Canadian health care will kill you

[Winnie G]

I am in a bit of a huff after seeing a news show about the evils of Canadian health care using that Canadian women saying she be dead if she stayed with her treatment in Canada.

This is so wrong! I’m a American who lives in Canada and that is a fear tactic to scare the people of the united states. Sure there is wait times because those in most need go first.

I was told at 29 I had cancer when I woke from surgery. Instead of two and a half hours I was in surgery for six. I was treated with radiation the next morning and chemo therapy the next. It was hard and now I am cancer free at 50.

My sister and mother both died last year and they had health care good health care and lived in the United States. I don’t think it’s fair to debate one over the other but I wont stand by and let fear tactics scare people in to thinking the evils of Canadian health care will kill you.

[HEthePrimate]

Heck, I live in the U.S., and we have waiting times here! And rationing. The difference is that in the U.S., those who get the best care have the most money. I've found that most people who talk about the evils and horrors of "socialized" medicine are talking through their hat and have no idea what they're talking about. I have family who are either from or have lived in various European countries, as well as Canada and Central America. Every system has its flaws, but most of my family members prefer those other health care systems to what we have here. I put "socialized" in quotation marks because, with some exceptions, most health care systems are a combination of public and private, not completely socialized.

HEP

[Celica]

I live in Canada and I think our healthcare system is wonderful!

[Charlyc]

Yes, it is fear tactics or scare mongering. And it seems to me at least that it's all coming from the republican side. Fact is that some 40 million americans (more than Canadian population) have no health cover so if these people get cancer they die. Patsie Ramsey is a good example of this problem; Obama's mother another good example of what even those with coverage have to go through to get treatment. Seems that republicans call this poor treatment of patients "competition"

The real question is why the average american can't see this or doesn't seem to realize how much better health care is in places like Canada, Sweeden or GB compared to theirs. And also, with what the republicans did in Iraq plus the health care problems, why so many mormons identify with the republican side of policy.

[Just_A_Guy]

Yes, it is fear tactics or scare mongering. And it seems to me at least that it's all coming from the republican side. Fact is that some 40 million americans (more than Canadian population) have no health cover so if these people get cancer they die.

Umm . . . who was doing the fear tactics and scare mongering, here?

Maybe you're not aware of this because you're not in the US, but there are options in place for Americans who cannot pay for their own healthcare. Not perfect ones, mind you. But contrary to international belief, American hospital doorsteps are not littered with the corpses of people who couldn't afford health care.

Seems that republicans call this poor treatment of patients "competition"

I agree with you here. Whatever you call the American system, it is not competition or a free market in any meaningful way.

Edited August 6, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[prisonchaplain]

If there is a treatment that can benefit or cure me, and I have the money to afford it, I should be able to get it. The impression we get in the U.S. is that many nationalized healthcare systems do limit and ration treatment, and that participation in the government scheme is mandatory. So, if the prescribed treatment doesn't work, well then your condition is too rare and expensive, and would be a burden on society to treat. So, you must manage as best you can with the people's medicine.

Another concern...with nationalized care, every decision becomes a public decision. If I supersize my fastfood order, I'm not just splurging or indulging myself, I'm burdening the national healthcare system by selfish choices. The money the system wastes treating my obesity, heart condition, diabetes, etc. could have gone to help an innocent child with cancer!

Such systems might work well in some countries, with an ethos that values community over the individual, but in Amerca, with our rugged invidualism and pioneer spirit, it all seems a bit much.

[Moksha]

Yes, it is fear tactics or scare mongering. And it seems to me at least that it's all coming from the republican side.

Like Rabbi Hillel may have said (if he had gone on a kosher wine bender), "If they will not put the best interests of the insurance industry first, then who will?".

[Moksha]

If there is a treatment that can benefit or cure me, and I have the money to afford it, I should be able to get it. The impression we get in the U.S. is that many nationalized healthcare systems do limit and ration treatment, and that participation in the government scheme is mandatory. So, if the prescribed treatment doesn't work, well then your condition is too rare and expensive, and would be a burden on society to treat. So, you must manage as best you can with the people's medicine.

This is true with or without a health care system. The very rich can obtain the best health care money can buy, but priesthood anointings of the sick is the same for rich or poor. Both chaotic and systematized health care need to have cost controls built in.

:)

[Prodigal_Son]

Yes, it is fear tactics or scare mongering. And it seems to me at least that it's all coming from the republican side. Fact is that some 40 million americans (more than Canadian population) have no health cover so if these people get cancer they die.

The FACT is only 5% of the population is involuntarily uninsured. Do your homework and quit listening to the left's talking points.

