Are women in danger of losing their abortion rights?

[bloodyminded]

You can always hope.

a thousand times over.

Why roll your eyes? We're in agreement on the inherent superiority of all things American.

Edited April 25, 2011 by bloodyminded

[cybercoma]

The fact that abortions are so unavailable to so many Canadians should be a concern. Why it's not is a mystery to me.

It is a concern. Thanks for coming out.

[Guest American Woman]

Why roll your eyes? We're in agreement on the inherent superiority of all things American.

Thanks for letting me know without any doubt that you're an ignorant sod. Up until now I wasn't sure how to take you.

[bloodyminded]

Thanks for letting me know without any doubt that you're an ignorant sod. Up until now I wasn't sure how to take you.

So now you know. Coming from a hypersensitive little nationalist whiner, I take this as a grand compliment.

[icman]

Why roll your eyes? We're in agreement on the inherent superiority of all things American.

Yeah, especially their rock-solid financial system. They're so awsome.

Edited April 25, 2011 by icman

[Guest American Woman]

So now you know. Coming from a hypersensitive little nationalist whiner, I take this as a grand compliment.

Good grief. I comment on one problem that I see, a very real problem btw, in yet another thread where America is being discussed no-holds barred, and apparently it's just too much for some delicate Canadian sensibilities. But yeah. I'M the "hypersensitive little nationalist whiner."

Carry on, while discussing what a broken-down, crappy health system the U.S. has. I'll just sit back and laugh.

[RNG]

Of course our system can use improvement. I don't even think that's a point anyone has made in the debate. People don't want private healthcare in Canada, but that doesn't mean things are perfect the way they are.

But so many on the OTHER side can't or won't realize that private health care and privately delivered health care are not he same thing. And this is definitely not a slippery slope situation.

[bush_cheney2004]

Good grief. I comment on one problem that I see, a very real problem btw, in yet another thread where America is being discussed no-holds barred, and apparently it's just too much for some delicate Canadian sensibilities. But yeah. I'M the "hypersensitive little nationalist whiner."

Alas, some here think that turnabout is not fair play. For them, this is a private booth for snickering about America and Americans amongst like minded folk, and how dare any fellow Canadian or, worse yet, bloody American interject with an opposing viewpoint.

Carry on, while discussing what a broken-down, crappy health system the U.S. has. I'll just sit back and laugh.

So will I, because when they get tired of waiting in patriotic queue, I know where to find them, including PM's and MP's!

[bloodyminded]

Good grief. I comment on one problem that I see, a very real problem btw, in yet another thread where America is being discussed no-holds barred, and apparently it's just too much for some delicate Canadian sensibilities. But yeah. I'M the "hypersensitive little nationalist whiner."

Carry on, while discussing what a broken-down, crappy health system the U.S. has. I'll just sit back and laugh.

Yes, and as you know, I don't engage in those discussions, about some inferiority of the American system. You and I have personally had discussions about this, about certain Canadian attitudes that I consider at best irrelevant, and at worst inaccurate.

We were in total agreement....about Canada. Not about the God you call "America," evidently.

That Americans succumb to similar weaknesses is a truism that I assumed you took as a given. Apparently not.

Your remarks about Canadian attitudes towards America doesn't change the fact that your patriotism makes you oversensitive, an attribute for which I have no sympathy, since it's like religious belief, only dumber; based on a heady combination of self-puffery and learned servility to the State.

If you really thought Canadians were out of line to behave this way, you would not so eagerly enjoin in the embracing of overdelicate patriotic sensibilities. As it is, you agree with them; you only think the target of their ire points in the wrong direction.

Edited April 25, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

Alas, some here think that turnabout is not fair play.

Turnabout is fair play.

Entirely my point.

[icman]

... because when they {Canadians} get tired of waiting in patriotic queue, I know where to find them, including PM's and MP's!

Yeah, only the rich ones who can afford to pay your rates. What is important (so far) to Canadians is that our long queues are servicing the poorest 1/6 of the population with reasonable health care along with the other 5/6, whereas 1/6 of Americans are denied access to health care of any kind.

Other than a fringe few, Canadians will take long queues in trade to keep universal access.

Edited April 25, 2011 by icman

[bush_cheney2004]

.....Your remarks about Canadian attitudes towards America doesn't change the fact that your patriotism makes you oversensitive, an attribute for which I have no sympathy, since it's like religious belief, only dumber; based on a heady combination of self-puffery and learned servility to the State.

How ironic...that an American be lectured about the very attribute found in spades for Canada (i.e. peace, order, and good government). History says that the American "patriots" embraced anything but "servility" to the State. I welcome and enjoy such a glorious distinction if that be your definition of American patriotism.

[bloodyminded]

How ironic...that an American be lectured about the very attribute found in spades for Canada (i.e. peace, order, and good government). History says that the American "patriots" embraced anything but "servility" to the State. I welcome and enjoy such a glorious distinction if that be your definition of American patriotism.

