 

[amicus]

Under socialized medicine, doctors and nurses become government employees, like those folks in the post office or the AT&F or FEMA.

Government has proved, time and time again, to be the least efficient means of providing services of any kind.

Didn't I just hear on the news yesterday that the Canadian parliament has given a 'no confidence vote' to the current left wing administration and has called for a new election? (They have the right to vote in Canada?)

Maybe amicus2k6 should scoot on up there and straighten things out?

OOOOOrahhhh!

amicus...

 

[rgraham666]

If I was to guess (and by golly, I am) I'd say "fight" is a poor choice of words. "Compete against" would be more like it.

If it's anything like over here, and I've been told it is, private healthcare is on the rise because public heathcare is getting worse.

Same here, Liar.

And the reason it's getting worse here is we can't solve the modern Western dichotomy.

On one hand, there's a strong drive to get rid of taxes. 'Taxes are theft' to the minds of the people behind it.

On the other is 'we need the government to do more'. Oddly enough, this is often the people who say 'taxes are theft' saying this as well. Their idea of more is bigger military, more law enforcement, more jails.

Essentially they're saying 'we want stuff but we're not willing to pay for it.'

The people in the middle, like myself are trying to come up with a reasonable compromise, but this is difficult as the people I mentioned above are not willing to compromise. Nor do they recognise the dichotomy in their wishes.

Shrugs. For 'Thinking Man', the individuals of our species don't often do a lot of it.

 

[Liar]

Government has proved, time and time again, to be the least efficient means of providing services of any kind.

Ever since our commuting railroad was privatized in -99, I've never seen one train on time in the winter season. Snow was never any problem before. <shrug> That's all I know.

 

[Pure]

QUOTE: New Democrat leader Jack Layton said he hadn't received enough assurances the Liberal Party would fight the increased use of private health care in Canada. Martin made the deal for support from Layton's leftist party last spring by pledging $3.6 billion in social spending and promising to delay billions in corporate tax cuts.

//Fight the use to of 'private health care'?

Does this mean Person A wants to spend THEIR own money to go to a doctor... and the government says 'IXNAY!'?

Or is it something else?

Thanks in advance...//
----

There are doctors outside the system, whose services can be bought.
There are services which are not publically insured, such as plastic surgery.

But the major hospital are not private entities. So, if you wanted a high-speed hip replacement, you couldn't 'buy' the operation in a hurry, except by going to the US. And I don't believe you could buy, say, a CAT scan in a hurry (because you're rich, when they don't think you need it), since the machines are in the major hospitals.

You have to realize that efforts to undermine a publically insured universal health system, or NOT fix it are always in the works. Private capital wants those big bucks. 20 years ago when the system was working better (and it works well in several countries) there was less demand and waiting time.

But measures to improve things were not taken and the Ontario drs. succeeded in getting a reduction of Ontario medical school admissions. With the eventual smaller pool of drs., they have more clout, and a portion of them want--as in the US--to be private entrepreneurs. A long waiting list is an opportunity for a private entrepreneur, right? Someone who says, "Well, I'll give you the service, but you must pay triple."
---

By the way, the New Democratic Party is not 'extreme left wing'; it's a moderate social democratic (left) party, like many in Europe. In the current US, the neo cons want the 'left wing' to start with McCain and Murtha; thus liberals become 'far left' and social democrats 'extreme left'.

It is of course known and proven that any insurance scheme works best with the largest base. Hence the provinces with public auto insurance have better rates and benefits. Private entities are going to have a smaller base. PLUS, the private corp has to rake off 15-20% for profits. SO the private entity can only do well by being selective: e.g, not giving health insurance to the really sick, but to the really healthy only. I believe you can see the problem.

Hence the public entity has the advantage, and gives advantages to the 'customer', esp. those who are 'high risk.' The problem is that the public entity may get corrupt or bureaucratized (as do businesses, incidentally). But there is no reason it can't seek and accomplish efficiency, and this is demonstrated in the publically insured schemes in a number of provinces and countries.
I believe Vermont has a state run health insurance, and again its fees and benefits would be superior to that of a private co.

By the way, by a number of objective measures, the US is NOT high up in 'public health.' E.g., its infant mortality is far higher than need be, if the poor mattered. Complaints about US HMOs --the form of 'free enterprise that emerged to deal with health insurance and care--are extremely numerous, and predictable: i.e., the private entity tends to say an expensive service is not needed. There is 'rationing' of access to specialists, etc.

