Health care in Canada: the emergency room

Have you seen this by Sara Robinson?

The last Stateside physician I saw was a relocated Canuck MD.

(Or, more precisely, one of the Hong Kong Chinese who bought Canadian citizenship in the 1990s. She obtained a heavily subsidized medical education up north and then promptly took off for the States to pull in the bucks.)

In any event, she was a truly awful doctor. I don't carry a brief for graduates of US medical schools, whom I catch making elementary errors all the time, but this one was even worse. Had I not been a medically literate patient, and had I not already known what was wrong with me going in, I would have left the office having been given a dangerously incorrect course of treatment by her.

I can't speak to the issue of whether or not her clinical skills were indicative of those common among Canadian physicians. What I can say is that if the majority of doctors in Canada were as bad as that, and if I thus knew that I would routinely encounter that level of professional ineptitude, I would shun the emergency room unless having first been rendered unconscious.

Which would certainly help to make those ER statistics look a lot better.

--

But you notice she wasn't practicing in Canada anymore. I can give you an anecdote on the other side - not that anecdotes are worth much. My mother broke her leg in Toronto and got top notch care in the ER, despite not even being Canadian.

http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/01/17/seven-country-health-care-su…

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/21/3/182

Here is an important excerpt..... Canucks by 1/2 have private co insurance to cover all of this crap that isnt covered by UHC !

"Although four countries in this study have universal health care systems, these systems differ in the role of private insurance in each. In Britain�s National Health Service (NHS), private insurance plays a minor role, accounting for only 4 percent of expenditures. New Zealand and Australia have a mixed private-public system with many cost-sharing requirements. Private insurance is used to pay these fees and provide access to private physicians, specialists, and hospitals. Approximately 30 percent of New Zealanders and 40 percent of Australians have such insurance. Canada has a universal public insurance plan, which prohibits the use of private insurance to pay for services covered by the public plan. More than half of Canadians have private insurance.3"

Notice that you cant use private insurance to pay for services that are covered. Why? Because it puts the system into a two tiered one. In fact there is a suggestion in their legislature that you should be prosecuted for leaving the country to obtain it. Now Ridger, there's a big difference between a broken leg and a surgery that is needed, or a treatment. In Canada, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, YOU GET IN LINE !

Oh and Revere, my orthopaedics guys told me on Friday that we would be looking for new ortho's if it happens. Why? Because they were going to retire if it was implemented. That is in a state where we are already 8000 GP's short, much less bone docs.

If Iraq is the worst disaster that ever faced this country then UHC would be the newest on that list. Absolutely no way to pay for it with all of the other social programs out there. It would be funny to see Barack or Hillary trying to save it as it progressed and they had to constantly raise the tax on everyone. When it finally starts to exhaust itself, they would be taxing the poor and cutting what was covered....Like the UK is now. You know those funny talking people over there who are now speaking of managed health care.

Everyone has an agenda Revere. You, me and Nanny McPhee. It doesnt change the facts and that is the one single one. This country is broke and getting more broke each day. Be it war, socialist programs or whatever. When the music stops we are going to see fewer and fewer chairs until they are all gone. You wont have any more wars because we wont be able to afford them. You wont have any more social programs because we might be speaking a different language. The US might cease to exist in this century at the rate we are going and everyone will be to blame.

One thing is sure though.... the demise of the country lies in UHC and the socialist/progressive agenda. Either by overspending for UHC en toto, or coupling it with spending for socialist programs and the military. Three sticks to break the camels back.

Randy. I'm Canadian, living in Ontario. Most Canadians don't have private co-coverage. In fact, it's illegal,
although a recent Supreme Court decision in Quebec might change that. What secondary private coverage there is typically covers things like upgraded hospital accomodation ( private or double room, rather than ward ).
The medical care you receive is exactly the same regardless.
Drug insurance is also available. Drugs administered in the hospital are included in the universal coverage, but otherwise drug cost are patient's responsibility.
My own experiences in the system - lumbar discectomy,
cataract surgery, birth of my son, his childhood ailments,
my own sports related injuries, and of course routine care,
are generally very positive. Nothing is perfect, of course, and there is always room for improvment, but generally I am content that my tax dollars are well spent.
I've lived in both major urban areas - Toronto - and rural Northwestern Ontario.
The fact is, we live longer than Americans, have lower infant mortality, and spend less GDP per capita on health care than you do.
The debate in Canada in not about adopting the US system. No one in any part of the political spectrum wants that.
When we look for improvements, it's mainly to the European countries, particularly France, UK, and the Nordic regions.

