There's Nothing Wrong with the Healthcare System

[Argus]

I can't speak with any knowledge of the French system...but I will note your comment that the French are willing to pay "top dollar" for their health system because it is "rapid, superb and intimate."

If you had examined that cite to the bottom you'd find we in Canada are paying just about the same as the French.

I guess I'm saying that I don't really want to pay any more than we already do for our system because it seems to be taking care of me and my family quite well.

I think you differ with most of us. I don't regard 10 hour waits at emergency rooms as acceptable. I don't regard multi month waits for MRIs or cancer treatement as acceptable. I don't regard 2 year waits for hip replacement surgery as acceptable.

And I would argue that the majority of Canadians agree with me on this point.  No, I don't have any polls or stats...I'm just going by the fact that, in spite of all the political bantering about healthcare, I haven't seen 10 million or 1 million or 1,000 protesters in the streets rising up against the deplorable system.

Canadians rarely protest about anything. And I think most Canadians can't even remember a system as well as the one in France. Our system has deteriorated over a period of years, and all the talking heads assure us that nothing can be done and it's still miles and miles better than the Americans. In fact, most of them try to tell us it's the equal of or better than anyone else in the world. If Canadians experienced this type of medical care (frances) and then realized how sadly lacking ours was I think you might see more anger.

Also, the quotes that you have "surgically removed" from the article you cite are misleading.  You leave an impression of the perfect system which provides everything we have and everything we lack.  You leave out the other side which is in the same article in paragraphs like this one:

I posted those most relevent to the discussion, and cited the rest. I'm not saying there aren't massive, gross inefficiencies in the French system - it's France, after all - as listed on the cite, but is there some reason we can't emulate them without the massive, gross inefficiencies?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

but is there some reason we can't emulate them without the massive, gross inefficiencies?

Only if we find a way to keep gov't out of it! Therein lies the problem, if it is all in one pot controlled by the gov't, it can only be as strong as it's weakest link. That being, the funding and operation as a gov't project.

I think you differ with most of us. I don't regard 10 hour waits at emergency rooms as acceptable. I don't regard multi month waits for MRIs or cancer treatement as acceptable. I don't regard 2 year waits for hip replacement surgery as acceptable

I totally agree, and so do many (if not most) doctors. The system needs a re-tooling, a major overhaul, not just more taxes or dollars. A user fee of $5, for example (accompanied by a 'list of exempt', of those truly needing multiple visits), plus an opening up of 'for-pay' non-essential treatment might open the lines up a bit, plus give everyone more options.

[FTA Lawyer]

I think you differ with most of us. I don't regard 10 hour waits at emergency rooms as acceptable. I don't regard multi month waits for MRIs or cancer treatement as acceptable. I don't regard 2 year waits for hip replacement surgery as acceptable.

Alright then, what are you prepared to DO about it? (Aside from this blog, which of course is something constructive towards advancing the debate and maybe bringing about actual change).

And I make this comment to every Canadian, not just Argus...if changing the system is necessary...and it is a priority...then do something. While you and others posting here maybe correct that when asked for an articulation, many will take your side in the verbal debate...on my side is inertia and the fact that it cannot be nearly as bad or as much of a priority as we all say...or we would be doing not complaining (as we have for how many DECADES now?).

The harsh reality is that in day to day life, most people are more worried about missing the next episode of Survivor, or getting their hair done, or going to an NHL game than trying to create or develop change in the healthcare system.

I don't profess to align with Ralph Klien on many of his ideas, but this is one where I say he's got it right. If we all start from the proposition that healthcare is in trouble and it needs a re-design, then rather than debate, argue and quibble for 30 years over what will work or what won't, Ralph is just going ahead and making changes.

History may prove his changes to be unsuccessful or even ill-conceived, but attempting something different is much better than simply sitting around and complaining while going on with a system that everyone seems to say is broken. And who knows, something he tries might work famously.

As far as my original statement which started this topic, I guess I just count myself lucky for not having experienced the horror stories that others have.

FTA Lawyer

[Whosoever]

I guess I just count myself lucky for not having experienced the horror stories that others have.

FTA Lawyer

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No one with spare cash needs to experience these horror stories if they go to the U.S. to get diagnosed and treated.

One can also go to a private clinic here in Canada. But I wouldn't advise that, because I had a horrible experience doing just that.

