There in the ICU she languished while we stood in explicit agony as the medical machine groaned into motion.
This is the face of my mother. Please look closely at her face. She is a perfect example of what the present medical and insurance systems can do to you when given the chance. I have many pictures of her, much nicer pictures. These are the pictures you need to look at right now.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Jeannie Danna
Jordan,
I drove him away I guess
27 - Jordan Richardson
He'll be back. He's just taking a steam.
28 - Jeannie Danna
I'll feel bad now for my words :(
29 - Jeannie Danna
Have you seen that video? I was freaking out! & reading a zillion statistics doesn't prove a damn thing!
30 - Jordan Richardson
Dave's poolside chat video? Yep. Erm, no comment.
31 - Jeannie Danna
What's that Noam Chomsky Video about?
32 - Jordan Richardson
The Chomsky video in the other thread? That's from the Ali G Show. Just a bit of comedy for the politics crowd.
33 - Dave Nalle
Jordan and Jeannie. I refer you to my article A Chill Wind from the North for details on the numbers of patients brought over the border for treatment and other failures of the Canadian healthcare system, substantiated with links, including to newspapers in Canada.
And just so you know this isn't some sort of past problems, complainst about inadequate facilities are ongoing.
Here's another troubling article about how many Canadians are waiting for necessary operations. It has a great quote from a Canadian MP, too: "access to a waiting list is not access to healthcare." Sums things up perfectly.
Oh, and you asked who the bureaucrats were? They're people like the Health Services Review Board whose job is to review cases and deny those which cost too much or aren't on the approved list. Canada has a health care rationing system and bureaucrats are at the heart of it determining what care can and can't be given -- and that's often a life or death situation.
You can pretend the problem doesn't exist, but you're sticking your heads in the sand. and I can come up with statistics and stories as bad or worse from most major industrialized nations with socialized medicine.
And I'm not even arguing here that our system is better, just that it isn't necessarily any worse. We pay more, some aren't covered, but for those who are covered the treatment is generally superior. That adds up about the same overall as the many systems in the world which provide lower cost sub-par service to everyone.
Dave
34 - Clavos
Jeannie #9, (sorry for the delayed response, I've been at the hospital with my wife)
You said:
You just said yourself that Your doctor's hands are tied when they are the ones that know what treatments and tests your wife should have, not an insurance agency that looks only at the "cost effectiveness."
But you must have missed my last paragraph in #8:
We do already have a government-run single payer health insurance system in place. It pays most of my wife's bills, which are substantial, but it also refuses, on the basis of "cost effectiveness," treatments and/or tests and procedures recommended by her physicians. Faced with the choice of her receiving a surfeit of medical treatment as opposed to a scarcity, I, like you, would be grateful for the extra time with her provided by the surfeit.
35 - Dave Nalle
And here I was going to be nice to you...sorry I just can't understand why conservatives are so ..... can't even find a word
Rational? Well informed?
Dave
36 - Jeannie Danna
I am not tribal or culturally deficient Dave!
37 - Clavos
Sorry, Jeannie, forgot to include the name of the government insurer: Medicare.
38 - Jeannie Danna
And here I was going to be nice to you...sorry I just can't understand why conservatives are so ..... can't even find a word COLD
39 - Jeannie Danna
I won!
40 - Clavos
Jordan asks:
Why are uninsured Americans SOL when it comes to seeking emergency care?
They aren't. Read on.
Why do so many of them simply not go to an emergency room when they have an accident at work or at home?
Because they are stupid. The law requires they be treated, regardless of ability to pay.
Even illegal aliens know that -- they use ERs as their primary care centers.
41 - Jeannie Danna
We lack preventative care because we don't have national health care!
42 - Dave Nalle
Why are uninsured Americans SOL when it comes to seeking emergency care? Why do so many of them simply not go to an emergency room when they have an accident at work or at home?
They aren't SOL and they do go to emergency rooms. No hospital denies emergency service to the uninsured. They even treat illegal aliens. If they truly cannot pay the costs are generally covered by Medicaid, but the hospital often ends up eating the cost in the cases of those who can pay but choose not to.
Why do so many Americans neglect preventive care and, because of this neglect, why are so many of them likely to experience more serious medical conditions that effectively cost the system more than treating the same condition in its earlier stages?
