Do people 'deserve' universal health care?

[DuncanONeil]

"None of the papers you linked are considered neutral or bipartisan. Few of them are even mainstream papers. The ones that are the most right-leaning of the mainstream papers in the city from which that paper is from. There are also some factual errors in some of the articles, and a lot of hyperbole about the implications."

Show me a paper that is!!

[SadisticNature]

So what you're saying is that IF by some miracle it passed, you aren't concerned in any way?

What I'm saying is its not going to pass and that its an extreme proposal with no mainstream credibility. This means its not something that's a reasonable attack on the Canadian system. So using it on a discussion in US health care to point out a flaw in the Canadian system isn't exactly a sound argument.

This would be akin to me taking the most extreme proposal on either side of the US health-care system and using that to attack US health care.

[SadisticNature]

"None of the papers you linked are considered neutral or bipartisan. Few of them are even mainstream papers. The ones that are the most right-leaning of the mainstream papers in the city from which that paper is from. There are also some factual errors in some of the articles, and a lot of hyperbole about the implications."

Show me a paper that is!!

Fair, my point I guess is that all the links are to sources on one side of the political spectrum, whereas if the issue was generating serious attention and people thought it was really going to pass there would be good sources from both sides of the political spectrum.

[SadisticNature]

In the example I used the only thing that occurred with the patient was they were conscious, felt no pain or other physical discomfort.
Thereby is there grounds to sue?
The auto accident is a poor example.

I personally feel pain and suffering is a very flimsy grounds, and I'm glad the Canadian legal system doesn't allow it. If the person is experiencing lost wages relating to mental trauma, or is suing for the cost of their medical appointments (psychiatrist or what not) then this is still a legitimate case.

It may be the case that the person feels "oh something went wrong I can make money", but its certainly possible they are suing for good reasons also.

I would certainly support a reform to make it easier to sue for lost wages and expenses as a result of malpractice, but eliminate damages for pain and suffering.

This would mean people would not be compensated for pain outside of its consequences (lost job due to injury, inability to perform chores, etc.). Most of the fib cases involve wanting money for the pain caused by an injury, rather than wanting money for the consequences of that pain. There are fewer fib cases in the Canadian system, because demonstrating an injury caused you to lose a job and have medical expenses and winning an award to cover what you would have had anyways isn't worthwhile. Allowing huge compensatory damages for pain and suffering results in fakers trying to get rich and its the loophole you need to close. Other approaches run the risk of hurting people who have legitimate claims.

[denuseri]

Did anyone watch the summit meeting on health care between the U.S. President and the left and right legislature members?

[steelish]

I saw bits and pieces of it, and wow! I believe Obama came across as an arrogant ass. His statement about all the Americans switching over to the current government run health care program was laughable! The reason that happened is because all the "created jobs" were federal jobs! The feds provide government run health insurance to their employees! So much of it was a farce (on the side of the administration). I thought the Republicans did a respectable job, but I still don't trust them either. Actions speak louder than words, and even though they are fighting the health care bill, I still believe they would be for larger government if they were in power.

[DuncanONeil]

What I'm saying is its not going to pass and that its an extreme proposal with no mainstream credibility. This means its not something that's a reasonable attack on the Canadian system. So using it on a discussion in US health care to point out a flaw in the Canadian system isn't exactly a sound argument.

This would be akin to me taking the most extreme proposal on either side of the US health-care system and using that to attack US health care.

You mean like the bills currently in Congress that the majority party can not pass?

[DuncanONeil]

"Allowing huge compensatory damages for pain and suffering results in fakers trying to get rich and its the loophole you need to close. Other approaches run the risk of hurting people who have legitimate claims." Absolutely correct! We call that Tort reform. However the Democrats and trial lawyers do not want to see that reform! Even though it could be a good start on health care reform. And such a reform would be a direct connect to health care, even more so when the corollary issue costs reduce.

I personally feel pain and suffering is a very flimsy grounds, and I'm glad the Canadian legal system doesn't allow it. If the person is experiencing lost wages relating to mental trauma, or is suing for the cost of their medical appointments (psychiatrist or what not) then this is still a legitimate case.