The thing is... I may go to hospital and die...but I cannot go to hospital and bankrupt my family left behind.

I sincerely hope that very soon, all of my friends will have the peace of mind inherent in a public system...with all of its minor flaws.

/:0)

Kevin - I think you're wrong. Harper, the Fraser Institute and many others are working slowly to transform the Canadian medical system to the American. No politician will admit it but the moves are there. The first major step will be allowing two tier health care, the step after that will be to not "force" doctors to participate in the public system. That second step will ensure that the top doctors will opt out and go with private patients only, those that can afford it. Once that happens the public system is ultimately doomed.

My experience in the Canadian health system since 1967 has been extremely positive:

1. An infant daughter, accidentally scalded, given care that left her unscarred and that would have bankrupted a young family in the US.

2. Cost of a childbirth in 1975: $35, with the doctor coming in repeatedly all night long and emergency treatment promptly in place when my wife hemorrhaged a few hours later.

3. Various routine accidents, routinely treated at no cost.

4. Two cataracts removed, in 1995 and 2000, at no cost.

5. Two gall-bladder operations, one for my wife and one for me, with no costs beyond parking. (When I went into our local ER at 6 a.m. with a gallstone attack, I was on a gurney in under 10 minutes, being checked for a heart attack. An attendant took my keys and moved my car from the street to longterm parking.)

6. Various specialist referrals (dermatologist, respiratory expert), promptly followed through on.

7. Various problems dealt with at odd hours at a local walk-in clinic, never waiting more than 20 minutes.

All this done with a family physician of our own choosing, at a cost (for my wife and me) of about $100 a month. (When we go to the walk-in clinic, he's often the doctor on duty.)

Canada's medical system has its problems, mostly due to political reluctance to fund the system properly. We should have trained more MDs in the 1990s, and we should be more welcoming to immigrant doctors who get shamefully hassled when they arrive.

But for all our problems, we live longer than Americans and we suffer far less stress thanks to the support of our healthcare system. I don't know how people manage in the US.

I visited the ER of one of the largest hospitals in Taipei twice. Taiwan has a UHC system. A nurse is at the ER entrance, as is the registration desk, and she sits you down as you come in. You are asked to register while they take your BP and ask you what is your problem.

My problem one time was chest pain, and within 5 minutes I am seen by a Doctor and hooked up to an EKG, no problem, maybe stress, and the pain had subsided as I arrived at the ER. I was out of the ER with 30 minutes of arrival much relieved. Maybe a slow night.

On another occasion it was due to shortness of breath and I was seen promptly. EKG, Chest X-Ray, blood tests all were done within 1/2 hour, and all results were in after about 1 1/2 hrs, maybe 2 hrs. A case of walking pneumonia, I was given antibiotics, out of pocket costs about 250 USD since I was not a resident at the time.

Sounds like in the US, even with the best of coverage, you may die before being treated because the ER is clogged with uninsured seeking treatment they could get in a non ER setting, if only they could afford it or had insurance, and thus causing ER rooms to close across the country.

I must admit I had a couple of ER visits in suburban hospitals in the US and it was not so bad, especially since I had insurance, but that was 20 years ago. I suspect most of the horror stories are in urban settings (Taipei is one of the most densley populated cities in the world), and suburban Americans may not care so long as they are are ok. My what a good Christian nation we are. If that what religion does to people, who needs it. The Bible I remember reading taught something different, so I guess it is not the religion, it's the people.

The problem for the folks in Canada is that this globalization thing is real, and the one world government, and the North American Union, of which Canada will be a part of does not believe in Socialized medicine, or a middle class. We will all have the same living standard as Mexico in the near future, w/o Universal Health Care. The Canadian system, as indicated by an earlier comment, may not last. Not because it does not work and is not affordable, but because it is not profitable to the corporations that rule us through government.

Kevin-http://www.canadian-healthcare.org/page4.html

For the Canadian system to work you have to be ordered by government to participate... A mandate. That is where the rubber is going to run everyone down in the US. Mandatory participation... Its over.