Because as a nation we don't like going to the doctor and think we're immortal. It's a mental anomaly. It's the same reason why so many of us who CAN afford insurance choose not to make it a priority.
Why is it okay that the insured health care customers must pay more insurance because the cost of those with a lack of insurance keeps driving the prices up? (Careful with that link, btw, it's 14 pages).
I agree that it's not ideal, but it's the price we pay for the kind of system we have. It's either pay that cost, or pay in long waits and less service as people do in countries with socialized medicine.
Why does 31%, at least, of the American health care dollar go to administrative costs and overhead? What's efficient about that?
Bureaucracies are inefficient and greedy and there has been too little oversight. I'm all for changing that.
I almost threw you in your little pool just now! My husband is the president of his schools UNION.
You say that like it's a good thing.
I want to remind you that The American Medical association, And The American Bar Association are also UNIONS! I bet you do not refer to them as special interests!
Of course I do. That's exactly what they are.
As far as who has the worse Public education in the Country! South Carolina takes the cake. You have schools so run down and antiquated that the teachers have to stop class when a train passes by! I bet your little Ivory Tower Elementary was not that close to a Train TRACK!!!!
Of course not. My parents paid to make sure it wasn't. Though to be truthful, I rather like trains.
And the FIRST CHILDREN go to private school for safety! Do Ya Think?
I sympathize. I wouldn't wish the DC public schools on my worst enemy's kids.
Dave
43 - Clavos
Why do so many Americans neglect preventive care
Same answer as above, Jordan, because they are stupid millions of americans with insurance only go to the doctor when they are sick; why do so many americans eat at Mickey D's? Same reason. Why do so few exercise? Ditto. Whay are so many obese? Same reason.
You watch. When the USA does get UHC, it will also have to pass laws (as it did about seat belt use) forcing people to seek preventative care.
44 - Jeannie Danna
So this is the sinister cable! I want you to remember the little woman that's picture is above your words! show some respect...
45 - Jordan Richardson
Dave,
The link to the newspaper article (Globe and Mail) in your March '08 article has expired. What's more, I actually refuted a whole lot of that article at the time you wrote it in March of 2008. A huge portion of the comments in that article exposed the flaws in your reasoning then and those flaws are the very same today, well over a year later. Your thinking, not surprisingly, has not evolved. It was weird, too, because I asked a guy for his research on the topic and he never came through.
Anyways,
The first link, an example of complaints over inadequate facilities, refers to the shutdown of the Chalk River nuclear reactor and its impact on nuclear imaging scans. This is certainly true, but the Chalk River reactor is being shut down because of a water leak. You'll note from the article I linked, by the way, that the "inadequate conditions" you reported on using this example are already being addressed as the providers in the area look to Europe for some assistance and take measures to maximize supply until alternatives can be provided. That's called dealing with a situation, Dave, and it's what people do. Incidentally, the Chalk River reactor supplies 30% of the world's medical isotopes. This means that the trouble from the water doesn't just impact Canada and it also means that this situation is not indicative or reflective of Canadian health care in general.
But that's neither here nor there, is it? I can combat your examples with examples of American hospitals, perhaps some in the inner cities, running low on supplies and vaccines and the like. We could run on the shortcomings of our hospitals and doctors all day long, couldn't we? The truth is that most of those examples are do not occur because of systemic flaws but because of normal, everyday, unavoidable shortcomings. My wife works in health care (has worked in both Canadian and American health care) and this simply occurs. It's a part of life.
Now, the second article from The Monitor on our "troubling wait times" provides no points of reference. It also comes from the CON side in what is essentially a PRO vs. CON gimmick. Its author, Sally Pipes, is, as the article says: "the president and CEO of the Pacific Research Institute (www.pacificresearch.org), a free-market think tank funded in part by the health-care and pharmaceutical industry."
Gosh, Dave, I wonder what she could have to gain by keeping things the way they are.
There are provincial groups, like the Health Services Appeal and Review Board in Ontario that deals in the following:
"You are eligible to have the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) pay for your health care services if you qualify under the Health Insurance Act. Not everyone is entitled to be an insured person and the Health Insurance Act does not cover all health services."
Now, that deals with provincial health insurance...not universal health care. The main focus of the aforementioned group is to determine if people can pay for their health coverage. If they can, they are required to in accordance with Ontario's provincial health laws. That does not shut people out from surgeries, nor does it decide who should "live or die."
