Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Why I'd Rather Be Sick in Canada Than in the US
It is hard, these days, to turn on an American TV channel without seeing politicians or right-wing pundits ranting about how bad Canada's beloved medicare system supposedly is.
Their fear-mongering is aimed at frightening Americans and ultimately derailing President Barack Obama's proposals, timid as they are, to reform U.S. health care.
For weeks, Americans have been told that Canada pushes its sickest and weakest to the bottom of wait lists, that our health care is inferior, that it's the government that decides who lives and who dies.
Despite these attacks, the reality is that the overall quality of health care experienced in Canada is far better than in the United States.
If you have any doubt, just ask yourself this simple question:
Would you rather be sick here or in the U. S.?
For me, the answer is obvious.
I have worked and studied in the U.S. for a total of 10 years and, although I have received good care from American doctors and clinics, I'd much rather be sick here.
I'm not alone in feeling this way.
While some of us gripe about wait times and the shortage of doctors and nurses, a recent EKOS poll indicated 87 per cent of Canadians believe our health-care system is better than the U.S. model.
Why is our system superior?
First, it's universal. Everyone is entitled to treatment and they get the same level of care as a multi-millionaire. By contrast, in the U.S. the rich can buy top care and jump to the head of the waiting line.
But treatment for all other Americans depends on how much private insurance they have, or if they have any insurance at all, which 50 million don't.
Second, I visited doctors twice in the last week and never had to haul out my credit card or chequebook before I could see them.
Sure, I pay through my taxes, but that's far better than paying directly for every step of my care.
No Canadian winds up bankrupt because he or she had to pay for health care, which happens in the U.S., where private insurers often reject people with serious illnesses seeking coverage. Such incidents are so common that filmmaker Michael Moore easily made a documentary, Sicko, that focused on problems with the U.S. health insurance industry.
Third, the quality of care I got in the last week was unparalleled. Indeed, polls have consistently shown that more than 90 per cent of us are pleased with the level of care we have received.
Top surgeons at Toronto-area hospitals, for example, are as good as any in the U.S., and they treat patients based on need, not the size of their bank accounts. Nurses and other health professionals are well-trained, too, with standards often exceeding those in the U.S.
Fourth, many of our medical outcomes top those in the U.S. We live longer, our infant mortality rates are lower, our cancer and heart disease levels and the rate of low-birth weight babies, are better.
Fifth, I only had to wait several weeks to see a specialist. Overall, wait times for many procedures, such as hip replacements, are dropping dramatically now that more money and attention have been focused on the problem.
Sixth, I feel better knowing that part of my health dollars aren't going to line the pockets of fat-cat private health insurers, whose profits in the U.S. have equalled the total amount of money that Canada spends annually on health care for all its citizens.
Admittedly, our system is not perfect. There is a shortage of doctors and nurses, limited access to some diagnostic services, different levels of care in different parts of the country and rapidly rising costs.
But similar problems exist in every country in the world.
To address these issues, doctors at the Canadian Medical Association's annual meeting this week urged Ottawa and the provinces to look at increasing the use of private-sector operators in delivering publicly funded health care.
But allowing more private health care in Canada isn't the answer to our medicare shortcomings.
The way to resolve most of our problems is to spend more money. If anything, we don't spend enough. Canada spends just 10 per cent of its gross national product on health care while the U.S. spends a whopping 16 per cent.
If we spent as much as the Americans did, there would be no doubt at all about where you'd rather be if you became sick.
60 Comments so far
Show AllKeep in mind that Canada does not enjoy nearly the economy of scale that a US single-payer program would have (California alone has more people than Canada).
If Obama and Congress would let the Congressional Budget Office provide a financial analysis of a US single-payer system it would show reduced cost and improved service.
But it would not show higher profits for health insurance companies, and that's what it's all about, isn't it? Jeeze, you guys really don't grasp the capitalist system, do you.
The fact that Canadians have better medical outcomes than Americans does not really imply a superior health care system. The lower rate of cancer and heart disease could reflect a healthier life style and perhaps less exposure to pollutants, (except for those unfortunate tar sands people)
If Canada had the same numbers of illegal immigrants that the US does, it might find a national health care system a little more burdensome.
