Canuck selling out Canada's Health Care on Fox News

bush_cheney2004 · July 25, 2009

There's no way that the US would go for a purely public model as Canada has.

I agree, because such a pure model doesn't exist in Canada either.

Is there room, in your opinion, for government to top up coverage for uncovered Americans ? Surely the richest nation on earth can afford to help its poorest citizens ?

Poorest citizens and the uninsured are often two very different things. The US already has single payer systems as described above for the poor and vulnerable. However, it is very expensive even today and will drive deficits in the future. The question is how to pay for such a new entitlement program in the highest cost system on earth.

The young may get little in the short term, but luckily they age - and they have no choice in the matter. I do appreciate the fact that America offers the most choices to people, however some of these choices are dumber than others and people do need to be protected from abuse - not just physical abuse such as assault but economic abuse as well.

That's a very socialist idea, and would meet with resistance from many (but not all) Americans. Eschewing health insurance premiums can be very wise in the short term (by self insuring and/or paying for a cheap, catastrophic policy)

The fundamentals remain unchanged, but we can afford to give the country more than we could 250 years ago - when a great percentage of the workforce was engaged in food production and day-to-day subsistence was more difficult.

Affording the costs and making the political decision stands in the way, as always. There are far more haves than have-nots. And as we have learned from Canada, insurance doesn't mean access.

Michael Hardner · July 25, 2009

Reading between the lines, it sounds like you're more in favour of a national plan than you care to admit.

Why not just spill the beans ? How would you improve the system to provide coverage to all Americans ?

bush_cheney2004 · July 25, 2009

Reading between the lines, it sounds like you're more in favour of a national plan than you care to admit.

As I have stated many times, the US already has national (and state) plans that dwarf anything in Canada. Why would I take a stand against that which already exists (and I pay for with a healthcare/dental surtax on my services) ?

Why not just spill the beans ? How would you improve the system to provide coverage to all Americans ?

Coverage for "all Americans" is a misnomer, not only in scope, but also in access to care. That is the rub...services rationing as experienced by Canadians should the present fee-for-service delivery system be corrupted.

Michael Hardner · July 25, 2009

b_c,

All service everywhere is rationed by definition. To compare the worst cases in Canada with a situation where individuals simply have no care in the US is an error at best, and at worst dishonest.

Please explain how you would change the present national system then .

bush_cheney2004 · July 25, 2009

All service everywhere is rationed by definition. To compare the worst cases in Canada with a situation where individuals simply have no care in the US is an error at best, and at worst dishonest.

But that isn't the comparison at all....Canada's version is just one of many throughout the world. No reason to focus there except for the convenience. Rationing by ability to pay is the American norm for most services, from the best legal talent to education to food, etc. Some people confuse insurance with actually receiving care....poor or otherwise. That is just more of the class warfare undercurrent....if the ultimate goal is care, why is that an issue?

Please explain how you would change the present national system then .

If the government is compelled to provide universal insurance and access to actual care in a timely manner (it isn't), I would recognize and formally bound covered procedures to exclude expensive heroic measures for the elderly (DNR), reform malpractice laws, further subsidize medical educations to relieve resident debt, communicate cost and fee structures to consumers before receiving services, increase co-pays, add incentives for salaried doctors, etc. In short, I would attack the biggest expenditures per capita and moderate the burdens and fee-pay structure for medical professionals.

Michael Hardner · July 26, 2009

bush_cheney;

But that isn't the comparison at all....Canada's version is just one of many throughout the world. No reason to focus there except for the convenience. Rationing by ability to pay is the American norm for most services, from the best legal talent to education to food, etc. Some people confuse insurance with actually receiving care....poor or otherwise. That is just more of the class warfare undercurrent....if the ultimate goal is care, why is that an issue?

Ok, then why are we seeing - as per the OP - the example of Kingston General Hospital being trotted out in front of the open-mouthed Fox watchers hmmm ?

Why refer to 'rationing' in the Canadian system if you admit that rationing happens in the US system ?

The presumption of these Fox reports, of course, is that whatever change we're talking about in the US will make the system into a socialist nightmare.

If the government is compelled to provide universal insurance and access to actual care in a timely manner (it isn't), I would recognize and formally bound covered procedures to exclude expensive heroic measures for the elderly (DNR), reform malpractice laws, further subsidize medical educations to relieve resident debt, communicate cost and fee structures to consumers before receiving services, increase co-pays, add incentives for salaried doctors, etc. In short, I would attack the biggest expenditures per capita and moderate the burdens and fee-pay structure for medical professionals.

Right. So you've clearly thought out this issue and have some practical, and maybe some impractical ideas of how to achieve this. That's good to know.

The lesson for those on these boards who debate you should be that you aren't going to show all your cards in a healthcare debate. You have some good ideas for a way forward with healthcare, and no one should assume you're against change.

Folks like you need to be brought into the debate, but on the reform side of the table not the opposition side of the table.

bush_cheney2004 · July 26, 2009

Ok, then why are we seeing - as per the OP - the example of Kingston General Hospital being trotted out in front of the open-mouthed Fox watchers hmmm ?
Why refer to 'rationing' in the Canadian system if you admit that rationing happens in the US system ?

The presumption of these Fox reports, of course, is that whatever change we're talking about in the US will make the system into a socialist nightmare.

Because that is how the game is played by entrenched interest groups; reformers are not above trotting out equally alarming horror stories to support their position and have done so, most notably during the past US election cycle.

Right. So you've clearly thought out this issue and have some practical, and maybe some impractical ideas of how to achieve this. That's good to know.

The core issue is not healthcare at all, but rising costs. That is the only reason the issue is gaining traction in the US.