Other than that, we have Health Canada, which "is the Federal department responsible for helping Canadians maintain and improve their health, while respecting individual choices and circumstances."
Try as I might, I couldn't find a single agency recognized by the federal or provincial government(s) that dealt in the stock and trade of what you suggest. And what is this rationing system? Who mandates that? The same "Health Services Review Board" that doesn't exist in your presentation?
You can pretend the problem doesn't exist, but you're sticking your heads in the sand.
Yes, you're quite good at that. I don't ignore the problems with Canada's health care system, however. In fact, I addressed them in my posts in this topic and waaaaay back in March '08. It's you who isn't prepared to apply your own good advice, sir.
We pay more, some aren't covered, but for those who are covered the treatment is generally superior.
Define "some" who aren't covered. Crunch some numbers. Tell me what percentage of your population lacks coverage. And what happens to them? How much of the "generally superior" treatment do they have access to? How much does that cost in the end, both to the patient and to your insurance? How much does that system jack up the price tag on general insurance?
That adds up about the same overall as the many systems in the world which provide lower cost sub-par service to everyone.
Really? You still think that? Why?
46 - Jeannie Danna
Now, that deals with provincial health insurance...not universal health care. The main focus of the aforementioned group is to determine if people can pay for their health coverage. If they can, they are required to in accordance with Ontario's provincial health laws. That does not shut people out from surgeries, nor does it decide who should "live or die."
47 - Jordan Richardson
They aren't SOL and they do go to emergency rooms. No hospital denies emergency service to the uninsured.
They can go to emergency rooms. A huge majority of them do not. I know you didn't read the links I provided for you, but what I cited is actually supported by facts. I didn't suggest that they can't or that hospitals turn them away into the streets to die. I said that they don't go because they can't afford to pay for it when it's all over, so they neglect preventive care. Simple. If the facts are wrong or if the organizations coming up with the findings are lying, prove it. Don't just say it's not true and move on without supportive evidence.
48 - Jeannie Danna
Isn't that great! seeing all those peoples faces at the top of the page? All covered all treated with the same dignity and respect. HEALTH CANADA! Teach me to do that HTML Jordan OK?
49 - Clavos
I said that they don't go because they can't afford to pay for it when it's all over...
They don't have to pay for it, Jordan. Ask any illegal Mexican (I'm legal, so I pay).
50 - Jordan Richardson
Who does pay, Clavos?
51 - Jeannie Danna
I wish all these comments were actually about my essay..
52 - Jordan Richardson
Bah, I'll save myself the time and answer my own question:
The cost of treating those without insurance gets absorbed by providers in what is called "charity care." This money doesn't just vanish into the thin air. Instead, those with a lack of insurance are treated and then either taxes go up or health insurance premiums go up.
This page has a few surveys and facts that discuss how the uninsured cost the American health care system and how that drives up the cost to the insured consumers of the system.
And this represents another perspective fromthe American College of Emergency Physicians.
As you can see, there is evidence to back up both my claim that the uninsured are more likely not to seek out preventive care or go to a hospital with an injury and my claim that treating the uninsured represents a considerably large cost to the American health care system. Estimates for those costs in the future keep rising, too, with treating the uninsured charting in the billions of dollars.
UHC makes sense on just about every single level, but there are those who continue to oppose it on the basis of outdated philosophies, fears of "socialism," fears of wait times or erosions of choice, or other myths that have long since been refuted by those with evidence.
The fact is that the industrialized world chooses a system akin to UHC for a reason. And the United States rejects that same system and its variants for a reason, too.
If I could make some adjustments to the Canadian system, I would. But the further I can get from American health care, the better.
Anyways, there's only so far this all is going to go. People are set in their ways and that's that. I'm both glad and truly sorry that your article became a platform for this typical, redundant political debate, Jeannie. But I think you for opening up your heart and sharing your story nonetheless.
See you around.
53 - Bliffle
Jeannie:
I think you were very lucky to have this woman as your mother, and I think she was very lucky to have adopted such fine children. Clearly, you learned empathy from her when you were young. Empathy without pity, just the fine human capacity to put yourself in anothers place.
