The Ugly Truth About Canada's HealthCare

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by MikeinAR

If you really think that gov't regulation is the main force in rising healthcosts, you're simply out of touch with reality Deacon. The main reason for rising healthcosts is the uninsured in this country. If you don't believe me, go ask a CFO of any hospital. Go talk to the staff that work there everyday.

There are millions if not billions of dollars of unpaid debt by uninsured people that will never be collected on. That in turn drives up the price of every medical procedure for those of us who have insurance that hospitals and clinics can actually collect on.

The thought that "the government just needs to get out of the way" or some other trite old right wing vernacular does nothing to solve THE problem facing our healthcare system, Deacon.

As far as the trust you're willing to place in CEO's, I'm not surprised. I realize that many on the right are fine with hundreds of million of dollar salaries and insurance companies rationing care every day. That seems to be the Republican way.

Enron and WorldCom should have been the wake-up call but it wasn't. I thought that Sept. of 2008 would have surely opened eyes of the folks on the right, but you're still willing to put undeserved trust in greedy CEO's.

I thought the uninsured don't get medical attention Mike? Isn't that the big sales pitch? Uninsured people get denied and die because the greedy CEOs are "rationing" care? Which is it? Your stories are changing! Now you're saying they are getting care and bills go unpaid. I thought the mean old hospitals and HMOs are turning people away at the door when they find out they don't have health insurance.

This is the problem. Your side wants this govt controlled industry so bad and you all won't consider anything else as a solution to some of the problems we have, you'll say anything to justify something that the founding fathers would have never supported remotely.

The truth is people, even the poor and uninsured get medical attention because our medical practitioners by and large live by the Heppocratic Oath.

What's funny is that every time deregulation occurs, industries flourish. History proves that. When Ronald Reagan led the way to less government the longest period of economic growth in modern history occured. It paved the way for the tech boom and the prosperous business growth in the 90s. Its simple economics: when businesses and people keep more of their own money, they use it to keep the economy robust. Consequently tax revenues increase b/c of the increase in business activity. Conversely when govt overtaxes its people, revenues go down and the economy slows. You may call it old and tired, but its track record shows that it works, even if you are tired of hearing it.

I'm not surprised that you Dems buy into the class warfare junk that everyone from Marx, Lenin, Castro, Guivera, and the plethora of other socialist revolutionaries spewed all through the 19th and 20th centuries. It really got their followers far. So a minority of company CEOs make obscene amounts of money you guys want to punish the entire nation for their opulence. That's the epitome of overreacting and overreaching. Why don't you guys want to talk about the CEOs of small businesses who aren't making $30 million a year, but more like $250,000 all the while employing 75, 100, 200 people. These people are the backbone of the American economy. They want to thrive, they want their employees to thrive. Many of them pay for healthcare for their employees. They need their employees to be healthy and happy in order to produce and keep their company progressive and strong.

Your socialist system would bankrupt them. If they choose not to accept the govt plan, they will be penalized with a tax that will destroy many small businesses. But I know its more exciting to talk about the handful of big news stories that was Enron or Worldcom.

As far as Sept 2008 is concerned I know you want to keep your head buried in the sand and believe it happened because the government wasn't in more control, but the fact remains the housing bubble burst because Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae under Clinton forced these institutions to loan unworthy people money they couldn't repay. The GOP efforts to reform that policy was met with stiff resistance and they couldn't stop it. I could go on but you won't admit it. But we really know the truth.

[Barb]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

Surpluses are easy to generate when you don't have the burden of being Protector of the Free World. We give far more than any other country in foreign aid, we provide the lion's share of military might fighting the enemies of freedom & we aren't afraid to take a stand for Israel while the rest of the world wants to rebuke them and give the Palestinians a sympathetic eye and ear.

All of that costs money---lots of it. And we do it so our neighbors can enjoy surpluses and security from their enemies.

I posted a credible article from a credible CANADIAN source---and not one of you all can address ONE SINGLE point he makes about the Canadian system. We just get put downs, ridicule and "I don't know anybody" stories. Well, there's a lot more to the Great White North than YOU!

So you tell me...I'm all ears...

What is the answer to having affordable healthcare for all Americans?!

[Barb]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

The truth is people, even the poor and uninsured get medical attention because our medical practitioners by and large live by the Hippocratic Oath.

Not so, deac...my brother is laid off, without healthcare, and his autistic son cannot receive the help he needs in certain areas.