[bytor2112]

Yes, it is fear tactics or scare mongering. And it seems to me at least that it's all coming from the republican side. Fact is that some 40 million americans (more than Canadian population) have no health cover so if these people get cancer they die. Patsie Ramsey is a good example of this problem; Obama's mother another good example of what even those with coverage have to go through to get treatment. Seems that republicans call this poor treatment of patients "competition"

The real question is why the average american can't see this or doesn't seem to realize how much better health care is in places like Canada, Sweeden or GB compared to theirs. And also, with what the republicans did in Iraq plus the health care problems, why so many mormons identify with the republican side of policy.

I know lots of Canadians and they would disagree with you assertions. I seem to recall that the War in Iraq was approved by Republicans and Democrats and I am fairly certain that Australia pitched in as well. I am guessing here, but I imagine that millions of Iraqi's and future generations of Iraqi's are quite pleased with the liberation and will be even more pleased as time passes.

Back to healthcare.....it's not fear mongering. The Obama administration and the Democratic congress have failed to provide details to the American public. Their plan may well be the greatest thing since the invention of the wheel.......but without the answers to some very important questions, we are rightly skeptical and concerned. Questions like who is covered and who is not, what is covered and what is not, how much will it cost and who will pay, what will happen to private insurance and how will that impact the economy.

Your numbers regarding the uninsured don't tell the whole story. That number also includes young adults who often choose to not pay for coverage. Are there other ways to help0 the uninsured rather than a government take over? What about extending Medicaid coverage to more Americans? What about increasing Medicare coverages and lowering the age from 65 to 60? What about allowing people to buy insurance from other states?

Why do so many Mormons identify with the Republican party? The Democratic party, right or wrong, tends to be very outspoken against religious people.......Judeo-Christian people mainly, they tend to support g/l marriage, abortion and the Hollywood crowd. That sort of flies in the face of Mormon beliefs.

Edited August 7, 2009 by bytor2112

[Moksha]

The FACT is only 5% of the population is involuntarily uninsured. Do your homework and quit listening to the left's talking points.

Never considered the possibility of entering statistics from an alternate reality before. How did you pierce the dimensional barrier?

[Moksha]

Why do so many Mormons identify with the Republican party? The Democratic party, right or wrong, tends to be very outspoken against religious people...That sort of flies in the face of Mormon beliefs....

You mean like when they rejected Mitt Romney for being a Mormon? Hey wait, that wasn't the Democrats.

Missionaries do not include the question, "do you have right-wing political beliefs" in their lessons. They seem to want people of all political persuasions.

[bytor2112]

You mean like when they rejected Mitt Romney for being a Mormon? Hey wait, that wasn't the Democrats.

Missionaries do not include the question, "do you have right-wing political beliefs" in their lessons. They seem to want people of all political persuasions.

Err......you didn't refute anything I said Moksha.....anything. All that I said was true.

[Prodigal_Son]

Never considered the possibility of entering statistics from an alternate reality before. How did you pierce the dimensional barrier?

"The Right" has beat this into the ground lately. Based on US Census #'s. Here's the breakdown of the mythical 45.7 million farce:

* 10 million are illegals.

* 17 million clear $50k a year and for various reasons, choose not to have insurance. (Many wealthy don't bother, and many young people don't feel the need.)

* Statistically, 45% of the uninsured are only temporarily so and will be insured again within 4 months. (Congressional Budget Office Statistic.)

Soooo 45.7 - 10 - 17 = 18.7 * 55% = 10.3 million

Current US Population = 307 million

10.3 / 307 = 3.36% of the US population is involuntarily uninsured.

The #'s fluctuate a bit, and a true solid # is hard to pin down. But the 45 million # is pure crap.

In 2003, BEFORE any of this was being debated, Blue Cross came to the conclusion that only "8.2 million Americans are actually without coverage for the long haul, because they are too poor to purchase health care but earn too much to qualify for government assistance."

In 2003, the population was 294 million. Thus, the % of uninsured Americans was 2.8% ...

[Moksha]

Err......you didn't refute anything I said Moksha.....anything. All that I said was true.

Still, it seems to illustrate two lessons:

1. Republicanism for Mormons can be like hitting your head against a brick wall - you will never break through.

2. A Church should not be conjoined to a political party.

:)

[Prodigal_Son]

I believe President Faust was a prominent Democrat.

[Maxel]

"The Right" has beat this into the ground lately. Based on US Census #'s. Here's the breakdown of the mythical 45.7 million farce:

* 10 million are illegals.

* 17 million clear $50k a year and for various reasons, choose not to have insurance. (Many wealthy don't bother, and many young people don't feel the need.)

* Statistically, 45% of the uninsured are only temporarily so and will be insured again within 4 months. (Congressional Budget Office Statistic.)

Soooo 45.7 - 10 - 17 = 18.7 * 55% = 10.3 million

Current US Population = 307 million

10.3 / 307 = 3.36% of the US population is involuntarily uninsured.

The #'s fluctuate a bit, and a true solid # is hard to pin down. But the 45 million # is pure crap.