Pay no attention to the Peanut Gallery characters of BC: Nalle, Clavos, etc., you know the names. They are shriveled by their parsimonious attitudes.
54 - Jordan Richardson
*thank you, I mean.
55 - Dave Nalle
The link to the newspaper article (Globe and Mail) in your March '08 article has expired.
It worked when I clicked on it a few minutes before posting it.
What's more, I actually refuted a whole lot of that article at the time you wrote it in March of 2008.
You need to learn the difference between denial, ignoring and refuting things. What is in the article is fact. You can't just say you don't agree with a fact and expect it to go away, which is essentially what you did in your original responses.
A huge portion of the comments in that article exposed the flaws in your reasoning then and those flaws are the very same today, well over a year later.
Except that the article was not particularly a work of "reasoning" in which there were flaws to be exposed. It was a catalog of facts which are just what they are.
Your thinking, not surprisingly, has not evolved.
Because the facts remain the same.
This means that the trouble from the water doesn't just impact Canada and it also means that this situation is not indicative or reflective of Canadian health care in general.
Yet of the 676 articles on this subject on Google, every single one refers solely to the problem being in Canada. That suggests that your argument that it's a worldwide problem is more in the nature of an excuse than a fact.
My wife works in health care (has worked in both Canadian and American health care) and this simply occurs. It's a part of life.
8 month waits for surgeries are a part of life in Canada, but not generally in the US. Nor are 2 month waits to see a GP or being driven to another country because your local hospitals have no cardiac surgeons.
Now, the second article from The Monitor on our "troubling wait times" provides no points of reference. It also comes from the CON side in what is essentially a PRO vs. CON gimmick.
That's just the way the newspaper presents the articles. It has nothing to do with the content. The content is based on research and it can be verified from multiple other sources.
Conveniently the Canadian government has assembled the data on wait times and made it available online. Perhaps they are working for a right-wing think tank too?
Here are some quick numbers from the CHI. In Manitoba a hip replacement takes a minimum of 4 months to as long as a year. N ova Scotia, a median of 9 months to a maximum of almost 2 years. Ontario, which ought to be one of the best -- 9 months. Those numbers are just ridiculous and they bear out the articles I've referenced.
And that's just one example. Catscan or MRI -- 126 days in Ontario, 133-182 days in Saskatoon. Oops, that mass we wanted to check out metastasized and you're dead in the 6 months you waited for a scan.
I mean come on -- 3 or 4 weeks for an angioplasty? Sorry Ma'am, your husband died because he got out of his chair too fast in the month he waited for an operation people in the US get within 24 hours.
Stop with the excuses and justifications. The facts are real and they are overwhelming. Yes, the US falls short for those who can't afford or choose not to get insurance, but that's hardly worse than putting almost every patient at risk with huge wait times for critical care.
Try as I might, I couldn't find a single agency recognized by the federal or provincial government(s) that dealt in the stock and trade of what you suggest. And what is this rationing system? Who mandates that? The same "Health Services Review Board" that doesn't exist in your presentation?
Then your research skills suck. The Health Services Review Board is a part of the OHIP and they are both well documented as are their procedures for rationing and denying care.
Define "some" who aren't covered. Crunch some numbers. Tell me what percentage of your population lacks coverage.
Currently by the most generous estimates about 20% of the population lacks coverage. Of those about a third are uninsured by necessity and most of those qualify for Medicaid. The remaining 2/3 are considered to be uininsured by choice because they could afford health insurance but are young or healthy or have other priorities and choose not to spend the money on it. Maybe unwise, but their choice.
And what happens to them? How much of the "generally superior" treatment do they have access to? How much does that cost in the end, both to the patient and to your insurance? How much does that system jack up the price tag on general insurance?
I'd have to research these things in more detail and I'm not going to do it all now. I never claimed the US system was perfect. We just don't have the same problems that Canada does.
Dave
That adds up about the same overall as the many systems in the world which provide lower cost sub-par service to everyone.
Really? You still think that? Why?
56 - Jordan Richardson
Dave, the article you linked pertaining to wait times actually describes a plan the government is implementing to diminish wait times. Nobody has denied this problem. Solutions have been proposed - hell, I've even proposed some solutions and yet you conveniently keep bringing up "wait times" like they're the crushing blow that makes the American system better and like your system is immune to them. How do you account for this lack of reason?