Furthermore, why apply socialistic principles to health care? Some people have dangerous jobs that destroy their health like working in coal mines, on fishing rigs or police work whereas others enjoy the comfort and safety of an office job. Why is health care the great equalizer? People with more money enjoy better food, safer neighborhoods etc. Such is the nature of the non-socialistic principles upon which our country was founded.
Societies only need to provide equal opportunities for their citizens, not equal outcomes.
Then don't ask for police protection, fire protection, roads, schools, clean water and other social services. You can live in a bubble on your own and don't expect help from anyone. If you were dying on the street of a heart attack, would you like people to step over you and ignore you? With your pathological, anti-social attitude, many would likely step over you and allow you to die by yourself.
From your comments it's clear you wouldn't know "socialism" if it clubbed you in the face.
And stop using the "illegal immigrants" argument, it just shows you to be both ignorant of reality, and unabashedly racist.
Get back to me, jstevens, when our society provides equal opportunities for its citizens.
- "...why apply socialistic principles to health care? Some people have dangerous jobs that destroy their health like working in coal mines, on fishing rigs..."
Anctually, sorry to bring news of another shocking bit of socialism, but we have strict workplace safety laws, enforced by agencies and MSHA and OSHA, that assure that working in a coal mine or construction job, is in many cases, as safe or safer (a ironworker gets more exercise and fresh air) than a sedentary office job.
- "If Canada had the same numbers of illegal immigrants that the US does..."
If you ever have been to Toronto or Vancouver, you would know that Canada has as many or more immigrants, many of them no doubt uncouumented, than the US.
- "People with more money enjoy better food, safer neighborhoods etc. Such is the nature of the non-socialistic principles upon which our country was founded."
There is no language in the US constitution that spells out any kind of "non-socialistic principles". It actually has nothing to say at all about economic syatems. It _does_ specify in the preamble that the Republic is estabished to "promote the general welfare". If I may apply your extremist standards as to what costitutes "socialism", that makes the US Constitution sound awfully socialistic to me.
If I may make another observation, I find your overall calllousness-and-inhumanity-as-virtue argument often called "libertarianism" to be disgusting and vile. This uniquely USAn, psychopatiic selfishness packaged as an ideal is rejected in all civilized countries throughout the world - most of which enjoy a better quality of life and more real freedom by every measure (UNHDR Statistics) than the US.
One applies socialistic principles to health care because there are certain basic human needs that shouldn't be subject to the vagaries (and avarice) of the market place. Just because out system fails the ethical test on so many other fronts (WHY should someone have access to better food, safer neighborhoods, etc., simply because they have more money), doesn't mean we should attempt to be consistent in our immorality. It's okay for us to occasionally try to do better.
"Societies only need to provide equal opportunities for their citizens, not equal outcomes."
This sounds a lot like Antonin Scalia's philosophy in his dissent in the recent Troy Davis case. Society need only provide a legal procedure for convicting people, but is not responsible for taking all steps to assure that those convicted are innocent before they are executed.
And there is a certain scientific absurdity in the argument about "providing equality of opportunity, not outcome", because statistically and scientifically speaking, equality of opportunity (by existing or prior economic class, race, sex, etc.) is only testable by analyzing the outcomes!
For example the simple fact that children of the the poor are are much, much more likely to end up poor, while the children of the rich are very _unlikely_ to end up poor, is proof that there is not equality of opportunity. The reasons of course are obvious, but maybe not to the thick-as-brick right wingers (hint: cause - savage inequalities in access to education; solution - free quality education through university, like Europe, which has more economic upward mobility than the US, btw).
Ultimately, equality of opportunity is only possible if there broadly equalizing social benefits provided to all poeple.
Duh,
I would rather be sick in France, Netherlands, Norway, Luxembourg, Sweden, Costa Rica, Japan, New Zealand, Spain, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, Finland, Italy, Great Britain, Ireland or Candada than the US.
Dracula Inc. (US healthcare industry) would rather we all died youg than damage their profit margin. Mixing profit and matters of life and death is barbaric, immoral, and just plain evil.
I would rather die young than contribute to the profits of these Vampires; Dracula Inc. response: "if you would rather die, then go ahead and do it, and reduce the surplus population (and increase our profit margin)".