Try again...

[Antipas]

The truth is that the uninsured turn to ER's, which is the most expensive place to go. They get emergency care, often get tests, and sometimes extensive treatments necessary to stabilize them. However, when it comes to ongoing care many procedures aren't given to them because they are uninsured. They are sent home an expected to either raise the money for treatment or die. Those who find health care professionals willing to treat them though they don't have insurance are billed. So it's not as cut and dry as many think.

I do know this... my mother didn't have health insurance. Therefore she didn't go in for regular physicals. She complained of occasional shortness of breath and "heartburn", but still she didn't go to the ER because she couldn't pay the bill if billed. She died of a massive heart attack at 52 years of age. Had she had insurance she wouldn't have thought twice about having regular physicals or seeing a doctor about early symptoms of heart disease. She's dead now. All the political rants about how she didn't deserve health insurance sicken me. There's a good chance that she'd be alive if it wasn't for this line of reasoning.

Those without insurance go to ERs and rack up bills they don't pay. Often states will subsidize a percentage of that loss, typically 30 some odd percent. The rest of that loss is handed down to us in higher health care costs. When the cost of health care increases to cover the loss the uninsured is putting into the system insurance companies raise premiums to pay for it. But of course they raise it with a profit margin. So, either way you go you're paying the uninsured. A national health insurance program that everyone pays into in some measure is the only way to stabilize this. No more free rides jacking up costs. Everyone has to pay something.

[Antipas]

Originally Posted by Barb

Not so, deac...my brother is laid off, without healthcare, and his autistic son cannot receive the help he needs in certain areas.

Try again...

What those on the right can't grasp is that if your brother was in a tragic car accident they'd rush him to the hospital and they'd treat him regardless as to if he had insurance or not. But if he had cancer or some other long term condition needing treatment many, if not most, providers would tern him away with a packing on how to raise money and phone numbers to charitable agencies that might be able to help. And there's a good chance he'd just go home and die. And those on the far right could care less. In my opinion that's like rationing health care... you only have the right to live if you have cold hard ca$h.

[Antipas]

If treatment is so easy to come by for the uninsured... who don't some of those right wingers live it. I'd like to see them decline health insurance and go 5 years without it. Especially if they have a serious condition. Let's see them wear the shoe they are trying to force-fit on those who need treatment and can't get it.

What so many don't see is all the political hacks fighting against universal health insurance have decent plans for themselves and their families. Maybe God will be willing to show them what it's like to be without health insurance and desperately need treatment. I assure you that their tune will change.

[Barb]

Originally Posted by Antipas

The truth is that the uninsured turn to ER's, which is the most expensive place to go. They get emergency care, often get tests, and sometimes extensive treatments necessary to stabilize them. However, when it comes to ongoing care many procedures aren't given to them because they are uninsured. They are sent home an expected to either raise the money for treatment or die. Those who find health care professionals willing to treat them though they don't have insurance are billed. So it's not as cut and dry as many think.

I do know this... my mother didn't have health insurance. Therefore she didn't go in for regular physicals. She complained of occasional shortness of breath and "heartburn", but still she didn't go to the ER because she couldn't pay the bill if billed. She died of a massive heart attack at 52 years of age. Had she had insurance she wouldn't have thought twice about having regular physicals or seeing a doctor about early symptoms of heart disease. She's dead now. All the political rants about how she didn't deserve health insurance sicken me. There's a good chance that she'd be alive if it wasn't for this line of reasoning.

Those without insurance go to ERs and rack up bills they don't pay. Often states will subsidize a percentage of that loss, typically 30 some odd percent. The rest of that loss is handed down to us in higher health care costs. When the cost of health care increases to cover the loss the uninsured is putting into the system insurance companies raise premiums to pay for it. But of course they raise it with a profit margin. So, either way you go you're paying the uninsured. A national health insurance program that everyone pays into in some measure is the only way to stabilize this. No more free rides jacking up costs. Everyone has to pay something.

Originally Posted by Antipas

What those on the right can't grasp is that if your brother was in a tragic car accident they'd rush him to the hospital and they'd treat him regardless as to if he had insurance or not. But if he had cancer or some other long term condition needing treatment many, if not most, providers would tern him away with a packing on how to raise money and phone numbers to charitable agencies that might be able to help. And there's a good chance he'd just go home and die. And those on the far right could care less. In my opinion that's like rationing health care... you only have the right to live if you have cold hard ca$h.