 

[rgraham666]

With the eventual smaller pool of drs., they have more clout, and a portion of them want--as in the US--to be private entrepreneurs. A long waiting list is an opportunity for a private entrepreneur, right? Someone who says, "Well, I'll give you the service, but you must pay triple."

If they wanted to be rich so badly, why didn't they become stockbrokers or MBAs?

Friend? If the government is so all fired inefficient, why are the military, law enforcement and the justice system still public systems? Perhaps because these things in private hands would become dangerous to the public good?

And efficiency is simply what you do after you've done everything else. The Holocaust, in case you didn't notice was dreadfully efficient.

 

[Pure]

Getting rich

A Canadian dr. can become rich by going to the US. BUT there are drawbacks.

I knew a cardiologist who went to the US, and returned in a couple years.
IF you want to be a multimillionaire cardiologist, youve got to operate like a corporation, advertize, etc. Cut deals with the private hospitals, esp. the high priced ones. You've got to ignore the cardiology cases where no money is available.

Hence a Canadian cardiologist, while lacking a 7-figure income, has access to hospital facilities, university research funding, etc. He has a broad pool of cases and can help the seriously ill, without saying "Are you willing to sell your house, to get my $60,000 fee?" He does not have to 'compete' with and outpublicize the others. So many physicians find the medical emphasis in Canada gives a better environment for *medical practice* as opposed to entrepreneurship.

 

[SummerMorning]

Government has proved, time and time again, to be the least efficient means of providing services of any kind.

You forgot one important qualifier:

For those with money.

For those in the lower 3 income quartiles the choice is between (admittedly somewhat inefficient) government services and no services.

Inefficient services is better than no services.

Never, ever, forget P.o.v.

 

[Pure]

Note to RG

you said, And the reason it's getting worse here is we can't solve the modern Western dichotomy.

On one hand, there's a strong drive to get rid of taxes. 'Taxes are theft' to the minds of the people behind it.

This has been a 'conservative' slogan that's caught on in the US, at various levels. It's much less attractive as a position in Canada and W. Europe. The Amicus approach of trying to reduce the governement to military self defense does NOT sell well outside the US. Indeed, in US, in California and Alabama, 'tax cutting' has been increasingly seen as a slogan that leads to crummy services, littered parks, crappy schools, etc. At the federal level, it's lead to out of control borrowing, 'national debt', T-bills held by the Arabs and the Chinese.

Most of the non-ideologized world realize that taxes are paying for services, and they want the services. Taxes are not 'theft' or 'confiscation' where they are put in place by elected and re-elected governments.

 

[rgraham666]

A Canadian dr. can become rich by going to the US. BUT there are drawbacks.

I knew a cardiologist who went to the US, and returned in a couple years.
IF you want to be a multimillionaire cardiologist, youve got to operate like a corporation, advertize, etc. Cut deals with the private hospitals, esp. the high priced ones. You've got to ignore the cardiology cases where no money is available.

Hence a Canadian cardiologist, while lacking a 7-figure income, has access to hospital facilities, university research funding, etc. He has a broad pool of cases and can help the seriously ill, without saying "Are you willing to sell your house, to get my $60,000 fee?" He does not have to 'compete' with and outpublicize the others. So many physicians find the medical emphasis in Canada gives a better environment for *medical practice* as opposed to entrepreneurship.

Just so.

I was reading recently that there are two million personal bankruptcies in the U.S. One million of them are caused by medical expenses.

I don't know if this is true or not, but I'm inclined to believe it.

As I said, in my opinion health care is a public service. It should be available to everyone and it helps support the well being of all the individuals in a society as well as the society itself.

Many disagree. They can vote how they want and I'll vote as I want. History will decide.

If there is any more history.

 

[rgraham666]

Note to RG

you said, And the reason it's getting worse here is we can't solve the modern Western dichotomy.

On one hand, there's a strong drive to get rid of taxes. 'Taxes are theft' to the minds of the people behind it.

This has been a 'conservative' slogan that's caught on in the US, at various levels. It's much less attractive as a position in Canada and W. Europe. The Amicus approach of trying to reduce the governement to military self defense does NOT sell well outside the US. Indeed, in US, in California and Alabama, 'tax cutting' has been increasingly seen as a slogan that leads to crummy services, littered parks, crappy schools, etc. At the federal level, it's lead to out of control borrowing, 'national debt', T-bills held by the Arabs and the Chinese.

Most of the non-ideologized world realize that taxes are paying for services, and they want the services. Taxes are not 'theft' or 'confiscation' where they are put in place by elected and re-elected governments.

