On Health Care

[Zachary Young]

There is really no justification for this idea of socialized medicine. Like any other market, health care benefits from competition. If doctors were forced to compete against each other in terms of both cost and quality we would have health care that costs less but delivers better results. The dreadful bureaucracies we have in place would not exist, adding untold dollar amounts to the cost of health care.

Some justify this system saying "but what about the poor". But there are already laws that exist which mandate hospitals must treat the sick. And I find it hard to believe that any doctor would be so callous as to not help someone in need. The very reason why someone gets into the health care field - aside from money of course - is because they are compassionate. Because they want to help people.

Some argue that a socialized system removes the profit motive. Of course this is not really true, since doctors, nurses etc. all get paid (and rightfully so!) and make profits, but beyond that this argument is hardly unique to health care. By that logic we should also nationalize food, shelter etc. This would eliminate the profit motive. Of course it would also leave many of us starving to death and homeless, as government is unable to replace the role of entrepreneur in the market place.

Canada should denationalize our health care system immediately. Get the government out of the way and the market can solve our health care needs much better than they are currently being met.

[CANADIEN]

There is really no justification for this idea of socialized medicine. Like any other market, health care benefits from competition. If doctors were forced to compete against each other in terms of both cost and quality we would have health care that costs less but delivers better results. The dreadful bureaucracies we have in place would not exist, adding untold dollar amounts to the cost of health care.

Some justify this system saying "but what about the poor". But there are already laws that exist which mandate hospitals must treat the sick. And I find it hard to believe that any doctor would be so callous as to not help someone in need. The very reason why someone gets into the health care field - aside from money of course - is because they are compassionate. Because they want to help people.

Some argue that a socialized system removes the profit motive. Of course this is not really true, since doctors, nurses etc. all get paid (and rightfully so!) and make profits, but beyond that this argument is hardly unique to health care. By that logic we should also nationalize food, shelter etc. This would eliminate the profit motive. Of course it would also leave many of us starving to death and homeless, as government is unable to replace the role of entrepreneur in the market place.

Canada should denationalize our health care system immediately. Get the government out of the way and the market can solve our health care needs much better than they are currently being met.

I suppose you would prefer the American model, where an insurance company decides what helath treatment you receive based on how much money it gonna cost and the extent of your coverage.

To that I will only quote a friend of mine who fought cancer and won: "Thank God I'm in Canada".

[Zachary Young]

I prefer the American model of 60 years ago, prior to the government take over of health care. There is nothing wrong with insurance though, as a means of covering catastrophic care. It's actually quite practical. This idea, on the other hand, that we should get things for free is nonsense. Why stop at health care? Why not have every industry giving out things for free? Of course that would be total economic disaster. How many people have died because our health care system isn't good enough? Because the market hasn't been able to work here, like it works in electronics and other industries? How much money do we waste on inefficient bureaucracies?

[Squeakbox]

My problem with the health care is this - when I had reconstructive jaw surgery, and I asked if I could leave one day, they told me if I could last without my morphine I could leave, but what they DIDN'T tell me was that I still needed to see my doctor the next day. The food they gave me was that Ensure junk, and I couldn't drink it because of the ingredients - one of the oils I couldn't digest properly because I had my gallbladder removed the year before. So INSTEAD of supplying me with special food, they told me I had to drink it or I got nothing. I drank half of each serving, because the Ensure drink would make me sick to my stomach.

The health care is flawed because some the nurses are flawed in the damned head!

I've had a similar incident when I had my gallbladder surgery, but I can't remember what happened those days other than the fact that they left me in the emergency room for 3 days without giving me any food.

[Squeakbox]

I prefer the American model of 60 years ago, prior to the government take over of health care. There is nothing wrong with insurance though, as a means of covering catastrophic care. It's actually quite practical. This idea, on the other hand, that we should get things for free is nonsense. Why stop at health care? Why not have every industry giving out things for free? Of course that would be total economic disaster. How many people have died because our health care system isn't good enough? Because the market hasn't been able to work here, like it works in electronics and other industries? How much money do we waste on inefficient bureaucracies?