It may be the case that the person feels "oh something went wrong I can make money", but its certainly possible they are suing for good reasons also.

I would certainly support a reform to make it easier to sue for lost wages and expenses as a result of malpractice, but eliminate damages for pain and suffering.

This would mean people would not be compensated for pain outside of its consequences (lost job due to injury, inability to perform chores, etc.). Most of the fib cases involve wanting money for the pain caused by an injury, rather than wanting money for the consequences of that pain. There are fewer fib cases in the Canadian system, because demonstrating an injury caused you to lose a job and have medical expenses and winning an award to cover what you would have had anyways isn't worthwhile. Allowing huge compensatory damages for pain and suffering results in fakers trying to get rich and its the loophole you need to close. Other approaches run the risk of hurting people who have legitimate claims.

[DuncanONeil]

BTW Don't get to tied down in the "example". The one cited was gleaned from an episode of Grey's Anatomy.

I personally feel pain and suffering is a very flimsy grounds, and I'm glad the Canadian legal system doesn't allow it. If the person is experiencing lost wages relating to mental trauma, or is suing for the cost of their medical appointments (psychiatrist or what not) then this is still a legitimate case.

It may be the case that the person feels "oh something went wrong I can make money", but its certainly possible they are suing for good reasons also.

I would certainly support a reform to make it easier to sue for lost wages and expenses as a result of malpractice, but eliminate damages for pain and suffering.

This would mean people would not be compensated for pain outside of its consequences (lost job due to injury, inability to perform chores, etc.). Most of the fib cases involve wanting money for the pain caused by an injury, rather than wanting money for the consequences of that pain. There are fewer fib cases in the Canadian system, because demonstrating an injury caused you to lose a job and have medical expenses and winning an award to cover what you would have had anyways isn't worthwhile. Allowing huge compensatory damages for pain and suffering results in fakers trying to get rich and its the loophole you need to close. Other approaches run the risk of hurting people who have legitimate claims.

[DuncanONeil]

I had the entirety of it on. But did not put in the full time to concentrate on it.
Seemed like a real waste of time actually!

Did anyone watch the summit meeting on health care between the U.S. President and the left and right legislature members?

[DuncanONeil]

Not quite accurate. The plans are the same available to the rest of the country. Federal employees have to purchase their health care like anyone else. Some have already been paying taxes on their health plans.
Choosing a health plan in Federal service is a real chore. Even just the list of available plans can run several pages in a booklet that is full size (8.5 x 11). If you want to check out the specifics of a particular plan you must ask for a copy of that booklet from HR.

Congress on the other hand is a different animal!

I saw bits and pieces of it, and wow! I believe Obama came across as an arrogant ass. His statement about all the Americans switching over to the current government run health care program was laughable! The reason that happened is because all the "created jobs" were federal jobs! The feds provide government run health insurance to their employees! So much of it was a farce (on the side of the administration). I thought the Republicans did a respectable job, but I still don't trust them either. Actions speak louder than words, and even though they are fighting the health care bill, I still believe they would be for larger government if they were in power.

[steelish]

Not quite accurate. The plans are the same available to the rest of the country. Federal employees have to purchase their health care like anyone else. Some have already been paying taxes on their health plans.
Choosing a health plan in Federal service is a real chore. Even just the list of available plans can run several pages in a booklet that is full size (8.5 x 11). If you want to check out the specifics of a particular plan you must ask for a copy of that booklet from HR.

Congress on the other hand is a different animal!

Interesting. In the USPS, health care is a benefit for which employees are deducted a very insignificant amount in each biweekly paycheck (for individual coverage - family coverage is slightly higher, of course, just as it is with any employer-sponsored health care plan).

I've seen the "offerings" but declined coverage. I am a part-time employee and am not offered it as a benefit. I would have had to pay in full for it and found it was cheaper (and I received a better plan) by going with Humana. For three family members to have HMO coverage I pay just barely over $300.00 monthly. We can visit the doctor as often as needed,. Our copay for dr visits is only $10.00 per visit. Since we've been on that plan I've had two lumps removed from my left breast, skin cancer removed, my husband goes to the chiropractor regularly, and my son has regular visits to get his Adderal prescriptions for ADD. We've not had one single problem with our coverage.