I have dual citizenship (US and Canada) and I have lived and worked in seven countries on four continents, in addition to visiting a number of other nations. The only places where I would be more afraid to be sick than the US are desperately poor third world nations. I currently live in the United States but plan to retire in Canada--and health care is the primary reason.
it is true that better medical outcomes do not neccesarily reflect better health care. it is also true that medical care (barring cutting edge work - required very rarely), is at least equivalent in these countries.
but delivery of medical care certainly affects outcomes. if everyone has access in canada, and 50 million do not in usa. it is not surprising that overall outcomes will defer. do we really believe that an uncontrolled hypertensive or diabetic will do well without medical supervision?
as to why apply socialistic principles to health care and not jobs. most of us have accepted socialized education, defense, and retirement, and the private sector has given us no confidence that they can deliver better. imagine the increase in poverty that would have occurred if social security was in wall street hands - with all round losses they still awarded themselves bonuses last year. would our ss money also not diminish in those hands?
besides, job selection is our choice; for the most part, our health is not. regardless of what the media tells us, the big increases in quality and length of life have occurred, not with better personal choices but with better sanitation, nutrition and immunization - all social benefits delivered by the state.
>>Furthermore, why apply socialistic principles to health care
Perhaps because man is a SOCIAL animal? Long running experiments with primates have demonstrated that individuals isolated from the COMMUNITY become both unhealthy and anti-social exhibiting ever more violent behaviours.
Perhaps it because a better sense of COMMUNITY is built when we care about OTHERS rather then just the SELF?
Perhaps because there more opportunity to prosper when peoples work as a Community of equals rather then strive to compete against one another and work merely for the SELF?
Perhaps because when one has a true COMMUNITY there less crime thus providing a better enviroment to raise ones children?
Perhaps because in a Society of the SELF wherein one only cares only about their own self Interest , the psychopaths and sociopaths thrive and bring all of society along with them?
Perhaps because in a society that elevates the SELF above all others is no longer a SOCIETY that word coming from the word SOCIAL which is implict in SOCIALISM?
absolutely excellent remarks by GwNorth!
libertarians and so-called "economic" or "fiscal conservatives" or "social conservatives" often spout much the same thing:
lots of talk about "individual choice" in a society which if it just followed "libertarian principles" of unbridled "private enterprise and responsibility and self-interest" - while equating it with "less government" (that is seen as standing in the way of THEIR practicing UNchallenged "individual liberty") --
but in reality they never seem to explain HOW it is that , since individual "choice" is so important ABOVE common welfare, that when the sociopaths and those with authoritarian bents and desire to get "more" endlessly end up being the very ones that PREVENT OTHERS from practicing their "individuality" and "choice" because these sociopaths are themselves simply more clever , more ruthless and unstoppable in their quest for and practice of "individual liberty and choice".
and they end up being the heads of corporations, tyrannical regimes -- justified by their "individual freedom" to exploit others and in the process deny others their individualities.
libertarians never seem to reconcile this fundamental contradiction in their criticism of anything that smacks of "social" , commons, welfare.
simply put:
one wonders what a "libertarian" that hates anytyhing that smacks of "socialism" (properly applied) - does , thinks
when - some OTHER "libertarian" that has gained more "individual power" runs roughshod over himself...for example:
if some "libertarian" managed to BUY the land surrounding a "smaller, weaker" libertarian's farm -- and then justified by "libertarianism" proceeds to ensure that the smaller libertarian would have to bought out at the "lowest price the market will tolerate"......and throws his entire family out on the streets..........and there is NO "social" system to come to his AID and DEFENSE from being EATEN UP by the BIGGER "libertarian" in the paradise he called "libertarianism".
The problem with Libertarians is each one of them thinks that THEY are going to be the biggest dawg on the block.
I am neither pathological nor racist. I think we have an obligation to take care of every sick individual who comes into an Emergency Room legal or illegal. In our current health care system, no one gets turned away from emergency rooms. I merely think it is unwise to compare the Canadian system with the US system unless all of the differences are taken into account. I find it very hypocritical to talk about equal health care for everyone, when so many things are unequal.
Most of all, having witnessed first hand what government controlled health care looks like at a dingy, antiquated VA hospital, I am very leery of a complete take over. It was a lot like the Dept. of Motor Vehicles where no one really cares if you receive good service or not.
The France Health Care program has recently been labeled the world's best. However, malpractice suits are not an issue in France. Our President, meanwhile is trying to nationalize health care while taking tort reform off the table in one fell stroke.