Tom-WADR, does someone elses misfortune make it my problem? You know how many AIDS patients, drug addicts, welfare mommies, and then the general population that would be in this thing. It would bomb the system in six months. Hillary and Obama would both take all the money in our pockets to give it to the poor. They aint going to be sacking the rich, there arent enough of them and there will be damned fewer of them if this comes into being. We are afforded the right to certain things and that is personal responsibility and liabilities. Kevin has a problem and of course we are sympathetic. But how many burn victims can the system take or the above? Wont know it until you try it. They are taking a service and trying to make it a right and quite frankly it would dwarf the defense budget in about two years. The Hillary plan is to commence a taking under US law and that is forced compliance. Massachussets did it and to get a job you have to prove you have car insurance (well not car insurance but its the same thought). Thats into the courts now and Mass will lose handily when it gets into the Circuit Courts of appeal. Now mind your private health care payments are used to pay for people who "cant afford it" and the government starts off high in these things and as the economy tanks, they start cutting and raising. Cutting services, raising taxes. Look at the study above. BOTH indicate that the people are over all dissatisfied with UHC. But they grew up with it. Now the UK, Canada and OZ are trying to get it to managed healthcare and its only because the costs are too high. So in their futures we will see basic care and thats about it.

And you are right about that decision about private healthcare. It was ruled against the government position by the Canuck Supremes hands down across the board. Co-insurance is available even now and again 1/2 of the Canucks have it. Its for the things that arent covered.

PFT-I dont have any problem with what you said there. Especially the last paragraph. We are in decline in the US and it is to bring the US into line with the rest of the world and the New World Order. Well I can tell you that is Hillary and Obombme's agenda and it will likely result in the removal of at least 20 states from the Union. Believe it or not, movements are already underway and they are gaining steam. Secession is still an option of the states and the elitists had better wake up pretty soon. The Billy Bobs of the southern states really call the shots and things like Constitutional Amendments to recognize God, anti-abortion (not one of my big issues but okay), in God we trust etc are going to be coming up more and more. They continue to ignore the right in the manner that they have then they'll just pack the ACLU people up, secede and thumb their nose at the North. None of the border states are happy either because of illegals and I can cite a story later about how the Iraqi illegals are showing up in Sweden and bombing their health care system out. Guess they thought they were far enough North huh?

Considering all of the money that goes into a hole after an average of 70 or so years, I think that I wouldnt let government control anything if I can help it. Much less my health care.

Amazingly, people like M. Randolph Kruger forget that this is the internet and people from the countries you disparage can come on and dispute the assertions you so idly make. The UK, for example, has a health service that is admittedly overstretched in some locationsm but it has a number of areas where it beats the shit out of the USA.

For a start, people in the UK have the cheapest health care system in Western Europe, which no doubt explains why we sometimes don't have bells, whistles and frills that other countries have - at least until we spend, say, $800 per annum on elective health insurance. In fact, every country in Western Europe has a smaller per-capita expenditure on health care than the USA once you put health insurance into the mix. Next, the USA has a crap infant mortality rate next to Europe. Given as infant mortality is one of those metrics that is used as a benchmark for the general health of a country, that doesn't bode well.

Also, like with the Canadian example, most British people would rather the NHS was better (of course) but would rather have it than the American version. The idea that you guys get this kind of hidden tax taken off by your employers to pay for health insurance, that if you lose your job you can be uninsured and may lose your house to pay for your healthcare, that basic preventative care will cost you money, that drug companies peddle you prescription drugs for illnesses you didn't know you had on TV, well, all that's just insanity from over here.

Your ortho doc friends sound like they know they make a very rich killing off other people's illnesses. They may be, and probably are, blustering like the people who claimed they'd move to Canada/Mexico/Italy if Clinton/Bush got re-elected, but even if they're not they'll be replaced - doom-mongers always are. If a system needs to pay doctors $2-3M a year to keep them from throwing their rattles out of the pram, that part of the problem needs to be addressed too, preferably by doctors growing the fuck up.