You can't just say you don't agree with a fact and expect it to go away
Good advice. I could go with the obvious snarky reply about how you don't seem to apply said advice or I could go with asking you to prove where I've "disagreed" with a fact.
Yet of the 676 articles on this subject on Google, every single one refers solely to the problem being in Canada.
You read 676 articles, Dave? Wow. I'm impressed. The problem, the water leak in the reactor, is located in Canada. Why would the articles state otherwise? It impacts Canada considerably, of course. This I also admitted. It is, however, more convenient for you to parse one portion of the volumes I wrote about the Chalk River situation so that you can appear to have received the upper hand. Congrats!
Stop with the excuses and justifications. The facts are real and they are overwhelming. Yes, the US falls short for those who can't afford or choose not to get insurance, but that's hardly worse than putting almost every patient at risk with huge wait times for critical care.
More patented Dave Nalle thinking. Take some statistics, add hyperbole and panic, and come up with an unreasonable conclusion that you can flip on those who disagree with you to suggest that they're the illogical ones not seeing what you're seeing.
You say that the Canadian system puts "almost every patient at risk." What? Where are you finding this? Find me statistics that prove people died waiting for a scan. Use facts, not your conclusions. There are wait times in some regions that are massive and inexcusable, yes. I have, AGAIN, talked about this already.
But that's not enough for you, sir. Instead, you elect to make unsubstantiated claims - that the Canadian health care system puts ALMOST EVERY patient at risk! - based on your own conclusions from the facts. But your claim isn't factually supported and you know it.
Then your research skills suck. The Health Services Review Board is a part of the OHIP and they are both well documented as are their procedures for rationing and denying care.
I talked about that Board already, Dave. If they are "well documented" for "denying care" on the basis you are suggesting, not on the basis that I already discussed (that they deny INSURANCE not CARE for those who can afford the INSURANCE!), show me the documentation. If my research skills "suck," what does it say for yours when you can't provide a single backing fact for your conclusion. If you have the documentation, show it.
Maybe unwise, but their choice.
Considered to be uninsured "by choice." Yeah, Dave, that "choice" is the choice to pay rent or buy food over purchasing health insurance. What does that tell you? What does it say when people would gamble with their health care like that? That the system works...?
Don't answer that because I know what it's going to be: they chose, tough luck, the system is the best in the world, it's their fault they can't afford it, they're stupid, etc.
I'd have to research these things in more detail and I'm not going to do it all now.
I'll wait.
I never claimed the US system was perfect.
You sure have trouble admitting to any flaws with it, Dave. At least I'm more than willing to examine, admit, and discuss the broken portions of the Canadian system in order to achieve better care for all Canadians. You, on the other hand, remain fixated on keeping things as they are. Shit, dude, you admitting wrong would be something I'd have to mark on my calendar.
We just don't have the same problems that Canada does.
You don't think you have wait times? Product shortages? Incompetent doctors? Corruption?
You don't think your system has its own full set of problems too?
Hell, nobody's trying to sell you on the Canadian health care system. I'm not, that's for sure. It's imperfect, like all systems. But it is, in my view and in the view of the majority of the world, fundamentally preferential to the system you cling to. It provides a combination of private and public care to its citizens at lower cost per person than your system does. It mandates that all citizens should receive care. Those are the fundamentals. Due to human error and natural shortcomings, the system does not always work. But I'm much more comfortable working with our fundamentals than yours and working to improve our system as opposed to yours. The ground from which we work is better, I think.
57 - Jordan Richardson
8 month waits for surgeries are a part of life in Canada
This depends on the region you examine.
This table for general surgery from Vancouver General Hospital is up-to-date as of March 31, 2009 and shows the median wait times in weeks. As you can see, there are no wait times for urgent surgeries. You will note that the surgical procedures are arranged on a priority basis (there is a legend at the bottom of the chart) and will see the wait times increase with the less severe cases.
Interestingly, the Canadian federal government sent considerable money to the provinces to handle their various issues (some provinces needed more money for imaging, others for cardiovascular research) on the basis of establishing a guaranteed wait times system by 2010. And in 2005 a Wait Time Alliance was formed and tabled a resolution to each province for reduced wait times with several recommendations that are being implemented with new funds.