The only flaw with your statement is that YOUR idea on how healthcare should work does NOT help save people's lives who can't AFFORD that insurance that you find so glorious.

The way that the economy works now doesn't help the fact that things don't work that easily anymore. Thank-you very much Nixon!

Edited September 17, 2011 by Squeakbox

[CANADIEN]

I prefer the American model of 60 years ago, prior to the government take over of health care. There is nothing wrong with insurance though, as a means of covering catastrophic care. It's actually quite practical. This idea, on the other hand, that we should get things for free is nonsense. Why stop at health care? Why not have every industry giving out things for free? Of course that would be total economic disaster. How many people have died because our health care system isn't good enough? Because the market hasn't been able to work here, like it works in electronics and other industries? How much money do we waste on inefficient bureaucracies?

I was under the impression that I was paying for our health care system was paid through our taxes. Not my definition of free.

You claim that our health care system is not good enough. and indeed, it should be better, and could be better. But the key word is it: BETTER. Your dream system is actually less eficient, more costly overall, and results in far too many people dying prematurely because they had to choose between health care and food or rent.

[CANADIEN]

dup

Edited September 17, 2011 by CANADIEN

[Zachary Young]

The only flaw with your statement is that YOUR idea on how healthcare should work does NOT help save people's lives who can't AFFORD that insurance that you find so glorious.

I don't think this is true. In the American system, back when it was actually FREE MARKET, no one ever got turned away from the hospitals. So this idea that doctors would refuse to heal the poor is simply not credible.

[CANADIEN]

I don't think this is true. In the American system, back when it was actually FREE MARKET, no one ever got turned away from the hospitals. So this idea that doctors would refuse to heal the poor is simply not credible.

Actually, US law (you know, what comes from big bad government) mandates since 1986 that hospital emergency departments treat emergency conditions of all patients regardless of their ability to pay. But it doesn't extend to private clinics, and to non-emergency departments in hospitals.

[Squeakbox]

I don't think this is true. In the American system, back when it was actually FREE MARKET, no one ever got turned away from the hospitals. So this idea that doctors would refuse to heal the poor is simply not credible.

Free market still has to rely on some source, otherwise they're running on peanuts.

I was under the impression that I was paying for our health care system was paid through our taxes. Not my definition of free.

Exactly what we're running on - peanuts! <sarcasm>

But I agree with this, however there's holes with the fact that companies can't keep up with hiring people with proper salaries to continue to fuel our tax system - the government needs to subsidize the salaries being paid out. They apparently have plenty of money to waste on sending soldiers overseas and hire people paying them RIDICULOUS salaries.

Some people can't get through college or university because of REAL LIFE issues (sudden illness, physical problems, etc...), so the government leaves them scrounging like scavengers - bs!

[Michael Hardner]

Zachary's attitude seems to be influenced on some care he received, but these things happen in every system. It's better to look at overall care and costs together.

[dre]

I don't think this is true. In the American system, back when it was actually FREE MARKET, no one ever got turned away from the hospitals. So this idea that doctors would refuse to heal the poor is simply not credible.

No actually thats a total load of crap. Patients WERE being turned away. The rest of your claims are just more un-sourced libertarian fantasy like your delusions about the gold standard.

[dre]

Zachary's attitude seems to be influenced on some care he received, but these things happen in every system. It's better to look at overall care and costs together.

No his attitude comes from libertarian ideology. The guy thinks that all taxation is theft, so obviously public healthcare is gonna be in his crosshairs.

Just do nothing and the "invisible hand of the free market" will fix everything! We dont need police because in a libertarian utopia people will just be nice to each other! Doctors will treat the poor out of the goodness of their hearts, and manufacturers wont put lead paint on your childrens toys because they know thats thats wrong!

[Bob]

Healthcare, specifically health insurance, is not like any other market. The unknown and unpredictable nature of future health problems makes health insurance unlike any other product out there.