On the other hand, a full-time co-worker of mine had to have knee replacement surgery recently. She's on one of the government run plans. She had to wait a month to receive approval from her insurance company so she could have it done. (She was injured ON THE JOB and THAT is the reason the knee replacement surgery was necessary)

Side note: Under my insurance plan, once the doctor(s) recommended knee replacement surgery all I would have had to do was set a date and show up.

[DuncanONeil]

As I remember it the Mailhandlers plan was usually the most cost effective. Last few years of service I did not carry any as the plan at wife's work was even more cost effective. So I can not remember the prices.

But if you want to talk about low cost the local teacher's union has done themselves proud. I can't remember the exact cost but it is below $60 per MONTH for the teacher. And when they retire it continues, for life, but I am not sure they have to pay at that time.

Prior approvals by insurance providers is usually one of those things that are spelled out in the offering that nobody reads and only finds out well after the fact! But how much longer will that take when it is a Government board that is making the decision.

Interesting. In the USPS, health care is a benefit for which employees are deducted a very insignificant amount in each biweekly paycheck (for individual coverage - family coverage is slightly higher, of course, just as it is with any employer-sponsored health care plan).

I've seen the "offerings" but declined coverage. I am a part-time employee and am not offered it as a benefit. I would have had to pay in full for it and found it was cheaper (and I received a better plan) by going with Humana. For three family members to have HMO coverage I pay just barely over $300.00 monthly. We can visit the doctor as often as needed,. Our copay for dr visits is only $10.00 per visit. Since we've been on that plan I've had two lumps removed from my left breast, skin cancer removed, my husband goes to the chiropractor regularly, and my son has regular visits to get his Adderal prescriptions for ADD. We've not had one single problem with our coverage.

On the other hand, a full-time co-worker of mine had to have knee replacement surgery recently. She's on one of the government run plans. She had to wait a month to receive approval from her insurance company so she could have it done. (She was injured ON THE JOB and THAT is the reason the knee replacement surgery was necessary)

Side note: Under my insurance plan, once the doctor(s) recommended knee replacement surgery all I would have had to do was set a date and show up.

[steelish]

As I remember it the Mailhandlers plan was usually the most cost effective. Last few years of service I did not carry any as the plan at wife's work was even more cost effective. So I can not remember the prices.

But if you want to talk about low cost the local teacher's union has done themselves proud. I can't remember the exact cost but it is below $60 per MONTH for the teacher. And when they retire it continues, for life, but I am not sure they have to pay at that time.

Prior approvals by insurance providers is usually one of those things that are spelled out in the offering that nobody reads and only finds out well after the fact! But how much longer will that take when it is a Government board that is making the decision.

That may be. Before I got laid off, the company I used to work for offered insurance at NO COST to employees. A private company - not federal. Only if you wanted family coverage did you have to pay out of pocket, otherwise it was free. Dr. visits through their plan was also a $10 copay, so when I had my son, the only payment I ever made was the initial $10 copay charge for my first visit to my obstetrician. I went through months of visits, I received the usual prenatal vitamins, I went to the hospital when I went into labor, had an emergency C-section, stayed three days, was discharged...and never had to pay another dime. Just my initial $10 copay.

I'm not saying federal insurance programs offered through federal employment is bad (it's not a whole lot different than employee sponsored programs), but I think what they offer federal employees is completely different than the plan Obama is proposing.

Under the plan I had with my employer, I received the best care - no questions asked. No third party involvement. No one interfering in the doctor/patient relationship. Something was recommended, my husband and I conferred with each other, it was done and the insurance company paid.

[denuseri]

http://www.healthreform.gov/

The above link is for those who wish to see the latest in what the President is proposing for the USA.

[steelish]

Prior approvals by insurance providers is usually one of those things that are spelled out in the offering that nobody reads and only finds out well after the fact! But how much longer will that take when it is a Government board that is making the decision.

I went to doctors within my insurance company's network. They knew what's covered and what is not. But, as you state, with Obama's plan, the doctor/patient relationship will suffer greatly. Some desk jockey somewhere will receive the doctor's recommendation, then decide (based upon your potential to be a "contributing" member of society and whether or not it is the most cost effective procedure) and then will inform your doctor of whether or not you can proceed. It's a horrible idea, and one that will cripple the American health care system.