As a part of that initiative, every single province has now posted their wait times. Manitoba, for instance, has a COMBINED wait time of 27 days for ALL cardiac surgery at Winnipeg's St. Boniface hospital. Those 27 days are spread out, again, by priority.
Looking at Ontario, you can see that they are posting province-wide reductions in wait times for the emergency room.
In terms of surgery in Ontario, they actually have a pretty neat website here. You can go through and check out the wait times for various procedures.
I checked out the average wait for brain cancer surgery in the busiest health system in the province, the Niagara Health System, and found no wait time. Around the province, however, you find different wait times. A hospital in Sudbury, for instance, has a 74 day wait time for the same surgery. A Hamilton hospital posts 37 days. Obviously these results are impacted regionally, as I've expressed throughout this conversation. General surgery wait times were very poor, with the longest waits being in North West Ontario at 184 days. I think those were the highest wait times in the entire country that I could locate.
A CT scan (diagnostics) featured wait times anywhere from 11 days to 18 days on average. MRIs were not so good, with waits for those diagnostic tests ranging in the hundreds across the province of Ontario. In BC, the MRI wait times were significantly lower.
Again, this evidences the regional impact. That the most-populated province in Canada should have the longest wait times by far is not surprising. More than anything, this speaks to the need for more funding and more doctors in our densely-populated areas.
Try as I might, an honest perusal of the various wait times demonstrated that 8 month wait times for surgeries were far from a "way of life" in Canada. While there were extensive, vile, disturbing wait times for diagnostics in Ontario, the surgical times even there came nowhere close to Dave's alleged norm.
Interestingly, the same Fraser Institute that offered the study I critiqued on your older article, Dave, produced an updated study that found that the average wait times across Canada had diminished considerably. Of course, the Fraser Institute has an interesting method when it comes to collecting those stats: they use physician opinions of how long they think their patients will wait to determine wait times between referral from a GP to receiving treatment. This calls into question when a wait time starts and there is also much discussion to be had pertaining to that.
But enough hijacking.
One final remark that speaks to this said by both Dave and Clavos earlier:
they are stupid millions of americans with insurance only go to the doctor when they are sick
Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that most people want to avoid using their insurance coverage if they don't have to? Wouldn't they lose an amount of coverage in going to the hospital for, say, a nail in the hand or a deep cut because the insurance company would have to pay out? Most people would not want to lose coverage if they don't have to, I'd assume.
58 - STM
I thought we'd also established previously that many of those visits to US hospitals by Canadians, which are pumping up the statistics Dave quotes, occur in conurbations that just happen to be split by an international border and where the closer major hospital might be across the border.
My understanding is that many visits to Detroit area hospitals, for instance, by Canadians are the result of this because Windsor and satellite towns like Chatham are closer to Detroit (as close as five minutes in the case of Windsor) than Toronto in the case of, say, major trauma or life-threatening medical emergency such as cardiac arrest.
Toronto is a fair distance even by helicopter from Windsor and Chatham, while London's about halfway between Detroit and Toronto.
I just had a look at the map and also noticed some small Canadian towns in southern Ontario are also closer to Buffalo than to Toronto, and so on and so forth.
I know for a fact that in the case of trauma, car accident for instance, the paramedics contact the nearest hospitals to see who can take who.
That happens in the US too across state borders, as it does in Australia - especially on the Gold Coast, which is a conurbation that straddles the NSW-Queensland border and has hospitals run by the two different states on either side.
They go to the closest or the least busy or the one with beds available.
Canada, BTW, at least pays the bills when Canadians go to US hospitals in those situations.
59 - Jeannie Danna
STM >[Canada, BTW, at least pays the bills when Canadians go to US hospitals in those situations.] I really like what you said in #60 And Canadians, I would like to add to this thread, also PAY THEIR TAXES! This is how they can afford a superior HEALTH CARE SYSTEM TO THE ONE WE ARE CURRENTLY STUCK WITH! support HR676 Single-Payer-Health-Care
60 - Jeannie Danna
OK Peanut Gallery Read what Jordan Wrote >
[UHC makes sense on just about every single level, but there are those who continue to oppose it on the basis of outdated philosophies, fears of "socialism," fears of wait times or erosion of choice, or other myths that have long since been refuted by those with evidence.] This is the reason intelligent men & women vote against themselves time and time again in this country. I SAY "Let's all be SOCIALISTS! like CANADA AEY" OOOoo big scary word! doesn't work here anymore...