Why is it that more Americans on average, reject the science of evolutionary biology and its related disciplines, yet accept the application of psuedo-Darwinistic, pay or die, survival of the fittest crap, when it comes to their health care? My guess is Americans have been convinced so thoroughly to hate one another, that you now actually get off on it. A little schadendfreude for the masses makes the medicine so much sweeter as it goes down and I've got mine, fuck you loser,hahahahahaha. Actually I don't believe this myself, but at times, when looking at what passes for a civil, caring society in America, I find myself nonplussed and in want of something to deaden my own bewilderment. The Civil War is long gone, get over it America!

Doug - I hear what you are saying. However, even Alberta, the Texas of Canada, recently obolished their provincial Health Care premimums. Remember the outcry there when Ralph Klein last attempted to mess with the health care system? Harper wants a majority government, and campaigning against universal health care is a sure road to electoral defeat. He knows that.
Randy - I only live here. What would I know about our system?

The AMA, the drug companies, and especially the insurance companies in America spend staggering amounts of money to protect the status quo. They use disinformation to tell the gullible how dissatisfied other citizens in foreign countries are with their health care systems. One person tells an anecdotal story about what happened to them and we believe them. Despite not knowing if the story is true or if they were paid to say it. Nor do we know the entire situation. Was the hospital overwhelmed that day? Is the patient a hypochondriac? Is the story patently untrue?

Every system has its rotten apples. I can tell you some hair-raising experiences that happened to me in the U.S.. Talk about incompetence. Oy Vay The bottom line isn't one person and their recitations, it is one people and their shared experience. Everyone deserves medical care. Not just the well off or, those who are lucky enough to work for an organization large enough to be able to offer health care insurance. More and more companies are unable to offer this. In my state, workers holding governmental positions now have 1/4 of all the money collected in taxes now go to health care insurance. And the rate is going up every year. Think about it. One quarter of all your tax money that goes to pay for teachers, firefighters, police, and all other salaries, as well as every other government funded job, now goes to an insurance company. The people who are in charge of negotiating with unions, etc,... now are left with no choice but to fund health care and significantly reduce pay raises. So even if the price of bread or oil goes up, health care eats up every bit of money they might have hoped for to pay for increased costs in everything else. It is way past time we stopped this nonsense. It is also way past time people did some critical thinking about who and where the information or, more correctly disinformation, is coming from.

It might be helpful to note that the Canadian Healthcare system was changed by one brave man.

Tommy Douglas was the premier of Saskatchewan at the time. He was from a working class family and had a problem with one leg as a boy. The only reason he didn't lose the leg was because a surgeon agreed to volunteer his time.

He later became an accomplished boxer and then a preacher who watched his rural community suffer during the depression.

His goal was not universal healthcare but universal hospital care. He introduced it to the scorn and disdain by federal members of Parliament and the Canadian Medical Assn. Along the way, he also was criticised from medical powers to be in the United States who felt threatened by this 'extreme' socialist program.

The end result was a Doctors strike that went on for some time. There was a great deal of pressure for Tommy to reverse himself and capitulate. He would have none of it!!

In the end...the doctors said 'Uncle'and went on making money as usual...except no one in Saskatchewan was refused hospital care due to lack of monies.

The Prime Minister of Canada's mother was also from Saskatchewan and probably needled her son into providing equivalent care for the rest of Canada...during this process, Universal Hospital Care became Universal Health Care.

It should be remembered that this policy was introduced into Sakatchewan, a farm based province that was not well-off at the time...and probably the relatively poorest.

Tommy Douglas proved that one man with 'guts', could make a real difference in this world.

For those who feel that Canada's healthcare system is second rate...I would suggest that you come up for a visit and see for yourselves.

Like I said before, I hope my friends have the same peace of mind that I do...very soon in the future.

Thanks again Tommy!!

/:0)

I don't get it. If universal health care is what all you public health people want, then why don't you provide it?

Debating Randy is like playing whack a mole.

So back to the major 2 points.

1. UHC as practiced in New Zealand and Australia is cheaper than healthcare in the USA (as per % of GDP). It's about half the price in fact. The British NHS is even chepear than that.

2. All of these systems deliver better healthcare according to almost all metrics than the USA system.

Randy's debating style will cause him to reverse point one and pretend that the USA system is cheaper than everywhere else when it's the most expensive in the world by some distance. And he will then claim that the worst healthcare system in the world is the best. It's a little boring, frankly.

@ Tom DVM

It should also be mentioned that Tommy Douglas is the grandfather of an indisputable American hero, CTU agent Jack Bauer. I mean Canadian actor Keifer Sutherland.