It's not. It's my definition of patriotism at the heavier end of the spectrum (from bland platitudes, to emotional connection, to laughable oversensitivity; all patriotim is not equal).

It has nothing at all to do with America specifically.

Edited April 25, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bush_cheney2004]

Yeah, only the rich ones who can afford to pay your rates. What is important (so far) to Canadians is that our long queues are servicing the poorest 1/6 of the population with reasonable health care along with the other 5/6, whereas 1/6 of Americans are denied access to health care of any kind.

This is utter nonsense and you know it. Many Americans lack health insurance, not access to health care, which is so plentiful, several Canadian provinces have US provider contracts because of their lack of facilities and health care professionals. Canada uses America's excess capacity for private and public pay.

Other than a fringe few, Canadians will take long queues in trade to keep universal access.

That's great, but a majority of Americans won't. You can suffer on your own dime / time.

[cybercoma]

While the United States has indeed been a pioneer in medical technologies and innovation, they have done so at the expense of universal access. Those who get healthcare are those with the means of financing it. It's not a sacrifice very many Canadians are willing to make.

The fact that some jump the queue to get care in the States just eases the burden on our system. If someone is in dire need of medical help, they get it without waiting. Our system is based on need. Those going to the US are not in a situation as severe as those ahead of them. Have at it, if you have the money.

[bush_cheney2004]

It's not. It's my definition of patriotism at the heavier end of the spectrum (from bland platitudes, to emotional connection, to laughable oversensitivity; all patriotim is not equal).

Even better....and the root of our many disagreements. American patriotism has been cultivated in many forms and ways that some Canadians can smugly dismiss, but never enjoy. It's the essence of what makes you puke at the sound of "USA! USA! USA!"...but it is you getting sick, not the Americans.

It has nothing at all to do with America specifically.

Or those oversensitive and patriotic Chilean miners with countrywide celebration, right?

[bloodyminded]

Even better....and the root of our many disagreements. American patriotism has been cultivated in many forms and ways that some Canadians can smugly dismiss, but never enjoy. It's the essence of what makes you puke at the sound of "USA! USA! USA!"...but it is you getting sick, not the Americans.

It doesn't make me sick. At all. I don't object to it.

Or those oversensitive and patriotic Chilean miners with countrywide celebration, right?

That's the middle ground; the emotional connection. It's not "oversensitive." It's unobjectionable, and is not pathetic like the whiny sensitivity at the further end that I so enjoy laughing at.

Edited April 25, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bush_cheney2004]

While the United States has indeed been a pioneer in medical technologies and innovation, they have done so at the expense of universal access. Those who get healthcare are those with the means of financing it. It's not a sacrifice very many Canadians are willing to make.

But some do...universal access isn't worth much when your private ass is on the line.

The fact that some jump the queue to get care in the States just eases the burden on our system. If someone is in dire need of medical help, they get it without waiting. Our system is based on need. Those going to the US are not in a situation as severe as those ahead of them. Have at it, if you have the money.

Don't be so sure...access in Canada is neither equal or based on need in many instances, if only because of provincial funding. Look, I get it, this visage has to be preserved as the third rail of Canadian politics, but it ain't all peaches and cream. Another Canadian got her abortion in America today!

[bush_cheney2004]

It doesn't make me sick. At all. I don't object to it.

Then what is the issue? Shall we eschew religion for the same reason(s)?

That's the middle ground; the emotional connection. It's not "oversensitive." It's unobjectionable, and is not pathetic like the whiny sensitivity at the further end that I so enjoy laughing at.

OK...it's just a personal thing for you. Whatever floats your boat.

[Guest American Woman]

While the United States has indeed been a pioneer in medical technologies and innovation, they have done so at the expense of universal access. Those who get healthcare are those with the means of financing it. It's not a sacrifice very many Canadians are willing to make.

Plenty of people "without the means of financing it" get healthcare. They get it paid for the same way Canadians do.

It's good that Canadians are happy with their system, but fact is, it's not ranked that high on the universal healthcare scale worldwide, and most Americans hope we'll get a different system when we finally figure it out. I'm sure you'll see that as an insult, but it's not meant to be that way. It's meant as an observation, and a recognition that different nations have different desires regarding how they do things. Our system is a mess in a lot of ways right now, for too many people, but it's very good for more people, and therein lies a big part of the problem of restructuring it. Understandably.

The fact that some jump the queue to get care in the States just eases the burden on our system. If someone is in dire need of medical help, they get it without waiting. Our system is based on need. Those going to the US are not in a situation as severe as those ahead of them. Have at it, if you have the money.

The fact that your system has a "burden on it" speaks for itself. There are different ways of looking at "dire," however. Someone's medical procedure might not in itself be "dire," but it may keep them off of work until it's taken care of, and that may create a problem; the lost wages for an extended period of time are a cost to the afflicted person, even if the medical procedure is not. And they have no choice. Wait or go elsewhere and pay.