Our current health care crisis is a result of out of control malpractice costs. The fear of attorneys causes physicians to order every test possible in order to cover themselves in the event of a lawsuit. Another problem is that corporations are in charge of the country like never before. If indeed 47 million American lack health coverage, this is in part because corporations have done everything they can to cover the least amount of employees.
I initially supported Obama, however it is becoming quite clear that he has no idea of what real reform entails. He needs to spend a week in different hospitals and clinics across the country to see what the problems are.
Perhaps a better place to start improving nation's health would be to work on cleaner air and water.
jstevens,
I am glad you brought up the VA hospitals. Your comment about equality in this situation is apt. However, if the ruling class had to use the same hospital services as the serfs, it would be a VERY quick turnaround in attitude in these hospitals. Our economic betters in US society would never put up with they same conditions we are currently forced to bear. Universal single payer is more than just about health care, it will profoudly level the playing field in terms of what ones life is worth. A system where the homeless get the same quality treatment as the CEO would be truly an eglitarian system. Unlike the corporate controlled collusion sham we have now.
Also, your point about malpractice costs being a major factor in driving up the cost of care is a discredited argument. Try a different talking point.
DF, your point about "level[ing] the playing field" is valid. Isn't that what much of this is all about? I recently saw video footage from a town hall meeting (forgive me that I don't know where it was) where a woman complained that the government wanted to "add 37-50 million more people" to health care. I don't think this woman was a millionaire with access to the best health care money can buy, either; but the mindset in America- even among the struggling middle class- is just mind-boggling. A political commentator on a news show complained about how there are already long enough waits in the US, how providing health care for 45-50 million more is going to make the waits longer. How selfish and greedy our society is. The bottom line is that those at the top don't like the idea of those at the bottom having access to health care, particularly if that health care is going to be of the same quality the wealthy and powerful enjoy now. Our health care "system" is like a caste system.
Nevertheless, jstevens, as one who has traveled widely in Canada and Europe, I'd much rather get sick in those places than here in Tucson, AZ, where I live. Or, am I mistaken, wasn't that what the article was about?
"It was a lot like the Dept. of Motor Vehicles where no one really cares if you receive good service or not."
I alway find it an interesting observation that those arguing from the right can only think of having to stand in a line in a state DMV office when they think of government services. What about the smooth, well-maintained asphalt-covered surfac you drove you car over to get there? And have you never recieved unemployment? I found the unemploymeent service to be excellent where I've made claims in Kentucky and Pennsylvania.
And surely, you have stood in long lines on busy days at your local wal-mart, or privately run sports arena.
Great article. I have a cousin who moved to the States 35 years ago. He would come home to Canada on vacations spouting off about the great free-enterprise system of his newly adopted country, even showing off his Republican Party membership card. I told him the US supported death squads in El Salvador and elsewhere- he told me to read Anne Rand and get real.
Now said cousin is pennyless, afflicted with deseases associated with excess drinking and living back in Canada because he can't afford US healthcare costs. Should of stayed in the States where he belonged- see if his old Republican pals would pay his hospital bills.
...he told me to read Anne Rand and get real.
It's spelled "Ayn" Rand. And I still don't know the proper pronunciation, can any lurking libertarians clarify - then please go away?
Sorry to hear that about your cousin.
but that is an example of being enamored , if not entrapped to begin with, of the USA "system"....with its FACADE of "prosperity" and "freedom" and "choice" ....until you get hooked in the nitty-gritty of its REAL "trenches" class warfare reality for MOST people.
that is an example of being enamored of "ayn rand" - going to the USA to "sample" that divine POWER of Ayn rand's "great model of efficiency and (supposed) ideal of what is *fair*"....the USA
and then having ENTERED the BELLY OF THE BEAST -- experiences what it is LIKE to be swallowed whole, digested until nothing is left of him..and SPAT OUT like nothing .
good for him that he went HOME to your canada.
Clearly, if you have money or good insurance, it's better to be sick in the U.S. If you're broke and uninsured, it's better to be sick in Canada.