So yes, thanks Tommy :)

McDuff-With all due respect I distinctly remember posting up the link last summer as this UHC thing began to heat up where the health minister stated FOR THE RECORD that health care rationing was underway. She also said that due to complaints about waits and the like that costs were now exceeding the intake. So they couldnt get any more tax money so therefore, the rationing began.

It happens here too. The difference is that you can decide whether you get HBO or health insurance which is what the cost is about for a fam of four. Screw me but iif you go for my MTV, then we are going to have a big problem and dont tell me that I dont need it!

Tom DVM-Well I have watched this evolve over the years and up until the time I was about 30 and paying the taxes for the ever increasing care for the poor in the US. The idea being that you rich sons of bitches owe me a living because down here they drive all sorts of new cars, live in government assisted or subsisted housing and of course they cant get a job anymore because they have a record or cant pass a pee test. The idea that those problems are mine is ridiculous and founded only in socialism/communism. Its nice you can tell us all about Mr. Douglas Tom and I have seen what socialism can and will do. Its all about the takeover. One of your own PM's wanted people prosecuted, that means in jail because they cant get the care that they need. Jail them when they seek it was his attitude. Might that be because he is sensitive to the coming train wreck in Canada and the UK? I wont even go into the German, Swedes or France systems. They are as bad if not worse. Again is someones catastrophic problem anyone other than their own? They seek to make it that way and you give up your right to self determination when you do it. Think this is hot? Wait til the words abortions are mentioned in it.

I dont recall anyone heading into Canada to get care... Just the opposite. They end up in the border states for care and the same applies for Orlando from the UK. They are coming here to get care. Now perhaps you can explain your vaunted systems failure to care for these people? Its not being snarky Stew. I just understand that about 1/3rd fo the people in the US are uninsured. Thats NOT my problem. They have access to healthcare and thats the bottom line.

Whats next? Government bought and paid for housing? Kind of like the people in Katrina, they sat and watched the water rise and wondered why government wasnt bailing them out.

Nat and Kevin... We all have our little horror stories but the ones where it didnt happen in Canada are very, very bad. Here at least we can sue but there you sue and its capped by the law for failure to provide.

Look... its about yet another mandate and here that would be an unfunded mandate. The prescription drug benefit for the US for just the oldies now is one trillion dollars. Thats the left wing media's number and not mine. Its also probably low by 1/3rd. Now lets add another 2 trillion dollars a year on top of that minimum.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9328-2005Feb8.html

Now here is a far right wing approach to it and you are seeing part of this in Canuck land.

http://www.crosstabs.org/blogs/roger_allan/2008/jan/31/what_they_arent_…
http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/2006/02/uk-sinks-deeper-into-health-ca…

Here is the UK speaking and written 12 years ago about the subject of rationing. The UK is now moving to "minimum care" and not catastrophic care. There are estimates that they will be there ON THEIR OWN in about another ten.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10156208

Sounds to me like you better get your checkbook out because you are about to encounter sticker shock. Or climb onto the plane for Orlando.

God help you if you are fat too. The government decides if you are fat and a smoker you cant get the ring put in. ....Really sounds like me and my doctor making decisions together. Sure we make the decision and the goverment says no.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/09/nice09…

Oh and fatso... about that knee replacement if you are overweight. Forget the walking thing...you have to quit eating to get a knee fixed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/11/29/nsmoke2…

Models of Health Care Rationing
Volker H. Schmidt

The article discusses and exemplifies three models of health care rationing observed in affluent, economically advanced countries. Its underlying premise is that no welfare system in the world can be exempted from any rationing whatsoever. This raises the question as to how the problem ought best to be resolved. But before thinking about normatively appealing answers it might be helpful to study how the problem is actually dealt with in the real world. For such a study brings to light several advantages and drawbacks of various rationing schemes which it would be hard to consider (even conceive) in the abstract alone, but whose knowledge may be highly relevant, perhaps indispensable, for the designation of adequate solutions.

Now theres a statement... Adequate solutions. Dont get me wrong folks. Take care of the indigent. But if those slobs that I see running around selling guns and crack want healthcare then they have to be clean to stay in the system AND they damned will better not get caught selling. Mississippi requires them to be crime and drug free to get assistance for housing now and welfare now. Revere calls them benighted.