Our systems both have their positives and negatives, but too often it seems as if people from both sides pit one system against the other to pat themselves on the back and reassure themselves that they have the superior system. Our system isn't "broken" just because it's not the same as yours. Would you agree with me if I said your system was broken based on many Americans' standards? I hardly think so, yet you think nothing of claiming what our "medical innovations and technologies" have been "at the expense of." Your system gives some people healthcare that they wouldn't otherwise have and our "innovations and technologies" have given some people healthcare that they otherwise wouldn't have. That's a fact.

[August1991]

Holy cow, here we go again.

For the umpteenth time, some of you folks have get to over your fetish for Left-bashing at the expense of the truth.

The Left is in the Canadian mainstream on the matter of health care. The Left is in agreement with most Canadians.

...

"The Left!The Left! The Left!" That sums up the sober political opinion, an answer that arises again and again in a multitude of debates. It's profoundly lazy thinking.

Wait a second, BM. I gave you a quote from Jack Layton where he said, and I quote again:

"We'll take a strong stand to make more health care delivered publicly, administered publicly and operated in the public interest," Layton told reporters in Ottawa.

Layton said private, for-profit health care has grown due to Liberal "neglect and design,'' and slammed the other parties for supporting the private delivery of some health services.

"On the one hand, there's today's NDP, which stands firmly and proudly for public delivery of health care... And on the other hand, there are the Conservatives, who support private-for-profit delivery of health care, and the liberals, who want the same thing, have said the same thing, and have done the same thing for 10 years."

Would you prefer that I refer to the NDP rather than "The Left"?

[August1991]

Yeah, but the American system is broken. Their government actually spends more money per patient on healthcare than we do in Canada and it's a private system. Figure that one out.

In fact, Americans spend more per capita on health care than Canadians do - but this comparison ignores the very important non-monetary private costs in Canada.

How many Canadians must wait to see a specialist or even a GP? How much do they expend in search costs? How many Canadians suffer various medical problems because they cannot see a medical praticioner in a timely fashion?

The Canadian system imposes private costs on Canadians that appear in no budget and are not included in any GDP calculation.

For example, consider the costs on a woman seeking an abortion in PEI, NB or almost anywehere in rural Canada. Above, I posted a link to a news report from 4 years ago showing that in Ottawa, wait times for an abortion are about six weeks.

There are tremendous private costs in the Canadian system, but they are borne privately.

Edited April 25, 2011 by August1991

[August1991]

All this talk about changing to private delivery is code for allowing large HMOs to take over procedure pricing and develop large for-profit organizations that drive down doctors' earnings in favour of stock-holder earnings. This necessitates market pricing for procedures, which will NOT make procedures less expensive. It will increase the health-care costs of employers who have to package health insurance into benefit packages, and self-employed people will have their health insurance premiums priced out of affordability.

At present, we have large HMOs in Canada - they are the provincial ministries of health. They negotiate behind closed doors with various unions and medical associations the pricing policy

The problem is not HMOs or even shareholders. The problem is how to make a cumbersome system more efficient.

[Smallc]

In fact, Americans spend more per capita on health care than Canadians do - but this comparison ignores the very important non-monetary private costs in Canada.

So you think that problems don't exist in the US system? You talk about GPs, well, they have fewer per capita than we do.....so, I'm not sure your point is all that valid.

[August1991]

Current system:

You have 2 doctors performing knee-replacement surgeries for 10 people that need it. The surgeries are booked based on severity of the problems, who needs the surgery most. Those not in as severe of a need must wait until those that are have their surgeries first. Everyone gets their knee-replacement based on need.

Proposed parallel system:

You have 1 doctor in the public system organizing care based on need, while the second doctor running out of a private hospital takes those who can afford the services. They will not be the same price because market mechanisms will dictate the prices, not the provincial insurer. Two people that aren't in dire need of services jump the line and pay for their knee surgery because they can afford it. Someone else that is in serious need of a knee replacement, but cannot afford the private services must wait longer because now there is only 1 doctor handling 8 cases, instead of 2 handling 10.

This is what happens in reality and this is why they call it "queue-jumping" because it's not fair to those who cannot afford private services and are stuck in a debilitated public system because doctors go to the private system, exacerbating the shortages. Services are no longer based on need, but based on ability to pay in the private system and it causes detrimental effects to the public system by dividing resources.

But how is that different if I go to the US for treatment? Where is the US doctor going to come from? (You are naive to believe that no Canadian doctor has ever moved south of the border.)

Similarly, do you think players of the Montreal Canadiens wait in emergency clinics for treatment? Or how about Michael Douglas who recently received treatment in Montreal's Jewish General? Did he have to wait to see a specialist?

In any case, we now have many private medical clinics in Canada, and many doctors who opt out of the provincial systems. This is hypocritical and counterproductive.

In the near future, we will operate as they do in France where doctors accept patients from both systems.