[DuncanONeil]

You are correct. The plans offered to federal employees are from the same companies that the private sector uses.
Some people like to compare health insurance to auto insurance, but in auto insurance people make a choice to pay less insurance for a larger deductible. Yet in health insurance people want the lesser cost without the corresponding increase in out of pocket expense.

Now I can't remember everything in the health bills but i have a few specifics that I think are enough to prove the value, perhaps I should say lack of value, of the bills

1. You get to keep you current health care.

a. True for five years.
b. Then all providers must be in the "exchange"

2. Although not spoken of anymore, the "public option" is wrong on two counts at least

a. Such a plan would have several unfair advantages.
b. Government in direct competition with private companies in the US is against the law.

3. The bills require the Government to increase the time between pregnancies.

a. How can that be done?
b. What happens to a person that does not comply?
c. What happens when they change the time limit? No input from Congress would be required.

4. The claim that there is not attempt to take over this industry is suspect.

a. All qualified providers of insurance are required to be in the exchange. b. All providers in the exchange are required to be under contract to the Government.
c. The Government determines what must be covered.
d. The Government determines what can be charged for the services covered.

5. In addition there is section after section that levies additional reporting requirements on all aspects of the health process.

And this is just a small portion of the bills.

That may be. Before I got laid off, the company I used to work for offered insurance at NO COST to employees. A private company - not federal. Only if you wanted family coverage did you have to pay out of pocket, otherwise it was free. Dr. visits through their plan was also a $10 copay, so when I had my son, the only payment I ever made was the initial $10 copay charge for my first visit to my obstetrician. I went through months of visits, I received the usual prenatal vitamins, I went to the hospital when I went into labor, had an emergency C-section, stayed three days, was discharged...and never had to pay another dime. Just my initial $10 copay.

I'm not saying federal insurance programs offered through federal employment is bad (it's not a whole lot different than employee sponsored programs), but I think what they offer federal employees is completely different than the plan Obama is proposing.

Under the plan I had with my employer, I received the best care - no questions asked. No third party involvement. No one interfering in the doctor/patient relationship. Something was recommended, my husband and I conferred with each other, it was done and the insurance company paid.

[DuncanONeil]

I read the President's proposal.
As before it is not a plan, but a wish list. From this there is no way to tell what would actually happen. Only the language of an actual bill can do that.
There is little to no difference in this than what they "proposed" the first time around!

http://www.healthreform.gov/

The above link is for those who wish to see the latest in what the President is proposing for the USA.

[DuncanONeil]

This is what the bill calls for;

There is established a private-public advisory committee which shall be a panel of medical and other experts to be known as the Health Benefits Advisory Committee to recommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced, and premium plans.
The Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall be composed of the following members, in addition to the Surgeon General:

(A) 9 members who are not Federal employees or officers and who are appointed by the President.

(B) 9 members who are not Federal employees or officers and who are appointed by the Comptroller General of the United States in a manner similar to the manner in which the Comptroller General appoints members to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission under section 1805(c) of the Social Security Act.

(C) Such even number of members (not to exceed 8) who are Federal employees and officers, as the President may appoint.

I don't see any doctors in here!
Further of the 26 appointees, 17 are directly appointed by the President and the remaining nine by a Presidential appointee (one could argue all 26 are appointed by the President).

I went to doctors within my insurance company's network. They knew what's covered and what is not. But, as you state, with Obama's plan, the doctor/patient relationship will suffer greatly. Some desk jockey somewhere will receive the doctor's recommendation, then decide (based upon your potential to be a "contributing" member of society and whether or not it is the most cost effective procedure) and then will inform your doctor of whether or not you can proceed. It's a horrible idea, and one that will cripple the American health care system.

[steelish]

This is what the bill calls for;

There is established a private-public advisory committee which shall be a panel of medical and other experts to be known as the Health Benefits Advisory Committee to recommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced, and premium plans.
The Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall be composed of the following members, in addition to the Surgeon General:

(A) 9 members who are not Federal employees or officers and who are appointed by the President.