Consider car insurance, Zachary, which you clearly view as a product/service not unlike any other that would be best served in a free market system - as you wish for health insurance. Consider that with car insurance, an individual can certainly do a of to reduce the likelihood of being responsible for an accident which would require making a claim. We've all heard the phrases, "all accidents are preventable" and "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". So driver can simply do what he or she should do - drive responsibly. If a driver drives responsibly, he or she will have virtually no chance of being involved in an accident for which he or she is responsible.

That cannot be compared health outcomes, however. Good luck telling someone to be "live responsibly". The unbelievably complicated nature and breadth of potential health problems and treatments is far beyond any measure of an individual's ability to reasonably anticipate. It's not patient A's fault that he got MS in his twenties. It's not patient B's fault she got Crohn's Disease when she was in elementary school. There is no reasonable way for a person to anticipate his or her future healthcare needs.

Health insurance cannot be examined as a simple product like buying an extended warranty on a laptop you buy at Best Buy - which is what you're making it out to be. I completely support socialized or single-payer healthcare systems, but with certain caveats. I don't like the idea, for example, of a drunk driver getting into an accident and being horribly injured - only to have his or her healthcare services paid for by the public. I want personal responsibility where it can be reasonably implemented. For most possible future healthcare problems, however, a person cannot reasonably anticipate them or prevent them - that is why healthcare insurance cannot be treated just like any other market product or service.

[Bob]

Zachary's attitude seems to be influenced on some care he received, but these things happen in every system. It's better to look at overall care and costs together.

Can't you see that Zachary is a young guy who is currently infatuated with libertarianism? It's just a temporary political/ideological love affairs that will soften as he ages and matures.

[dre]

Can't you see that Zachary is a young guy who is currently infatuated with libertarianism? It's just a temporary political/ideological love affairs that will soften as he ages and matures.

BINGO!

[Guest American Woman]

I suppose you would prefer the American model, where an insurance company decides what helath treatment you receive based on how much money it gonna cost and the extent of your coverage.

To that I will only quote a friend of mine who fought cancer and won: "Thank God I'm in Canada".

For Shona Holmes, simple pleasures such as playing with her dog or walking in her plush garden are a gift.

That's another Canadian who "won" - thanks to the Mayo clinic. She had to go to the States for treatment because she couldn't get in to see a specialist in Canada in due time.

"They said to me that you had a brain tumor and it was pressing on your optic chasm and that it needed to come out immediately," Holmes said.

Holmes is Canadian, but the "they" she refers to are doctors at the Mayo Clinic in the United States, where she turned after specialists in her own government-run health care system would not see her fast enough.

"My family doctor at that time tried to get me in to see an endocrinologist and a neurologist," Holmes recalled. "It was going to be four months for one specialist and six months for the other."

Even with the warning from U.S. doctors in hand, Holmes said she still couldn't get in to see Canadian specialists.

Reality check: Canada's government health care system

Edited September 17, 2011 by American Woman

[Bob]

For Shona Holmes, simple pleasures such as playing with her dog or walking in her plush garden are a gift.

That's another Canadian who "won" - thanks to the Mayo clinic. She had to go to the States for treatment because she couldn't get in to see a specialist in Canada in due time.

"They said to me that you had a brain tumor and it was pressing on your optic chasm and that it needed to come out immediately," Holmes said.

Holmes is Canadian, but the "they" she refers to are doctors at the Mayo Clinic in the United States, where she turned after specialists in her own government-run health care system would not see her fast enough.

"My family doctor at that time tried to get me in to see an endocrinologist and a neurologist," Holmes recalled. "It was going to be four months for one specialist and six months for the other."

Even with the warning from U.S. doctors in hand, Holmes said she still couldn't get in to see Canadian specialists.

Reality check: Canada's government health care system

Look, there is no debating the issue of problems with the socialized healthcare model. When the service is provided to everyone, you have a much bigger strain on the limited supply of the services. That is why everyone knows how terrible so many wait times are in Canada for so many medical services. Whether it's hours in the ER, or months to see a specialist, we have problems here. When a service is "free", it gets abused. And that's how it is in Canada.