In 2003, BEFORE any of this was being debated, Blue Cross came to the conclusion that only "8.2 million Americans are actually without coverage for the long haul, because they are too poor to purchase health care but earn too much to qualify for government assistance."

In 2003, the population was 294 million. Thus, the % of uninsured Americans was 2.8% ...

Source? I'd love to believe this is all true.

[bytor2112]

Still, it seems to illustrate two lessons:

1. Republicanism for Mormons can be like hitting your head against a brick wall - you will never break through.

2. A Church should not be conjoined to a political party.

:)

It's a two party system and the ® tends to most reflect the values espoused by Latter Day Saints and other Judeo-Christian types. The church doesn't endorse a political party to my knowledge.

[Prodigal_Son]

Source? I'd love to believe this is all true.

Pacific Research Institute • Press • Commissioner Dan Weighs In On Health Care Reform

IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- The '47 Million Uninsured' Myth

The American Spectator : The Myth of the 46 Million

Hot Air Blog Archive Ramirez: Meet the Uninsured

What DO We Know About the Uninsured? — The American, A Magazine of Ideas

[Prodigal_Son]

And here is a .PDF of the actual census data that shows the # of illegals, the age breakdowns, the income breakdowns, etc.

QUIT DRINKING THE KOOLAID, MY FRIENDS!!!

[Maxel]

Thanks for the links, Prodigal_Son.

[Prodigal_Son]

Thanks for the links, Prodigal_Son.

No prob. I'm here to dispel untruths and digital halitosis.

[Charlyc]

Umm . . . who was doing the fear tactics and scare mongering, here?

Maybe you're not aware of this because you're not in the US, but there are options in place for Americans who cannot pay for their own healthcare. Not perfect ones, mind you. But contrary to international belief, American hospital doorsteps are not littered with the corpses of people who couldn't afford health care.

I agree with you here. Whatever you call the American system, it is not competition or a free market in any meaningful way.

Ummm...facts aren't for fear mongering. Sure there may be 'poor' options available however Mrs Ramsey didn't have those available when her cancer returned so she just died, Obama's mum had to argue to get treatment even though she had cover, plus all the other anecdotes around -some just ridiculous like having to 'pre-approve' an ambulance trip when you are unconscionable from a car accident!- they all make the rest of the world look to the US system and say: No, that's not the way to go. I mean no country is trying to copy the US health care system, only americans seem to think this, that should say something. Countries may look to Cuba or Germany but not the US system.

All countries seem to want to improve their health care and reduce costs but they start at full coverage first and then work on the problem. The US seems to do it the other way around, cover the rich first, make healthcare insurance businesses profitable and then think about the rest.........but I'm rambling now so yea, enough said.

[Charlyc]

If there is a treatment that can benefit or cure me, and I have the money to afford it, I should be able to get it. The impression we get in the U.S. is that many nationalized healthcare systems do limit and ration treatment, and that participation in the government scheme is mandatory. So, if the prescribed treatment doesn't work, well then your condition is too rare and expensive, and would be a burden on society to treat. So, you must manage as best you can with the people's medicine.

Another concern...with nationalized care, every decision becomes a public decision. If I supersize my fastfood order, I'm not just splurging or indulging myself, I'm burdening the national healthcare system by selfish choices. The money the system wastes treating my obesity, heart condition, diabetes, etc. could have gone to help an innocent child with cancer!

Such systems might work well in some countries, with an ethos that values community over the individual, but in Amerca, with our rugged invidualism and pioneer spirit, it all seems a bit much.

Most countries are actually two-tier systems, so treatment isn't limited at all if one pays insurance but the nation system can treat all life threatening conditions and just about all others within reason. Wikipedia explains it quite well. The misinformation here or maybe misunderstanding is amazing.

A good example could be any typical uncomfortable minor hernia -in two-tier systems if you have private cover you are booked into a private hospital and fixed in a day or two, but if one doesn't then you go to the public system where the waiting list for non-life threatening, called elective surgery, will be months. But either way you are fixed up. If its life threatening, eg myocardial infarction, the public system will do everything quickly from coronary angiogram to stent or bipass, whatever is needed, at no cost to the patient. But if one has private cover one can choose a private room in a private hospital with cable tv and fresh flowers every day if that's your way....plus getting done off course.

[mesmith]

In the mid to late 1980's while I was stationed in West Germany, I lost two friends to cancer. They were both Germans (Willi was in his late 80's, Fritz was mid 40's) and their socialized medical care would only do very little as far as trying to cure them. I had wondered why health insurance was still being sold in Germany and I found out why. If you want the best or even adequate at times medical care you still needed insurance. There are private health care facilities in Germany and I suspect all over Europe and many other places where socialized medicine is practiced, you get better care but you need to have insurance or cash or both.