I enter this debate from a privileged position with respect to salary and benefits, but I would like to think that I would accept my fate were I a homeless indigent. Since I am older, I can recall a time when healthcare insurance was a luxury, and good health was a virtue, not a commodity.

Michael Hardner · July 26, 2009

b_c,

Because that is how the game is played by entrenched interest groups; reformers are not above trotting out equally alarming horror stories to support their position and have done so, most notably during the past US election cycle.

Except the Kingston Hospital example is being used as a rationale for rejecting change outright, IMO. And the horror stories on the other side are happening now - they're not a "what if" scenario based on the US adopting the Canadian system.

The core issue is not healthcare at all, but rising costs. That is the only reason the issue is gaining traction in the US.
I enter this debate from a privileged position with respect to salary and benefits, but I would like to think that I would accept my fate were I a homeless indigent. Since I am older, I can recall a time when healthcare insurance was a luxury, and good health was a virtue, not a commodity.

Cost is your issue, not the issue. Reform should be addressing providing access to basic healthcare for everyone.

bush_cheney2004 · July 26, 2009

Except the Kingston Hospital example is being used as a rationale for rejecting change outright, IMO. And the horror stories on the other side are happening now - they're not a "what if" scenario based on the US adopting the Canadian system.

Change to a "what-if" scenario is more alarming than the devil we already know. Here is a woman who actually had "full GOVERNMENT coverage", but did not receive timely care.

Cost is your issue, not the issue. Reform should be addressing providing access to basic healthcare for everyone.

That sounds great, but we know how care is actually delivered. Expectations are a lot higher and cost a lot more.

Edited July 26, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

lily · July 26, 2009

Change to a "what-if" scenario is more alarming than the devil we already know. Here is a woman who actually had "full GOVERNMENT coverage", but did not receive timely care.

My mum had a stroke. She had "full GOVERNMENT coverage" and she received timely care.

My cousin had breast cancer. She had "full GOVERNMENT coverage" and she received timely care.

I could go on, but you get the point.

or do you?

bush_cheney2004 · July 26, 2009

My mum had a stroke. She had "full GOVERNMENT coverage" and she received timely care.
My cousin had breast cancer. She had "full GOVERNMENT coverage" and she received timely care.

I could go on, but you get the point.

or do you?

The point is that YOU do not get to judge "timely care" for others.

Get it?

Machjo · July 26, 2009

I don';t see why a two-tiered system couldn't work. Most European systems, if not all of them, do that. Ironically enough, Canada's and the US systems are at opposite ends of the spectrum, whereas the Europeans seem to have found a happy medium.

lily · July 26, 2009

The point is that YOU do not get to judge "timely care" for others.
Get it?

No, the point is anecdotal evidence is interesting, but doesn't paint the whole picture.

Edited July 26, 2009 by lily

bush_cheney2004 · July 26, 2009

I don';t see why a two-tiered system couldn't work. Most European systems, if not all of them, do that. Ironically enough, Canada's and the US systems are at opposite ends of the spectrum, whereas the Europeans seem to have found a happy medium.

Canada already has a two-tiered system, but it is politically unacceptable to admit that it exists.

bush_cheney2004 · July 26, 2009

No, the point is anecdotal evidence is interesting, but doesn't paint the whole picture.

It's her picture...her experience....not ours. She has the right to articulate her experience and affect change.

Bryan · July 27, 2009

It's her picture...her experience....not ours. She has the right to articulate her experience and affect change.

Sure, except for the small detail that she's lying. She never had brain cancer, her life was never in danger, and she was never refused treatment.

bush_cheney2004 · July 27, 2009

Sure, except for the small detail that she's lying. She never had brain cancer, her life was never in danger, and she was never refused treatment.

Wow...I never realized that health care in Ontario was advanced to the point of accurately predicting the future without so much as a diagnosis. Amazing!

Bryan · July 27, 2009

Wow...I never realized that health care in Ontario was advanced to the point of accurately predicting the future without so much as a diagnosis. Amazing!

She was diagnosed. With a benign cyst. She never had brain cancer, she was never refused treatment. She's a liar.

madmax · July 28, 2009

Life expectancy is not soley related to health care systems.

McDonalds or Guns ? :lol:

madmax · July 28, 2009

Of course health insurance can be purchased by an individual in the US. There are many types of policies and underwriters. And that includes dental insurance.

AND THEY SUCK!!!

madmax · July 28, 2009

Sure, except for the small detail that she's lying. She never had brain cancer, her life was never in danger, and she was never refused treatment.

So shes a liar....

jay22 · August 13, 2009

Maybe she's pointing out a real flaw in our system, that people shouldn't have to wait 6 months? Oh and "making money off of sick people" is better than letting sick people die.

My probleam with this is she went on american tv to bash the canadian system.I fee for her and i ma glad she will be ok.But i am sorry i just have issues with her or any one bashing the canadian system on american tv.

bush_cheney2004 · August 13, 2009

My probleam with this is she went on american tv to bash the canadian system.I fee for her and i ma glad she will be ok.But i am sorry i just have issues with her or any one bashing the canadian system on american tv.

Why? Is it the bashing part, or the "american tv" part.....or both? Where can Canadians vent their frustrations against the "system" in a very public way? Or is that blasphemous and forbidden?

Doesn't Shona Holmes have free speech rights.....whether it's Canada or the USA?

Wilber · August 13, 2009

My probleam with this is she went on american tv to bash the canadian system.I fee for her and i ma glad she will be ok.But i am sorry i just have issues with her or any one bashing the canadian system on american tv.

Why? A large percentage of Canadians don't mind when an American bashes their country in Canadian media.

Radsickle · August 14, 2009

She was doing it for personal gain and basing it on `spinning' her story to fit the republican f-heads in the States who won't make as much money if health-care is publicly funded.

Edited August 14, 2009 by Radsickle