My family and I are not broke, could afford ridiculous insurance, but we don't need to do that here in Canada, because we get the best of care without having to fork any money upfront, only taxes. We choose our own doctors, we have as many tests are necessary, and when they are not necessary, doctors have the freedom to request them or not. We have used Cancer care (the best, my share of taxes would never cover the cost in a system that it is not solidarity-based), mental health services (we would probably be bankrupt in the USA), trauma services, etc, etc. Knowing the system from the inside, it really bothers me to read people maligning it, although I know it is just the only way that someone can defend the USA system when compared with the excellent one we have in Canada.
franali69 --
one of the things that gave me GREAT relief the past several years was when my sister and her husband chose CANADA instead of the USA to settle in with their teenage boys after their early retirements from rather good jobs in the philippines years ago.
i was SO relieved they made that choice after seriously comparing both countries - consulted with their children and everyone made the decision: CANADA.
my brother-in-law , who is so hardworking, got a serious complication with his asthma and his sleep apnea was becoming very frightening....he took off a week or two from work and immediately was given a complete check-up in a specialized clinic, sleeping there several nights for tests..etc...and has had regular follow-ups on his condition....
and they didn't have to FEAR for their finances at all.
I can't help but think of a prescient verse from a song by The Band, c. 1968, called "We Can Talk":
♬ Stop me if I should sound
Kinda down in the mouth--
But I'd rather be burned in Canada
Than to freeze here in the South! ♬
______________________________________
Shorter jstevens: If they had like to die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Politicians will always ensure the best care for themselves, of course. They will have no qualms about further degrading our healthcare system knowing that it won't affect them, just as they are ruining air travel -- making people take off their shoes and throw away their shampoo while they fly chartered.
You are mistaken to dismiss the malpractice argument.
Look at the life and times of John Edwards.
A $30 million settlement for a baby born with cerebral palsy when we now know that there is no way an OB doctor could prevent the illness.
$250,000 average yearly malpractice insurance costs for an OB doctor.
Who pays for that?
The cost of the insurance is only a fraction of the real costs, though. Physician behavior as a result of the lawsuits is causing out of control spending.
On a separate note, how often must I see the elderly at the Pharmacy counter, cringing while forking out $100 for prescriptions? Any restrictions on the pharmaceutical industry in the Obama plan? Nope, they have a powerful lobby. Any impact on attorneys? Nope. Lots of political power. Doctors, surprisingly have no political clout. They are an easy target.
It is very dangerous to make life so unpleasant for health care providers that only the bottom of the academic barrel wants the job.
Jstevens
Who pays for that? (referring to doctors malpractice insurance premiums)
They pay for it themselves as it is...... say it with me jstevens...
"PRIVATE INSURANCE!!"
Under a single payer plan, the tort reform you so desperately want would be inevitable. Why would a US citizen need $30 million from a bad doctor? Because that is what it will cost the family to care for that person's needs under our everything for profit health system. Remove our utterly corrupt profitized systems and most of the reasons one would need money from a malpractice suit would be nullified.
Also, I didn't discount your malpratcice argument. I simply stated that cost of malpractice suits are insignificant in comparisson to other drivers of high health care costs. Don't feel bad though, you are not alone, most for profit health advocates can't come up with a reasoned argument against single payer health care either.
"On a separate note, how often must I see the elderly at the Pharmacy counter, cringing while forking out $100 for prescriptions? Any restrictions on the pharmaceutical industry in the Obama plan? Nope, they have a powerful lobby. Any impact on attorneys? Nope. Lots of political power. Doctors, surprisingly have no political clout. They are an easy target."
**************
It's becoming difficult to follow the thread of your position. It initially seemed to be an objection to even the consideration of applying socialistic principles to healthcare (despite the fact that such principles, to some degree, are applied to nearly every aspect of U.S. life). But you then blamed corporations for the fact that there were so many uninsured in the U.S. And now you seem to resent the fact that the pharmaceutical industry isn't subject to MORE socialistic, anti-capitalistic control/regulations. What is the point that you're trying to make?
Hepburn sez: "... allowing more private health care in Canada isn't the answer to our medicare shortcomings."
***
Correct, sir. However, it IS Harpo's wet dream.
Canucks - keep a firm grasp on your system, lest you be tithing the empire as the 51st state.