We have those people here as well, Pure. And they hold a power out of proportion to their numbers. They are very well financed and organised.

They ruled here in Ontario for a decade, and it may be another two decades before the damage they've done is fixed. If it's fixed at all.

 

[Pure]

The voting has been going on for years. History IS deciding. Most advanced countries have public insurance for health and some other items. Even the 'conservatives' in these countries--as in Germany now, or in Thatcher's UK-- do NOT propose 'minimal government' and privately run hospitals as do the rightwing ideologues of the US (e.g., Amicus). The conservatives propose to make services more efficient and less bureaucratized; this is good, up to a point, as RG says. Excessive devotion to efficiency in certain services can mean cutting out the poor.

So the facts are reasonably clear to those without blinding allegiances to slogans. All have probably noticed the Amicus does not deal in facts, other than those in the Ayn Rand novels.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

It would seem to me, that the idea here is not to provide better care or faster care, but to make sure everyone has to wait. That seems pretty backwards to me. Unless the idea is to make sure people with money can't get care if they choose by spending thier money.

If you can't use your money to improve your health, or get things taken care of you need to live happier and in less pain, then it seems you are laying the ground work for having money being relatively useless.

My mom & dad are by no means rich, but when mom needed cataract surgery, she got it. When my dad nearly died of a rare disease, mom drove him to pittsburgh for a proceedure that saved his live. No waiting. When my brother found a mole on his head they thought might be cancerous, the dermatologist brought him back the next day to get it removed.

I can't imagine the pain of watching my mom unable to read, or sew or work on her garden while sitting around waiting for a chance to get her eyes fixed. I can't imagine burying my dad because he was on the tail end of a waiting list for a proceedure. And I can't imagine my brother walking around with a mole that might metasticize at any time, while he waited around for a chance to get it removed.

And being taxed around 40% for the priveledge of it too!

I think I'll pass on that plan. I hope most Americans will to.

 

[Somme]

Under socialized medicine, doctors and nurses become government employees, like those folks in the post office or the AT&F or FEMA.

Government has proved, time and time again, to be the least efficient means of providing services of any kind.

(quote shortened for brevity)

Sorry mate, but I call Bullshit here. The most innefficient healthcare is that designed to be making a profit. It may well make more money, but I've not seen any evidence whatsoever that it is any better for people than socialised medicine.

The address below puts another slant on this.
http://www.topplebush.com/oped2350.shtml

 

[amicus]

I realize it must be galling as hell to all you dyed in the wool socialists to watch as amicus2k6 kicks ass in the silly little Nation States game we are playing.

The dream of Marxian socialism was the birth of the Soviet Union in 1917. Finally, a platform to demonstrate, 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need...' philosophy.

Rational people picked up their skirts and ran like hell from what was to become the graveyard of human freedom and the actual graveyard of 100 million from Gulags and starvation in that socialists paradise.

Joseph Stalin had total control and the best intellects in Europe (sic), to build and maintain that perfect state of equality that 'socialism' was supposed to provide.

It took three quarters of a century and suffering beyond imagination before the filth that is socialism rotted from within and collapsed upon itself like a rotten Passion Fruit.

Here on Lit and elsewhere, those dreamy eyed little socialist wanna be's whine, 'why can't we have it all?' and never realize that once you destroy human freedom and the individuals right to choose, you destroy everything.

And the state of medicine in Russia at the collapse? Not quite, but almost Medieval.

amicus2k6

 

[amicus]

It would seem to me, that the idea here is not to provide better care or faster care, but to make sure everyone has to wait. That seems pretty backwards to me. Unless the idea is to make sure people with money can't get care if they choose by spending thier money.

If you can't use your money to improve your health, or get things taken care of you need to live happier and in less pain, then it seems you are laying the ground work for having money being relatively useless.

My mom & dad are by no means rich, but when mom needed cataract surgery, she got it. When my dad nearly died of a rare disease, mom drove him to pittsburgh for a proceedure that saved his live. No waiting. When my brother found a mole on his head they thought might be cancerous, the dermatologist brought him back the next day to get it removed.

I can't imagine the pain of watching my mom unable to read, or sew or work on her garden while sitting around waiting for a chance to get her eyes fixed. I can't imagine burying my dad because he was on the tail end of a waiting list for a proceedure. And I can't imagine my brother walking around with a mole that might metasticize at any time, while he waited around for a chance to get it removed.

And being taxed around 40% for the priveledge of it too!

I think I'll pass on that plan. I hope most Americans will to.

Well said, Colly, well said!