Originally Posted by Antipas

If treatment is so easy to come by for the uninsured... who don't some of those right wingers live it. I'd like to see them decline health insurance and go 5 years without it. Especially if they have a serious condition. Let's see them wear the shoe they are trying to force-fit on those who need treatment and can't get it.

What so many don't see is all the political hacks fighting against universal health insurance have decent plans for themselves and their families. Maybe God will be willing to show them what it's like to be without health insurance and desperately need treatment. I assure you that their tune will change.

Experience speaks...

[Maple Leaf]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

Surpluses are easy to generate when you don't have the burden of being Protector of the Free World. We give far more than any other country in foreign aid, we provide the lion's share of military might fighting the enemies of freedom & we aren't afraid to take a stand for Israel while the rest of the world wants to rebuke them and give the Palestinians a sympathetic eye and ear.

All of that costs money---lots of it. And we do it so our neighbors can enjoy surpluses and security from their enemies.

Nice little rant about America's role in the world, but really quite far off the topic. I posted that the federal government has had a decade of budget surpluses to counter the claim that we can't afford our healthcare system. Whether or not we should take a larger military role is a whole other topic.

I posted a credible article from a credible CANADIAN source---and not one of you all can address ONE SINGLE point he makes about the Canadian system. We just get put downs, ridicule and "I don't know anybody" stories. Well, there's a lot more to the Great White North than YOU!

I read the whole article, and all that I saw about Canadian healthcare was a long string of gloom and doom anecdotes scavenged from across Canada. My personal observations of the Canadian healthcare sytem are just as valid as the author's. My comments may not fit with your agenda in starting this thread, but they are as much the face of Canadian healthcare as the author's.

Mr Gratzer shared anecdotal evidence about the ER he had experience with, and because it fit his book's thesis, he described it as overcrowded and urine drenched. I have visited our local ER many times and have found it clean and effective in treating true emergencies.

Mr Gratzer culled out stories of people who had problems receiving treatment, but that has not been my experience. When I have needed treatment of any kind I have received it in a timely manner. I have never been, nor do I know of any person who needed treatment who was refused that treatment.

[Barb]

Originally Posted by Maple Leaf

Nice little rant about America's role in the world, but really quite far off the topic. I posted that the federal government has had a decade of budget surpluses to counter the claim that we can't afford our healthcare system. Whether or not we should take a larger military role is a whole other topic.



I read the whole article, and all that I saw about Canadian healthcare was a long string of gloom and doom anecdotes scavenged from across Canada. My personal observations of the Canadian healthcare sytem are just as valid as the author's. My comments may not fit with your agenda in starting this thread, but they are as much the face of Canadian healthcare as the author's.

Mr Gratzer shared anecdotal evidence about the ER he had experience with, and because it fit his book's thesis, he described it as overcrowded and urine drenched. I have visited our local ER many times and have found it clean and effective in treating true emergencies.

Mr Gratzer culled out stories of people who had problems receiving treatment, but that has not been my experience. When I have needed treatment of any kind I have received it in a timely manner. I have never been, nor do I know of any person who needed treatment who was refused that treatment.

As I have stated a couple of times on this thread, the gloom and doom of Canadian healthcare has not been the experience of those with whom I checked.

If the testimonies of those LIVING it are without merit to deac and others, there is not much else for me to say...

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by Barb

As I have stated a couple of times on this thread, the gloom and doom of Canadian healthcare has not been the experience of those with whom I checked.

If the testimonies of those LIVING it are without merit to deac and others, there is not much else for me to say...

This is absolutely true, in my experience. I'm on numerous message boards with people from Canada and Australia, and 100% of them say that they are extremely pleased with their health care system. I've not come across one single person who said they are unhappy in any way. They tell anecdotes of sickness they or family members have experienced, and tell of the treatment... quick and well done.

We really need to stop using the "Canada's health care stinks" argument. For every anecdote you can find detailing a bad experience in Canada, you can find one here in America, stemming from insurance companies. Just as many people are denied treatment, or the treatment is delayed, because of insurance companies.

We can find plenty of horror stories right here in America. I'm a horror story. If I find a lump in my breast tomorrow, I will stay home. I have no health insurance, and don't have enough money to even begin to pay for the testing.

I don't know what the answer is, but we need to start arguing 'just the facts' and quit trying to use the argument that Canada's health care system stinks. Most of its residents don't think so.