Canada, don't let the US sabotage your system. It's already getting even more embarrassing that the issues of race and guns are being thrown into the health care debate. On another progressive site, someone went ballistically angry and said that the USA is a laughing stock when it comes to health care and he's right. Yet, he was persecuted at and told to shut up and accept Obamacare. Public option is not the compromise but the concession. The real compromise is single payer. It's so embarrassing that even some of the progressives and liberals don't get that.
I used to get so worried that I would skip getting annual health checkups but knowing the expenses and all, I still don't regret it even if I did get into trouble with my health for not doing so.
pjd412:
I do not want increased government involvement in healthcare. Apparently this is your definition of psychopath.
You are not being very objective when you claim that all jobs are equally safe. Logging, roofing mining, these are much more dangerous than the average job. Look at any statistics.
Some people live in areas heavily contaminated by industry. This has a marked impact on health. I would love to see this inequity resolved. One solution would be to require the executives of offending corporations to live by their filth...But back to the point. There are two main problems with out current health care system:
1. It is expensive and inefficient
2. Many people are uninsured.
As for the first problem, there is nothing to suggest that Obama's plan will reduce the expense. The government is not known for efficiency (for example refer to the Dept. of Defense)
To provide health insurance for the huge number of uninsured has a huge price tag.
A better place to start would be to require corporations of a certain size to provide health insurance. For those still left behind, Medicaid coverage should be expanded.
Why put politicians and bureaucrats in complete charge of something they know nothing about?
jstevens
"Why put politicians and bureaucrats in complete charge of something they know nothing about?"
In a single payer system the governemnt would be responsible for paying the bills. We all know our government knows how to spend money.
Claims would be submitted by doctors and government would send out a check. based on services rendered. I like that idea much better than what I have now. Going to the doctor and playing Casino when I open the bill. Did they pay it? Did they pay any of it? How much is it going to cost me to be one of the lucky insured this time? I have good health insurance and it still sucks! I would trade it in a minute for a shot at a Canadian type system.
If I do not like what my elected leaders do, the citizens can vote to replace them. Try that with the CEO of an insurance company. I am done with you jstevens you are either quite selfish, misinformed, or stand to profit from our current system. Good luck and long life to you.
That's the point that is often left out of the equation. HAVING "good" insurance in this country is often only marginally better than having none. Humana actually refused to pay for a procedure for me that my doctor carefully had them approve before hand. The insurance corporations are legally obligated to make their shareholders their first priority. Every procedure they can weasel out of paying, benefits the bottom line and therefore their shareholders (presuming the shareholders aren't stupid enough to be insured by the corp they own stock in).
My boyfriend pays thousands of dollars a year, taken out of his salary, to cover insurance provided by his employer. That seems to be the way it works if you have "coverage" through an employer these days; it just comes out of your salary- and it's not cheap even when the employer is a very large corporation paying some of it. Recently he had routine blood work done, as ordered by his physician, to check those things one should check as often as their doctor advises, according to the patient's age, medical history, risks, and needs. The hospital blood lab charged over $500 for the tests, and now his insurance is billing him for some $150 of it. So my question was, "What do you pay thousands of dollars a year for if these tests aren't covered?" I don't have insurance, but I know the answer.
The point is, once I get a full-time position (not many available at the moment, unless I move) in my current profession, I'll have insurance "coverage" too, but it will mean a lot of money taken out of my paycheck and handed over to some company that will make decisions about my health care, while paying enormous salaries to executives and rewarding employees who stamp "deny" on thousands of forms every year. Why would I want to be in on this system?
Why do they have better health care in so many other counries (I listed below)?
Have you lived and worked in any of those countries and experienced their system?
Things might be fine for you and your "let them eat cake" callous attitude, but what about the system as a whole? What about the system degrading economic competitieveness? Why do we spend 17% of GDP on health care and still get ripped off? (not to mention go bankrupt and leave 50 million un-insured and millions more under-insured?)
Our government must be totally corrupt and their governments must be less than corrupt eh?
Conflating "government involvement" with failure is not only intellectually lazy, but does not hold up to empirical reality.
You are either woefully under-informded, mis-informed or have an ideological axe to grind
i can say for a fact, working with old people in nursing home...
that it is common for pharmaceuticals, equipment makers, and insurance companies to USE old people like guinea pigs in terms of pumping them with medication that is very expensive and constantly changed to see what is a "better" effect...supposedly to "enhance" their old-age life , prolong it, but at the same time generally deny them what is MOSt important for old people in their severely deteriorated states:
PLAIN OLD HUMAN COMPANIONSHIP that NO medicine can replace...through legally sanctioned "low staffing" and Poorly paid workers who are over-worked, underpaid -- and in replacment:
the patients are over-medicated .
