First of all, I’m glad you posted your point of view, a touch hostile, but that’s fine… I’ll roll with it. In interest of brevity I’m going to concentrate on healthcare aspects you’ve identified and ignore most of the other stuff (such as military spending, and misc other things that I don’t feel belong is this retort… feel free to call me out on anything you feel I unjustly skipped if you so choose.)
Oh you mean like Oregon when they cut the woman loose and pay for the suicide pills but not her cancer drugs? You mean that kind of compassion? That kind of cutting loose? Or perhaps you mean the cutting loose of I believe it was 5 or 6000 surgeries in your Canada because they cant be done and are then demmed not needed? That kind of cutting loose? Ironically she got the drugs for free from the big bad pharma company when they found about her story. They wouldnt be able to do that if they didnt make any money.
Listen, for every government suicide/death panel incident you find… I can find the same or more incidents where patients were denied care from their insurance companies and actually died. There are so many documented cases of people that reached their quotas and were subsequently dropped from coverage for malicious/BS reasons (like not disclosing a case of acne or something retarded.) Since you quoted Sicko so many times I believe you’re already familiar with a handful of cases… I’ll leave it at that.
No one is going to win this battle, I personally would rather put my faith in government doing the right thing over a company that needs to turn a profit… but we can agree to disagree in regards to who we feel would best represent our collective interests. As for big pharma stepping in to save the day it’s nothing more than a perfect moral/PR
victory for them… Kudos to them for stepping up.
I guess your defintion of fairly compensated and mine are different. I look at profit after bills are paid, aka Net profit and in this argument yes the private sector is FAR more efficient than the public sector. To say otherwise and you are liar. Dont tell me you very pro-business because you arent. You are pro-business that you agree with. As for cutting loose. Your govt healthcare does more of that in a ass-backwards way than our profit system ever does. You have just been convinced that if the govt says no then thats it. Thats how they cut people loose. By never taking them in to begin with. I had to wait 2 days to get an MRI and that was because I couldnt go in the next day. You guys have to wait 6 months. The most ineffecient thing about the private sector is taxes. Take an economics class. Private sector can not afford to be inefficent. Only govt can.
Indeed they are. I personally don’t feel that peoples’ lives should have a price tag on them… while I realize this is a bit idealistic but morally I think it’s the right thing to do. Unfortunately, this is in direct conflict with the priorities of a business. Like you said, a government can “afford” to run in the red… businesses can’t. Businesses have to make tough choices (like dropping the sick/costly, denying coverage etc.) otherwise people on Wall Street get pissed at them. Their goal is not to achieve productive, healthy and vibrant societies… but tangible and increasing profits every quarter.
Governments don’t have to make those life/death decisions (yea, I know… I read your article about the Oregon lady.) But generally speaking governments that do value their citizens try to offer the best possible care available regardless of how sick the person is or what color their skin is or how big their bank account is.
I can’t and won’t deny that there are several convenient aspects of the US healthcare system… the ones that make you feel so proud of your system that you put a cherry on top. There’s no question that if you have money the American system is bar none. Yup, I said it! You guys have the BEST HEALTH CARE IN THE WORLD if money is no object. But that sadly isn’t the case for most Americans.
As for efficiencies, Canadians spend ½ as much money and relatively speaking we get better overall care for our dollars. A second point to make is that administrative costs for the US healthcare system (billing, marketing, etc) is roughly 31% of total health care costs while its somewhere around 17% in Canada… again close to half. So the notion privatization is always more effective/efficient is wrong. Yea! Facts.
Oh really? Like where? The US is the best one so far. Highest cancer survival, most new medical inovations, most new drugs... Im failing to see what other example you are talking about.
So according to you, the best indicator (and only apparently) is how good your cancer survival rates? There are many examples of good healthcare systems, such as France, Netherlands, Switzerland, etc all of which are arguably less “socialized” than the Canadian and British system and utilize more privatization. While I’m not an expert on their system the Netherlands has a completely private health insurance industry and it probably resembles the US system the most. The major exception being that the government determines a basic set of rules and guidelines that all insurance companies have to adhere to. Appart from those basic rules… the Dutch are free to shop around for a plan on their liking (basic stuff, or a high end premium plan that covers everything under the sun.) I also believe that Switzerland uses a fairly similar approach. France on the other hand provides a basic level of care (like medicare) to the entire population, and if you want you can optionally purchase supplemental healthcare insurance.
The major difference is that the US is the ONLY system in the world that is market driven, human lives/treatment are viewed as a commodity. Healthcare in the US is treated like a business, and doesn’t necessarily guaranty that those that actually need care get anything… only that those who can afford it do get it. Sure you can get a MRI done in a day… but did you really need it? Are you simply getting one because you can? Did someone else need one but couldn’t afford it?
Ive noticed this about you... Im typing this part as I go back and reread my post before posting it so this is the last thing Im typing. Ive noticed that you like to spout off at the mouth and yet you offer not a single shred of evidence to prove your points. You just say whatever the f*ck you want and expect people to debate you on your terms and your accusations. Prove your statements. After this post I wont be responding to anything you say unless you offer PROOF of your statements. Ive countered every statement you have made that isnt some half-cocked nutjob theory you got from Michael Moore's Sicko with FACTS. Its obvious you dont read them.
Sorry, this is an internet forum… not some peer reviewed paper. Unlike you, I don’t have an entire industry spending millions to push out propaganda pieces and biased reports of healthcare systems around the globe. I’m sure you found 99% of those links on some right wing blog/forum and you feel like a badass now that you think you’ve given me a smack down. It’s quite clear that you have a differing opinion than I do, that doesn’t make yours any more credible than mine… and your “facts” largely come from right-wing think tanks… Not to saying that they lie, but don’t kid yourself and think they don’t have a vested interest in keeping sh*t just the way it is. 1/6 of the entire US economy revolves around healthcare spending… trillions of dollars each year.
I’m also curious what half-cocked nut-job theories I provided? Since you appeared to have touched on almost everything I said.
Really? You asked 100% of Canadians? All 33 million of them? You are confident? Well you just torpedoed any shot you have of being taken seriously because I found the answer you just made up.
A poll of a measly 1001 Candians found that just over 8 in 10 would keep it. There are 33 million of you and 1001 is not a fair representation. In fact it has a 3.1% margin of accuracy. Not to mention that the article in question provides no link to the actual study with no margin of ERROR or level of confidence to actually determine if this study and poll is representative of the whole. My guess is that its not. Any GOOD polling company makes sure to put these figures with the study because of how important they are. A polling company that has an agenda however... Will leave those out and just tought the numbers since thats all people look at to begin with. But Either way you are still off by 13%. In statistics we call it insignificant. Why dont you ask the people who USE the healthcare. Go to a hospital and ask those people who are sick if they would keep it. Asking the general healthy public is bull since they arent involved in the system. Ask the sick if they like it.
You caught me! I made up a statistic… The truth is, I don’t know the actual number of people that would keep the Canadian system. Congrats on calling me out, I deserve that. But from my experience with the system and the general opinions of the system I still strongly feel that an overwhelming number of Canadians wouldn’t give up their system for the American system… but that’s still a moot point. Pbeaul: 0 You: 1
As for asking “the sick if they like it”, our patient satisfaction (in 2005) was 85% which isn’t too shabby.