Bravo!


amicus...

 

[Pure]

PS re Amicus

I should have said "absence of RELEVANT facts". Referencing the Stalinist era in the SU is used--god knows now--in a discussion of present-day Canada's medical insurance system.

 

[amicus]

I should have said "absence of RELEVANT facts". Referencing the Stalinist era in the SU is used--god knows now--in a discussion of present-day Canada's medical insurance system.

Most RELEVANT, Pure, most relevant.

It is not just modern day Canada that is 'experimenting' with socialized medicine, but most of socialist Europe.

I referred you to the Stalinist era of the Soviet Union as a prime example of a time when a 'pure' socialist society came into existence. The 'glorious experiment' of how sacrificing individual rights for the 'good of all' would demonstrably lead to a kinder, more gentle world of equality for all.

It didn't work. In fact, it failed miserably. Not because people weren't 'good' enough to make it work, but because the concept is fatally flawed.

Socialism failed in Russia, as it will fail everywhere, because you cannot destroy the individual human spirit and expect the 'group' to survive.

Socialized medicine is just one of the planks in the platform of Socialism, Canadian or otherwise.


amicus...

 

[TheEarl]

I realize it must be galling as hell to all you dyed in the wool socialists to watch as amicus2k6 kicks ass in the silly little Nation States game we are playing.

Ami - I'd like to point out three things.

1). You have unrivalled economy, political freedoms, etc in your Nation State. However, you are also top of the lowest life expectancy, highest illiteracy rates, highest crime rates and just about every negative externality-related list we've had so far. I wouldn't say you're winning.

2) Public health care is not equal to socialism. It's slightly left of your position, but then again, so are most right wing positions.

3). The last time you tried to argue against the NHS, you got so utterly spanked in the debate that you resorted to calling me "obsessed with Empire and yearning for the days when the sun never set on the British Empire." You showed a complete incapacity with the simplest of economic theory and reacted to my supply-demand graphs which proved your point fatally flawed by announcing that I was a socialist who hated mankind.

If you're going to try and join a debate, make sure it's one you haven't already lost once already.

And, as always, I am right wing. You may start misinterpreting my post and attacking the misinterpretation.... now.

The Earl

 

[rgraham666]

It would seem to me, that the idea here is not to provide better care or faster care, but to make sure everyone has to wait. That seems pretty backwards to me. Unless the idea is to make sure people with money can't get care if they choose by spending thier money.

If you can't use your money to improve your health, or get things taken care of you need to live happier and in less pain, then it seems you are laying the ground work for having money being relatively useless.

My mom & dad are by no means rich, but when mom needed cataract surgery, she got it. When my dad nearly died of a rare disease, mom drove him to pittsburgh for a proceedure that saved his live. No waiting. When my brother found a mole on his head they thought might be cancerous, the dermatologist brought him back the next day to get it removed.

I can't imagine the pain of watching my mom unable to read, or sew or work on her garden while sitting around waiting for a chance to get her eyes fixed. I can't imagine burying my dad because he was on the tail end of a waiting list for a proceedure. And I can't imagine my brother walking around with a mole that might metasticize at any time, while he waited around for a chance to get it removed.

And being taxed around 40% for the priveledge of it too!

I think I'll pass on that plan. I hope most Americans will to.

I don't know where you got the idea you have to wait here for emergency or difficult surgery, Colleen.

Twice in my life I've had to get life saving intervention. It was there for me.

There are problems here, that's true. Mostly, as I said, because we're trying to be cheap.

But we don't have 10% of our population fearing that if they get sick they get dead or broke.

And your system costs over twice as much per person as ours does.

 

[amicus]

Nice to hear from you again, Earl....


Not that it matters, but one of my minors in college, albeit a long time ago, was a study of classical economics. So while most do not realize what you can do with graphs and economic models, I do.

Your claiming to have 'spanked' me in any argument, is just that, a claim by you. But saying does not make it so.

Just as you 'saying' you are 'right wing', does not make it so. If it walks, talks, waddles and quacks like a duck, it most likely is....a duck.

There are many issues within the political spectrum that do not seem to fall precisely into a right/left category. But there are many issues that are typically right or left and recognized by all as such.

And you will note I called Nation States, 'that silly little game', it is so obviously slanted to a left liberal position that I am amazed I have survived at all, let alone prospered.

The base assumption of the game seems to be that health care, mass transportation, high taxes, social security, an invasive and large central government and heavy police presence is the only 'rational' way to run a country.

On the other hand, although the game creator realizes the power of the free market place, he/she/it does not realize that social benefits flow from that self same free market.