It's a big problem and we need to find a way to incorporate personal responsibility where reasonably applicable, so that certain people are not permitted to receive services at the expense of the taxpayer that are undeserving. Consider that I've read that at least in some provinces, sex-change operations are permitted. How sick is that?

[Squeakbox]

IMHO: Canadians will never be specialized enough due to the outlook of people in our society. It's sick!

[Bob]

IMHO: Canadians will never be specialized enough due to the outlook of people in our society. It's sick!

"Specialized enough"? What does that even mean?

[Argus]

There is really no justification for this idea of socialized medicine. Like any other market, health care benefits from competition. If doctors were forced to compete against each other in terms of both cost and quality we would have health care that costs less but delivers better results.

That's a wonderful theory, Zachary, but unfortunately, not very practical. Further, the closest system to what you advocate is the U.S. system, and it costs more, rather than less, and delivers poorer results. It has a far higher administrative cost attached, and is grossly inefficient.

For example, say a city requires three MRI machines to serve the population. A good socialized system would place three MRI machines in three hospitals and they would be working at close to capacity. The American system, whereby the hospitals all compete, will have an MRI machine in every hospital, each working perhaps thirty percent of the time. Now these things cost a lot of money, so what the hospital does is encourage its doctors to get MRI's on the patients wherever it could possibly be considered of use. This drives up the cost to the patient.

Add in all the other high tech gizmos, which every hospital needs in order to compete with every other hospital, and you begin to understand why health costs are so much higher in the U.S. than elsewhere. There are a lot of unnecessary surgeries, and a lot of unnecessary tests done.

[Bob]

That's a wonderful theory, Zachary, but unfortunately, not very practical. Further, the closest system to what you advocate is the U.S. system, and it costs more, rather than less, and delivers poorer results. It has a far higher administrative cost attached, and is grossly inefficient.

That's not true outside of a few barometers. Overall, the quality of both American and Canadian healthcare outcomes are comparable. But in harder to treat and rarer illnesses, American healthcare can't be beat.

For example, say a city requires three MRI machines to serve the population. A good socialized system would place three MRI machines in three hospitals and they would be working at close to capacity. The American system, whereby the hospitals all compete, will have an MRI machine in every hospital, each working perhaps thirty percent of the time. Now these things cost a lot of money, so what the hospital does is encourage its doctors to get MRI's on the patients wherever it could possibly be considered of use. This drives up the cost to the patient.

That's a strange hypothetical. It's also a strange way to define "efficiency". You're implying that in a healthcare system with a greater free market element, that doctors will refer patients for unnecessary services in order to... make more money? I've heard that argument with respect to fears of malpractice lawsuits held by doctors, but not in this more sinister manner.

[Guest American Woman]

....why health costs are so much higher in the U.S. than elsewhere. There are a lot of unnecessary surgeries, and a lot of unnecessary tests done.

One of the reasons health care costs are higher in the U.S. is because we have enough facilities/services for everyone requiring them - while Canada relies on the U.S. when facilities/services aren't available in Canada. Canada would be spending more on health care than it does if it had to build more facilities/provide all the services Canadians needed - if it couldn't send people to the U.S. The U.S. system doesn't rely on another nation to provide a safety net of facilities/services that aren't available here. Of course that's going to account for higher costs for the U.S. and lower costs for Canada.

[Zachary Young]

I agree with American Woman. One of the reasons we spend less on health care here in Canada is because we ration it. We oppose new taxes - rightfully so - but that means government has to cut supply. This is a key difference between government and the private sector. When the private sector get's busy businessmen look with pleasure on the money they will make. When the government gets busy that bitch about us being greedy and taking up too many resources.

[jacee]

Actually, US law (you know, what comes from big bad government) mandates since 1986 that hospital emergency departments treat emergency conditions of all patients regardless of their ability to pay. But it doesn't extend to private clinics, and to non-emergency departments in hospitals.

Billie Holiday died waiting to be seen in one of those free market hospitals. A black woman just wasn't a priority in those days.

I appreciate your concern and interest in these topics. I hope in addition to expressing your opinion you will also consider information provided to you.