(B) 9 members who are not Federal employees or officers and who are appointed by the Comptroller General of the United States in a manner similar to the manner in which the Comptroller General appoints members to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission under section 1805(c) of the Social Security Act.

(C) Such even number of members (not to exceed 8) who are Federal employees and officers, as the President may appoint.

I don't see any doctors in here!
Further of the 26 appointees, 17 are directly appointed by the President and the remaining nine by a Presidential appointee (one could argue all 26 are appointed by the President).

The other concern is the length of time it will take for the regulating "committee" to examine cases and return "verdicts". Given the millions that will eventually be required to switch to the plan (once the private insurers are driven out of business) the 26 appointees will in no way be able to keep up with the myriad cases being presented daily. Think of how many people will be waiting days, months, possibly even a year or more to hear whether or not their plan of action for their health issues will be approved!

[DuncanONeil]

The bill calls for every "grandfathered" insurer to be in the "Exchange" after five years.
Every insurer in the "Exchange" is required to be under contract to the Government.
I think we all know what that means!

The other concern is the length of time it will take for the regulating "committee" to examine cases and return "verdicts". Given the millions that will eventually be required to switch to the plan (once the private insurers are driven out of business) the 26 appointees will in no way be able to keep up with the myriad cases being presented daily. Think of how many people will be waiting days, months, possibly even a year or more to hear whether or not their plan of action for their health issues will be approved!

[Lion]

Gee. The Prime Minister of Canada is coming to the states for heart surgery. Why?

Hmmm...his doctor recommended it.

From the article:

All but very rare and specialized heart surgery that is done in the United States is also available in Canada, a Toronto cardiac surgeon said.

The one significant exception would be surgery to the thoracic aorta, the giant blood vessel that carries blood that's pumped out of the heart to other organs. If a person develops a swelling or aneurysm, an abnormal bulging, in the thoracic aorta, and needs surgery to open the chest cavity, "that's a very extensive operation," Feindel said.

So what. They don't have the skills/equipment/training, etc. in Canada???

The Fraser Institute estimated that 41,000 Canadians sought health care services in the U.S. in 2009.

Wow. That's a lot of people to PAY for health care when they can get it for free without the added expense of traveling.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/201...uffpost/490080

[steelish]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/201...uffpost/490080

Sorry, but all this did was make me laugh. Crossing the border for minor doctor visits is not the same as crossing the border for major surgery. No one disputes that it's CHEAPER to get health care in a National System. What we dispute is that overall quality will go downhill. To put it in perspective, you can take ALL of the 2009 profits from every health insurance company in the United States, combine them and still not have enough funds to cover the proposed National Health Care system for a period of 48 hours. How will something that costly in a country that is already broke ensure quality of care?

[SadisticNature]

Sorry, but all this did was make me laugh. Crossing the border for minor doctor visits is not the same as crossing the border for major surgery. No one disputes that it's CHEAPER to get health care in a National System. What we dispute is that overall quality will go downhill. To put it in perspective, you can take ALL of the 2009 profits from every health insurance company in the United States, combine them and still not have enough funds to cover the proposed National Health Care system for a period of 48 hours. How will something that costly in a country that is already broke ensure quality of care?

The math on this claim is terrible. The profits of every health insurance company is way larger than this sum.

WellPoint alone made a $2.4 billion operating profit in 1 year.

Multiplying this profit alone by 365/2 gives:
$438 Billion dollars or 43.8% of the cost of the Obama health care plan from just one insurance provider.

If I choose to use their 4.7 Billion actual profit instead of their operating profit, they would cover over 80% of your estimate.

[SadisticNature]

Sorry, but all this did was make me laugh. Crossing the border for minor doctor visits is not the same as crossing the border for major surgery. No one disputes that it's CHEAPER to get health care in a National System. What we dispute is that overall quality will go downhill. To put it in perspective, you can take ALL of the 2009 profits from every health insurance company in the United States, combine them and still not have enough funds to cover the proposed National Health Care system for a period of 48 hours. How will something that costly in a country that is already broke ensure quality of care?