The total idea of government providing healthcare, the Hillary bomb of a taking, the Massachussets plan of having to have it just to get a job is patently illegal. They know it. They consider a service to be a right now. Not because of some damned UN charter bullshit either. Did we have it in 1776? Didnt have it in 1865. Wasnt even an issue until the 40's because nearly no one had insurance. We were all in the same boat. But its all based upon a premise that it will cost less. Bull, overall it will end up costing more because they just keep raising the rates just as they do to the unions here each time they get a raise. They get a 5%, the insurance companies jack it by 3%=net 2%. So now we all get to pay more and more and more until the kitty runs dry. No money for defense, no money for all the other things that we need to do. And above all, seniors are going to get to pay taxes on money that they paid in as taxes. Thank you Franklin D. for such a lovely program as S. Security that I will end up never seeing a dime of and then having to pay more just to be into a system.

There is a major difference here people and its not whack a mole Nat. Things could be much worse. MUCH WORSE. And this will take all of the money because to entice the middle class and poor into it they will say the words free based upon income. Then when that 82,000 dollar mark for exemption under the Obombme plan drops to 30,000 those single moms and seniors are going to get to decide whether they eat or worry about the Democrat Gestapo show up on the doorstep to get that insurance premium. The only way it can work is via a mandate and remember I am in the state that President William Jefferson Clinton said "was going to be the shining example for the rest of the country." It bankrupted this state in under five years and left us with a 700 million deficit. It accounted technically for all of the tax money taken in for four years. Healthcare for the poor...and then we end up with a two tiered system in which the poor get screwed again. Better to leave it alone.

Sorry for the length of this Revere, but homalies require return ones. Read this stuff because I do and it sends cold down my spine about the costs. Its bad enough now but the economic costs are going to be horrendous and I bet it sends unemployment in this country to all time highs if its implemented as we become yet again MORE uncompetitive.

A Depression can be the far down the hole result. A recession and a long one is the minimum. More jobs get shifted off shore to compete. Housing values fall and then they raise taxes yet again to meet the shortfalls. They are doing it here now because of all the illegals sucking up the money for the US poor.

Post held Revere.... Check the box again... Thanks

Randy has again failed to refute the point that UHC delivers better health at half to two thirds the cost of so called managed care.

As far as I can tell this is because Randy has the deepseated mistrust of government that seems to be prevalent in people who identify with the US Republican part ca. 1935 (i.e. not the fundamentalist christian party that it is now- it's former 'party of small government' approach). I understand this is a valid viewpoint given the reasons for the establishment of the United States. Governments should be afraid of their citizens etc.

I'm more of a pragmatist. Randy hates paying tax. I hate paying tax. But I'd rather pay the government 7% of my income for access to decent healthcare and access to my less economically gifted fellow-humans than pay an insurance company 15% of my income for the same service to me and nothing for everybody else (which is the approximate cost in terms of GDP between the countries we're discussing). Unfortunately setting up such a system in the US seems near impossible because of the amount of money being made from healthcare and the vested interests that are a natural result. By the time you get anything set up it will have been interferred with in such a way as to fail. If you do it properly there is no evidence that UHC will cost as much as what you pay now. Sure you might pay more in tax- but you'll save on insurance and out of pocket expenses.

Despite the ramblings of free market fundamentalists the private sector is not better at providing healthcare to a population than a public sector approach. Private sector methods are both inefficient and inequitable. Inefficient because in healthcare provision almost none of the asumptions of free market economics can be shown to hold. Inequitable because it will not provide care to the poor anymore than it provides cars to the poor. Inequitablity causes further problems for societies that allow them to open too far.

But here is the rub Nat and you covered it. Why should I be responsible for a group of people who wont work even if the jobs were provided to them? Why should I have their problems encumbering me and my family and anyone else for that matter.

BOTH systems are inefficient, inequitable and cost too much. The poor have to get it through their heads and this is one way of doing it that there aint no more damned free lunch in this country. We have raised the minimum wage and just as it did ten years ago, we entered a recession almost to the day six months after it. Living wages, price controls, COLA's all serve to ensure that there will be people living below some artificially generated level that government artificially creates. It has also raised the cost of doing business to the point that businesses are moving to India and places like that so they can avoid all of the regulations. How about lead in all of the plastics? Did I miss something?