61 - Jordan Richardson
The facts are all here, that much is clear. Dave will play the same tune and talk about "wait times," ignoring not only the progress made but the infinite amount of progress that can be made. Dave with also continue to perpetuate the myth of government control and will suggest that there is a "review board" that decides whether or not you can have care. The board cited does not do that. I referenced what the board does instead and Dave provided no counter evidence to back his claim that the board "decides life and death matters."
Dave also provided no evidence, despite being asked more than once, to back his claim that most Canadians were at risk under the Canadian system. He also provided no evidence to suggest that people are dying as a result of UHC. I could cite evidence of people dying due to a lack of UHC, but I see no reason to continue citing evidence here.
Dave continues to play the same ridiculous game he always plays. He accuses those who disagree with him of "ignoring the facts," while he conveniently proves very selective in what he responds to. He has ignored the largest portions of my posts, choosing instead to lead repetitive attacks against components of Canadian health care that we agreed upon, ie. wait times. Dave is so obsessed with winning arguments that he cannot even understand when people agree with certain aspects of his argument.
But agreement in part does not equal agreement in total and that's where we run into problems. While I did not once disagree with any of Dave's evidence, so long as it was evidence and not opinion about evidence, I vehemently disagree with his conclusions because they are not based on the evidence.
The essence of this debate is the same as the essence of the oil debate as pertains to the environment. While it might be that a majority of the population wants alternative energy or universal health care, those in power and those with money do not. They don't want to change because they like the way things are.
Dave likes his health care coverage and he should. If I had his coverage, there is NO WAY I would trade it for basic Canadian health care. His coverage is vastly superior and I can understand why he is holding on to it with both hands.
That said, the attitude reflected here is one of selfishness. It doesn't matter if there is no equal care or if people don't want to raise their premiums by going to hospitals or if insurers try to get out of paying and so on. It doesn't matter to Dave because Dave gets what he wants out of his insurance because Dave can afford it.
Me, on the other hand, want everyone to have the same care opportunities I do. And I don't mind paying higher taxes to do so, especially if the system is, as ours is, constantly subject to scrutiny, peer review, and amendment to create better service and diminish wait times. The Canadian system is vastly superior in its transparency, access, cost-effectiveness, and equality. Users can then opt for higher insurance and can receive private care from private facilities that will enable them a higher standard of care beyond the basic care mandated by law.
We are not "all at risk." We are not denied care by a Board of Directors. We are not told which hospital to go to and which one not to go to by anyone. We are, instead, expected to pay more of our own way if we are able to do so. What we cannot cover, the publicly-funded system covers.
It is no great sin, nor is it any great stupidity, to put the needs of others before the needs of yourself. Our system is based on the Canadian desire to do that, whereas the American system is based on the American desire for profit above all else. Those are the fundamentals. And I'll never find agreement with them.
62 - Jordan Richardson
Me...want everyone to have the same care opportunities I do
Gah, that's what I get for recently writing about the Cookie Monster.
Just to clarify: the point is that the health care quality in America is mostly better than the health care quality in Canada. That's a given; it's going to happen when you pump LOADS of money into it (double that of Canada and nearly triple that of everywhere else). If that was the case and I could have Dave's standard of care while ensuring others had it too, I wouldn't be trading it for Canada's system.
America will probably come up with a better system than we have if they ever get their shit together and start prioritizing what really matters. That may never happen as long as insurance companies collect massive profits and refuse payments to those in need. But if it does, with America's health care architecture and a UHC system like ours, there'd be no question in mind that the U.S. would possess the better system in terms of quality. I don't and haven't disputed that.
63 - Jordan Richardson
Just to wrap this up (I promise), this article from Canadian Liberal MP Keith Martin kind of approaches my feelings towards Canada's health care.
We are certainly structured as the mixed system I have been discussing, but we lack integration in support of the public system. We can also learn a lot from Europe's information technology systems. I have always argued that our system needs to continue to evolve and that the basic standards set forth by Tommy Douglas should be kept at the forefront. I have never said that ours is the model or the best, only that it is preferential the American system in terms of equality of coverage and access. In terms of access, most European systems best both Canada and the U.S. significantly, by the way.