We've had Americans cross the border for major surgery too. There are lots of fairly specialized modern surgeries that only a few places in the world do (and different places for each one). Toronto has some of the best research hospitals in the world, and Americans come here for surgeries in those specialties.

The premier of Newfoundland & Labrador (More like a governor than a president) went to the US for a specialized surgery from a surgeon who specializes in that procedure. It's not that either system is better, its that particular procedure has better people for it in the US, there are other procedures where the best specialists are North of the border.

[SadisticNature]

You mean like the bills currently in Congress that the majority party can not pass?

I think the most extreme proposal on the left is single payer health care and it has been proposed. The bill isn't even close to the most left-wing plan on the table.

The most extreme proposal on the right are very inadequate versions of tort reform that protect companies from lawsuits but not in ways that ensure those who are legitimate victims are still able to sue, along with various attempts at further deregulating the insurance industry.

I think the proposal on the table is just slightly left of center for the US.

[SadisticNature]

I'm aware that a good many poor and not-so-poor Americans risk not buying health insurance because they can't afford it. Some of them contribute to these threads. If they do need it, and have to get state-funded treatment, are you telling me that they will get the best America can offer?

In the UK, people with jobs contribute by deduction from salary and people without jobs receive contribution credits from the State. Thus everyone is entitled to the best treatment the NHS can give. That may not be as good as your best, but it's way better than your worst.

The largest problem I find with the American system is that the insurance is largely done through companies as a work benefit. This means many individuals lose their insurance if their company downsizes, and then when they try and get new insurance if they have a pre-existing condition they are denied coverage or quoted a massive rate. This is the case even though the condition did not predate their work insurance.

Also, while officially employers are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of medical conditions for hiring, people with visible medical conditions are hired at a lower rate than the general population which suggests it is taking place nonetheless. This means someone can be laid off, lose their health insurance as a result driving their costs through the roof, and then not get hired because companies don't want the additional cost of the insurance (although officially its always for a different reason).

[SadisticNature]

Regarding Point 1, If the proposed republican plan were to go through you wouldn't get to keep your current insurance at all, because with the state lines removed companies would standardize the plans they offer across the nation, eliminating the state specific one that you are using.

2.b. Would like a source for this claim. Government run utilities are allowed to compete in markets that also have private utilities in several states. Also, medicare competes with existing insurance coverage for those eligible. Not a single person in congress was willing to vote down medicare and it operates on the same principle as a public option with the same competitive advantages.

Regarding 3, Could you quote the specific part of the bill dealing with this from the actual document?

Regarding 4, No one has claimed the government doesn't want additional regulation on the health insurance industry, the exchange is a way of standardizing it. How is this any different than requiring banks to have shares of the national bank?

Regarding 5, It was tried with less reporting and less regulation and look at the mess that caused, if reporting is needed to ensure standards are met I don't see why that is a flaw of the current bill.

You are correct. The plans offered to federal employees are from the same companies that the private sector uses.
Some people like to compare health insurance to auto insurance, but in auto insurance people make a choice to pay less insurance for a larger deductible. Yet in health insurance people want the lesser cost without the corresponding increase in out of pocket expense.

Now I can't remember everything in the health bills but i have a few specifics that I think are enough to prove the value, perhaps I should say lack of value, of the bills

1. You get to keep you current health care.

a. True for five years.
b. Then all providers must be in the "exchange"

2. Although not spoken of anymore, the "public option" is wrong on two counts at least

a. Such a plan would have several unfair advantages.
b. Government in direct competition with private companies in the US is against the law.

3. The bills require the Government to increase the time between pregnancies.

a. How can that be done?
b. What happens to a person that does not comply?
c. What happens when they change the time limit? No input from Congress would be required.

4. The claim that there is not attempt to take over this industry is suspect.

a. All qualified providers of insurance are required to be in the exchange. b. All providers in the exchange are required to be under contract to the Government.
c. The Government determines what must be covered.
d. The Government determines what can be charged for the services covered.

5. In addition there is section after section that levies additional reporting requirements on all aspects of the health process.

And this is just a small portion of the bills.