WHO GETS the PROFIT?
the pharmas , doctors, insurance companies who eat up the patient's medicaire, medicaid AND family finances...
THAT"s the real system of the USA -- PRETENDING to be "humane".
"The government is not known for efficiency..."
Please prove that government agencies deliver services for greater overhead and cost than a private business - and don't compare apples and oranges. Remember that for a corporation, inefficiency (i.e. gross revenues minus actual business costs) is called "profit".
It wasn't government that built those $150 hammers and $500 toilet seats, it was private-for profit contractors.
Studies have shown that the Medicare is more efficient in terms of percent benefits out of each dollar revenue than any insurance company. Surely you have heard this.
www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/CAHIMedicareTechnicalPaper.pdf
The Government can be VERY efficient to the point where a Private Corporation simply can not compete with them.
I will give a simple example.
Assume you have a roadway of 20 Km long on which are built 10 houses. The Roadway ends at a lake.
That roadway needs maintanence. It needs the snow plowed off it each winter.
Now the Guy at the end of the Roadway is 20km in.
Which is more efficient and which is fairer? Having each householder hire their own contracter to maintain the road and plow the snow off in winter or having an agency collect from each home owner a set amount each year (taxes) in order to keep the roadway plowed and maintained?
Which method ultimately LESS expensive wherein said entities purpose is to "Keep roadway maintained and cleared". One where Private Corporations each seek profit or one where a Given entity merely raises enough funds to pay for the maintanence and the workers needed?
If Private Companies are used....each wishing to make profit, each of them buying a plow or grader how is this more efficient then ONE agency Government) buying ONE piece of equipment for the work?
If a private company is used and the person 20 KM in pays for the work how is that person going to deal with the fact that in having the roadway maintained to his house and kept free of snow ALL 9 others on the same roadway benefit equally and do not have to pay a cent?
The fairest most efficient means I can think of is each equally pays a fee , the money pooled and one agency hired to maintain the roadway.
People in favor of the for profit system in the USA like to point out that the USA has 10 times the MRIS per capita then Canada.
BIG deal. This is not more efficient. This is MORE COSTLY. It a Duplication of services. Buying 10 times as many MRIS in a FOR PROFIT system merely fuels the NEED for MRIS to be USED 10 times as often AND MORE for an ailment just to PAY for the equipment and turn a profit.
That is NOT efficient.
the problem with your argument is:
you started with not wanting "more government involvement" in health care - to me probably stemming from just any knee-jerk reaction to BAD government involvement in other facets...such as SPYING< MILITARISM, WARMAKING, CORPORATISM itself, etc...
but this does NOT preclude nor even equate with GOOD government involvement where it is allowed to perform. that is just a "conservative, libertarian" kind of thinking that assumes EVERYTHING that is "government involvement" is bad
BECAUSE "most government involvement" HAS been bad - primarily authoritarinism and militarism and government involvement has largely been made for the purpose of helping CORPORATISM and in fact - BIG PRIVATE POWER...who DO LOVE government involvement if it is for THEIR fascistic benefit.
and THEN you end your argument with citing that
"A better place to start would be to require corporations of a certain size to provide health insurance. For those still left behind, Medicaid coverage should be expanded.".
so - you contradicted your first statement with the latter statement.
on the same issue - Health care - you can't have it both ways.
Either there is Government "involvement" IF it is proven to be good or there is NONE - which in the case of PRIVATIZATION -- it is NOT good , except when it is government "involvement" TO ENHANCE privatization which has been proven to be BAD.
Define Freedom: I am truly sorry that you have high medical costs. I know how stressful that can be. As for myself I have terrible insurance with a $5,000 deductible that pays for nothing.
As bad as our system is now, I am afraid it will get worse. We may get some form of national health care in the future but it will possibly be less actual care than we have now.
I don't believe the government will make the right choices.
Obama has opted out of taking on the real culprits every time, with environmental issues and with health care.
PJD: My point was that the doctor didn't do anything wrong. Still got a 30 million dollar penalty.