Capitalism, a free market place, does not, by definition, create a vast gulf between rich and poor. Quite the opposite, it creates a strong middle class with upward mobility made easier for the less fortunate in society.

As with America in present days terms, we have allowed about ten million illegal immigrants into this nation to do work that our lower class workers will not do. That means this fairly free market economy is producing more jobs than there are workers to fill.

This creates wealth and an upward mobility for those lowest on the scale. They will put their sons and daughters into higher education or skilled positions because of their labor and thus create the next middle class.

The game takes none of this into consideration, nor do you seem to.

I don't mind you calling me names and insulting my intelligence, education or background. By the way, you invited me to join this silly game, I think you are just whining sour grapes.


amicus2k6

 

[TheEarl]

Your claiming to have 'spanked' me in any argument, is just that, a claim by you. But saying does not make it so.

Amicus - You didn't address half of my points. You looked at the economic theory which I'd quoted that proved that your theories didn't hold water and declared that you knew better. You claimed you knew better than Keynes and thousands of different economists! Then oyu accused me of lusting after empire and started calling me names. By anyone's definition, you lost.

Just as you 'saying' you are 'right wing', does not make it so. If it walks, talks, waddles and quacks like a duck, it most likely is....a duck.

There are many issues within the political spectrum that do not seem to fall precisely into a right/left category. But there are many issues that are typically right or left and recognized by all as such.

I voted Conservative in the last election. I am pro reducing the size of government. I am pro reducing benefits, or targeting them better. I am anti large-scale "one size fits all" government schemes.

Walks, talks, waddles and quacks like a right winger. I am a right winger.

And you will note I called Nation States, 'that silly little game', it is so obviously slanted to a left liberal position that I am amazed I have survived at all, let alone prospered.

The base assumption of the game seems to be that health care, mass transportation, high taxes, social security, an invasive and large central government and heavy police presence is the only 'rational' way to run a country.

On the other hand, although the game creator realizes the power of the free market place, he/she/it does not realize that social benefits flow from that self same free market.

Capitalism, a free market place, does not, by definition, create a vast gulf between rich and poor. Quite the opposite, it creates a strong middle class with upward mobility made easier for the less fortunate in society.

As with America in present days terms, we have allowed about ten million illegal immigrants into this nation to do work that our lower class workers will not do. That means this fairly free market economy is producing more jobs than there are workers to fill.

This creates wealth and an upward mobility for those lowest on the scale. They will put their sons and daughters into higher education or skilled positions because of their labor and thus create the next middle class.

The game takes none of this into consideration, nor do you seem to.

I don't mind you calling me names and insulting my intelligence, education or background. By the way, you invited me to join this silly game, I think you are just whining sour grapes.


amicus2k6

Sour grapes? Hell, no, I was interested in how your nation would turn out. Still am. I wouldn't call the game ridiculously left-leaning; you have got the best economy and political freedoms in the game. You just have massive externalities, which is what classical and Keynesian economics states your ideals would create. It's based upon a solid economic base.

However, you actually believe you know better than every reputable economist ever to have been published though don't you? I do apologise.

Calling names isn't my style of debating, if you recall. I prefer pointing out the massive flaws in your economic theory and waiting for you to call me names and accuse me of hating mankind.

The Earl

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Existential realities mean it can't work.

Socialized health care can never work because of three "existential" realities:

1. Scarcity. Resources are and will always be scarce. (The ultimate scarce resource is time: Every human has a finite amount of it before we die.) Health care WILL be rationed. The only question is who rations it: Individuals choosing for themselves based on price signals, or politicians and bureaucrats. Groceries and other commodities are rationed by price. In an unregulated market that works so well that the prices are low, and helping those who can't take care of themselves is easy as a result.

2. Self interest. Human nature is immutable, and self interest is an intrinsic part of it. (“Self interest” does not mean atomistic individuals relentlessly grasping for every last penny or advantage, but is defined broadly to include long term benefits to family and others we care about.

3. Every human is unique, and has a unique set of talents, abilities, skills, desires and needs. One-size-fits-all policies ignore this.

If your concern is the poor, you can't help them unless you get the incentives right in the system, and that requires it to be based on these premises. Here is the main incentive that be present: The economizers must benefit from their economizing. In the third-party payer system of the US and in socialized systems that does not happen. MSAs & HSAs in the US may gradually change this.

Lots of evidence that socialized medicine is a failure available here:
"Twenty Myths About National Health Insurance," http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s166/s166.html