Okay. Done. :)
64 - Clavos
Jordan,
Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that most people want to avoid using their insurance coverage if they don't have to? Wouldn't they lose an amount of coverage in going to the hospital for, say, a nail in the hand or a deep cut because the insurance company would have to pay out? Most people would not want to lose coverage if they don't have to, I'd assume.
Not sure if I understand your point here, but if you're saying that using one's health insurance here means losing it, that's simply not so. I've had the same health insurance (with the same company) for years, and go to several doctors regularly (in addition to the free health care I get from the VA), both for routine checkups as well as ailments.
The insurance company actually has a service they employ to call me periodically (an RN with physician access calls) to discuss my serious ailments and their management with me. They make suggestions and give advice. They do it because they're interested in keeping me as healthy as possible to reduce their own costs.
65 - Clavos
America will probably come up with a better system than we have if they ever get their shit together and start prioritizing what really matters.
Not if it's to be run by our shit government, which is my only objection to UHC here. I have no problem with the government (i.e. taxpayers--the government has no money of its own) paying for it, but I don't want bureaucrats who cannot be fired planning for and making decisions about my health care.
I believe you and Stan when you talk about the Canadian and Aussie systems (except that Dave is right about the wait times -- I have NO wait time for anything here), but both the Canadian and Australian governments are far more efficient and far less corrupt than the US.
66 - Bliffle
The US government is corrupt because we allow open bribery of elected officials through so-called "campaign contributions".
Thus, financial vested interests control the corrupt government that extracts tribute from citizens and also denies them the benefits of society.
67 - roger nowosielski
That's right. Nothing has changed.
68 - Jeannie Danna
If we could take back our media and allow them to represent us then maybe we would have a chance...
I was very impressed with Bob Schieffer today on "Face The Nation" while interviewing General Collin Powell Bob actually said that Rush Limbaugh was just an entertainer. If the rest of America could muster up that kind of courage we could move forward another step towards rational thought!
69 - STM
Jordan: "Me, on the other hand, want everyone to have the same care opportunities I do. And I don't mind paying higher taxes to do so, especially if the system is, as ours is, constantly subject to scrutiny, peer review, and amendment to create better service and diminish wait times".
This is why I like universal health care in Australia. It denies nothing to anyone, despite not being perfect ... although it's pretty damn good all things considered.
Aussies were sceptical when it was first introduced in the '70s, much like Americans are now.
However, 30-odd years down the track, no one would change it.
It's worth noting here too that it's not free. We pay a bit more in taxes, but it's worth not ever having to worry about how you are going to pay bills - or whether you'll go bankrupt - if you get sick or worse, lose a job and then get sick.
I like the idea that my government, while it falls flat on its arse in most other respects, can at least offer us that kind of peace of mind through Australia's Medicare UHC system.
And it's a waaaaay more legitimate use of our tax dollar than beefing up expenditure on the military.
70 - Jeannie Danna
STM, (I like the idea that my government, while it falls flat on its arse in most other respects, can at least offer us that kind of peace of mind through Australia's Medicare UHC system.)Have any of our Senators or Congressmen proposed the Australian model as a solution? I would be interested in offering it up to them. Right now I support HR676 because it is the only Single-payer solution I know about. They really keep us out of the "loop" here.
71 - Jeannie Danna
consider this
72 - Jordan Richardson
Clavos, thanks for answering my question. I wasn't sure how various plans worked in the United States.
I also know that my mother-in-law has experienced significant wait times in a Seattle hospital. So, like other health care systems, it is possible that the primary reason behind wait times is more related to regional impact and less related to the actual structure of the system. To say it isn't related to the structure of UHC is to be blind to part of the problem of course, but there are ways to work within the structure of UHC to diminish wait times. As you can see by the evidence I've shown from our health care system, improvements can be made rather steadily with the right adjustments.
73 - Jordan Richardson
I think Americans need to stop being so afraid of their governments and start making their governments afraid of them.
74 - Jeannie Danna
Jordan, Good point! That is why I have no wait time at Buff VA or all the VA clinics I have access to "So, like other health care systems, it is possible that the primary reason behind wait times is more related to regional impact and less related to the actual structure of the system."
75 - Jeannie Danna
Jordan,#73 That sounds too militant for me :(