I just read the article, and I can say, the Canadian Health care system, with all its problems (I don't see many) is 100 times better that what there is in the USA. Not 100, actually, 1000 times better. It's universal and provides the same level of care to rich and poor and it really gives you peace of mind and a sense that you live in a country with a sense of community. I can compare with the health system in my country of birth, Chile. We lost what we had accomplished in this area during Pinochet, when he applied the IMF/Friedman shock treatment. Now, sadly, Chile is a miniUSA in terms of its health care system and economy working only for the wealthy. Hurrah for the vision of Canadians to set up such an excellent system.
In all of the countries where national health care is cited as a success story, the physicians very rarely get sued, or can not be sued, so comparisons to other countries are not valid. Although many people here keep saying that malpractice has been deemed irrelevant, I believe what you are referring to is that the cost of malpractice insurance alone is not that great. That is probably true, but the physician behavior changes markedly as a result of fear. Ask just about any physician and you will hear as much.
To answer a question, I have never been ill in a foreign country, however my good friend was deathly ill with salmonella in Italy. Severely dehydrated, she was only allowed one IV bottle a day as was protocol. There were many other inadequacies in her care and she was flown back to the US as soon as possible and told she would have died in another day or two. This was a 17 year old girl by the way. Everyone could come up with an example of bad care in the US, but you will never hear of a policy limiting a severely dehydrated person to 1 bottle of IV fluids a day. (Yet)
kw
I cannot say if this story is exaggerated and what the specific circumstances were. But it is usually misleading to use a single example. Political populists and lobbyists use this tactics all the time to prove just about anything. There is no perfect health system in the world and you will find all sorts of shortcomings in each and every country and stories like the one you told happen probably in all European countries and Canada. But 40 million uninsured are 40 million examples every day of how the US system fails. And each bancruptcy caused by health costs is another example as are the number of treatments, US citizens cannot afford and cannot get, because they are underinsured. Each case is an example of where the system goes wrong.
It is better to look at the big picture: How much does the system cost, how effective is it, what sort of a burden is it to patients, how do indicators look (number of cases of specific illnesses for instance, infant mortality etc.) and in all of this the US system is way behind public health care systems.
Seriously. The thing that needs to be hammered home is for every bad incident with a doctor like this in a country with national health care, there are a few factors of ten more happening here, every day, because of the vastly greater shortcomings in our own system. It's such specious reasoning... Someone from Ethiopia could just as easily say "clearly the American system doesn't work - people die of starvation there!", completely ignoring the fact that far more cases of that happen there.
Maybe Doctors in Other Countries do not get sued as often because they are better trained and are DOCTORS first and business people second?
Can you list jurisidctions where doctors can not be sued for malpractice? They can certainly be sued in Canada.
If you look inside the United States a number of States have enacted caps on the amount a person can sue for in cases of Medical malpractice.
NONE of those States have seen a drop in Health Care costs. Indeed in many with caps, the insurance companies are still upping premiums on malpractice insurance by 2 and 3 times inflation.
kw: I agree that one example is not a very good indicator. That is why I stressed that this was protocol. I agree that our current health care system is very flawed. I voted for Obama knowing that he wanted to make big changes. I had no idea that he would take tort reform off the table right off the bat, demand nothing of pharmaceutical companies, and not address the corporate corruption that is causing our health care system to bankrupt individuals and our nation itself. I see the biggest problem being lawyers, insurance companies, and pharmaceutical companies, not to mention the big corporations like Exxon that are endangering our health in insidious ways every day. We are getting change all right, but only the kind that doesn't affect big business.
I consider myself as 'libertarian-leaning' but I see no place in the issue of public health for private profit.
The issue, in very crude terms, can be cut down to 'bang for you buck'.
The WHO places us around 34th place in a global standing on the health care we provide to our nation. If all 'socialist criteria' were removed from the rankings and we somehow pulled our selves up to 5th place then there's still 4 countries out there that are spending less money (per capita) on health care AND seeing better results.
I'll bet you anything that the these top spots are filled with countries that have some type of universal health care.
It seems that going to a single-payer type of health care system would ACTUALLY SAVE US MONEY and provide health care to all citizens.
After all, we're paying more than any other country now and not get the 'bang for our buck' that we SHOULD be seeing. And that's bad economics.