Got to have poor people to get and stay in power if you are a Democrat. Got to always have someone disaffected, disenfranchised and of course you always have to blame it on Bush, or any conservative thats available. The problem with the system now is that we got away from conservative government and now its spent itself into the crapper. It was done by lefty Republicans and Lefty Democrats who want "progressive" ideals embodied. That hasnt worked and only leads to the demise of the condition of the citizenry. The way out of poverty is to work to your maximum capabilities and get yourself educated.

That putz Chelsea said today that there are 100 million people in America that are "chronically" uninsured. She is talking like it was a disease. This is a 29 year old making 250K a year working for a New York hedge fund.... I wonder how you graduate college and start working at those numbers. Get back to me on that. So the elitists tell us "YOU NEED HEALTHCARE" She actually said that her insurance was provided, paid for in fact, but she wasnt happy with it. So its paid for by someone else and she isnt happy with it?

Does this sound familiar? Shit, she'll be running for Senator in 6 years.

I have lived in Canada for 30 of my 37 years. Seven years using American style insurance companies while I was an expat, supplied by my employer. Although I always received excellent timely care over those seven years in some beautiful hospitals, the fact is the worry, confusion and general pain-in-the-butt aspect of filling in the forms always left me weeping for Canada's system. It is without a doubt one of the best bargains for your buck. Any Canadian I meet who talks about privatization I discourage it as fast as I can. They are almost universally selfish people who are angry about waiting a few months for an elective surgery. I would vote, and campaign against, any party that even mentioned private care. The UHC is not just about the state of MY health. UHC is a statement made by each supporter that inherently tells everyone else - I care about you. I want you be be healthy and happy so that in turn you will help me. It is about community and caring. Its about preventing disease as much as curing. It, above almost anything else, makes Canada, Canada.
I always ask people against UHC if they use mutual funds. We are constantly told that pooling our money offers protection , safety, and yet opens up markets that as individuals we could not afford. Why is it that these people cannot see that UHC is the same process? We are collectively buying into a health care mutual fund. Yes there is a MER and we don't always like the managing 100% of the time but the fact is its one of the best ways to get into the market [although ETF's are better :)]
We don't need to 'fix' Canadian health care. The problems are media hype. We need to simply train and keep more doctors, nurses and other health professionals. We need better spread of health resources into rural communities - especially native. Private doesn't shorten waiting times - it simply shuffles the patients - rich up front.
DON'T MESS WITH MY CANADIAN UHC - EVER!
Sincerely - James Linzel :)

One apparent myth is that Canadians hate their system and that it results in long waits and unsatisfactory service.

These seem to be at least three candidate myths, rather than just one. Moreover, I'm not aware that critics accuse the Canadian system of being prone to long waits in every respect or to unsatisfactory service in every respect. Instead, as I understand it, considerable resources are directed toward primary care, with the result that patients and families are often quite satisfied with their care. These reported survey results concerning emergency care are compatible with that description of the Canadian system. The critiques I've read have more often been that various diagnostic and therapeutic procedures beyond the scope of primary and emergency care have long waiting lists. One's turn at MRI or in surgery may come months too late to do one any good. Moreover, under such circumstances, I understand it's a crime to pay one's own money to a Canadian provider in order to get help immediately. It's in such circumstances that I understand Canadians often travel to the United States for medical care.

I guess you would have to describe what you mean by "often". Canada is 1/10th the population of the United States of America. It would only stand to reason that we would not have all the specialists everyone needs and not all the resources in the all the places.

My Father had the choice of waiting locally, or travelling farther north for immediate treatment.

In my case, my wait time was limited to the time to get tests performed. This was a matter of days.

Don't get me wrong, every system needs improvement. But if resources are being spent attacking another system, I would have to ask "Why?".

Thanks Tommy!

Long waits in Canada eh - gee , from the time my wife was diagnosed with possible breast cancer through to the biopsy that proved it and then to the operation to remove it was a mere 6 weeks and it was only that long because it happened over Christmas when surgeons only operate in emergencies. Had the cancer been invasive rather than in situ it would have been done immediately.

The lies and half-truths told about the Canadian health care system by those whose self-interest lays elsewhere are frankly disgusting and speak volumes as to the character, or rather lack thereof, of those who spread them so willingly.