[Lion]

Sorry, but all this did was make me laugh. Crossing the border for minor doctor visits is not the same as crossing the border for major surgery. No one disputes that it's CHEAPER to get health care in a National System. What we dispute is that overall quality will go downhill. To put it in perspective, you can take ALL of the 2009 profits from every health insurance company in the United States, combine them and still not have enough funds to cover the proposed National Health Care system for a period of 48 hours. How will something that costly in a country that is already broke ensure quality of care?

In my years living on this side of 49, I've rarely met any Canadians who thinks our system is perfect. Most of us feel that there is constant need for improvement and why the hell not? It's government run, so there are bound to be inefficiencies.

I've seen constant debates on this, and very few who oppose this healthcare plan, you included have come up with an idea to share. A lot of people, Mrs. Palin included have seen nothing but faults in healthcare reform, when she herself have benifited from something she claims will ruin America (I'm paraphrasing).

The article about the premier going to US to get an extremely specialized procedure is biased in a sense that it does not look at the entire picture.

Can one country afford to have the best of everything? Even one as large as America? I think it is stupid to believe that private healthcare will ensure that American healthcare is equipped to handle every single disease. Fact is, at the current system, Americans still come up to Toronto and get FREE healthcare (refer to Sick Kids hospital).

Our system knows that. We have ways that Canadian citizens and residents can get reimbursed for the money they spent on treatments abroad. Treatments that they can't get at home. That's what the premier of that province is doing actually.

Do we have a problem with line-ups. Yes, we know it. Do we find that line-ups are better then facing monthly health insurance bills, that essentially negate the effects of higher taxes, and then some? Most of us.

Someone claimed it was unconstitutional or something to impose a tax to provide healthcare to everyone. Can someone claim that arguement over every war he/she disagrees with? Or a construction project that they have no benefit with?

Right now, US spends 100s of billions of dollars in the military. That's the government btw, not a private enterprise. People are more then willing to claim that a strong government funded and government run army is essential, while claiming that healthcare, which would be a government funded and government run system would be filled with inefficiencies, therefore unattainable. Whether American get universal healthcare or not, it makes no difference for me. I just find this level of hypocrisy appalling.

Peace out!

[steelish]

In my years living on this side of 49, I've rarely met any Canadians who thinks our system is perfect. Most of us feel that there is constant need for improvement and why the hell not? It's government run, so there are bound to be inefficiencies.

I've seen constant debates on this, and very few who oppose this healthcare plan, you included have come up with an idea to share. A lot of people, Mrs. Palin included have seen nothing but faults in healthcare reform, when she herself have benifited from something she claims will ruin America (I'm paraphrasing).

The article about the premier going to US to get an extremely specialized procedure is biased in a sense that it does not look at the entire picture.

Can one country afford to have the best of everything? Even one as large as America? I think it is stupid to believe that private healthcare will ensure that American healthcare is equipped to handle every single disease. Fact is, at the current system, Americans still come up to Toronto and get FREE healthcare (refer to Sick Kids hospital).

Our system knows that. We have ways that Canadian citizens and residents can get reimbursed for the money they spent on treatments abroad. Treatments that they can't get at home. That's what the premier of that province is doing actually.

And if America goes to this inefficient government-run system, where would the premier have gone? No one seems to get it. Just because a government in one country put in an NHS, doesn't mean ALL governments are capable of doing it. Until we weed out the corruption, the goons in power right now would screw it up so badly that it would be the joke of the world.

Do we have a problem with line-ups. Yes, we know it. Do we find that line-ups are better then facing monthly health insurance bills, that essentially negate the effects of higher taxes, and then some? Most of us.

Someone claimed it was unconstitutional or something to impose a tax to provide healthcare to everyone. Can someone claim that arguement over every war he/she disagrees with? Or a construction project that they have no benefit with?

Right now, US spends 100s of billions of dollars in the military. That's the government btw, not a private enterprise. People are more then willing to claim that a strong government funded and government run army is essential, while claiming that healthcare, which would be a government funded and government run system would be filled with inefficiencies, therefore unattainable. Whether American get universal healthcare or not, it makes no difference for me. I just find this level of hypocrisy appalling.

Peace out!

Uh, yeah. That is our government's constitutional duty. To ensure the safety of the citizens. It is NOT our government's constitutional duty however, to provide a service to the citizens.