You see I had a slight fear that I had lung cancer so I marched into one of these clinics, shelled out $700 , and had a CT scan done.

They found a couple of leisons of 4 millimeters in diameter, and in the written report they advised me that it's nothing to worry about, that the danger that they could be malignant was minimal, but that it would be a good idea to check on them in one year's time ... just to be sure.

Fine, I thought.

A few months later I found out that when one of the Canadian VIP's Cat Scan revealed the same small leisons as mine, his were immediatelly checked for malignancy. I was angry.

Then, a few days later I'm watching the Larry King show and there Tammy Faye Baker tells Larry about how her eency-weency leison ... HALF THE SIZE OF MINE ... was ALSO immediately checked for malignancy (in her case it was bad news). As you can probably imagine by this time I was fuming.

I've decided that the reason they didn't ask ME to shell out another $1200 for this very important follow up test is because they had bad experinces with smart alecs in the past who went pounding on Medicare's door instead. Medicare, having to do these follow ups then gave shit to the private clinics for costing them huge amounts of money.

So from now on ... when I want a Cat Scan & a truthful evaluation as to what should be done with the results, I'll have my scans done in the U.S.. And when they say that it would be criminal not to do a pricey follow up on certain findings ... Canadian Medicare better listen!

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear FTA Lawyer,

And I make this comment to every Canadian, not just Argus...if changing the system is necessary...and it is a priority...then do something.

Would that we could...our 'democratic system', such as it is, doesn't give the people the power to effect change, especially policy change.

They inevitably say "You gave us the mandate to have the power to make policy, so thanks for your input...now run along...we'll call you at election time." The worst part of it all is that all the parties are pretty much the same in this respect. Four-year elected dictatorial powers.

[err]

Dear FTA Lawyer,

And I make this comment to every Canadian, not just Argus...if changing the system is necessary...and it is a priority...then do something.

Would that we could...our 'democratic system', such as it is, doesn't give the people the power to effect change, especially policy change.

They inevitably say "You gave us the mandate to have the power to make policy, so thanks for your input...now run along...well call you at election time." The worst part of it all is that all the parties are pretty much the same in this respect. Four-year elected dictatorial powers.

I suppose this might be a time to investgate Canada's third party.... the party that got us health care when the two big parties fought them tooth and nail. The NDP (then CCF) fought the Liberals and Conservatives who said the system would bankrupt the country, etc, and vowed to have this "commie" idea destroyed. They didn't do it then, and they cannot be seen to be trying to do it now... so they have to do it a bit at a time, chipping of a bit here, and another bit there... the result being longer waiting times, inadequate equipment, etc... All great reasons to dismantle it and bring in private health care...

If we look at the last year in politics, the NDP was the only one who appeared to be on the side of "the public". I think that next time around, if we really want to fix health care, lets elect a party that has an interest in doing so...

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear err,

If we look at the last year in politics, the NDP was the only one who appeared to be on the side of "the public". I think that next time around, if we really want to fix health care, lets elect a party that has an interest in doing so...

Sadly, the NDP needs a fix too, but it is about as strong as it has been for years. Most people think our 'left party' is too much like the NSDAP...even though they both have 'Democratic' in their name.

Audrey McLaughlin was farcical as leader, Alexa McDonough didn't project 'national leadership' qualities, and Layton seems too much like Mr. Rogers to capture national interest. Perhaps I should run...lol.

[tml12]

Paul Martin uses a private clinic here in Montreal.

I don't object to private care, but let's be honest about it and stop being like (we don't have it).

Honestly, the more we turn our heads the more we allow the more likely we wake up one day to American-style health care.

[Whosoever]

The worst part of it all is that all the parties are pretty much the same in this respect. Four-year elected dictatorial powers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

NOT if the new/old Manning/Harper party is elected!

I can, practically, guararantee that!!

[Argus]

I think you differ with most of us. I don't regard 10 hour waits at emergency rooms as acceptable. I don't regard multi month waits for MRIs or cancer treatement as acceptable. I don't regard 2 year waits for hip replacement surgery as acceptable.

Alright then, what are you prepared to DO about it? (Aside from this blog, which of course is something constructive towards advancing the debate and maybe bringing about actual change).

I'm prepared to vote Conservative, because at the moment they are the only party I think "might" be willing to engage in massive changes to the system. And if they get in and do nothing I'm prepared to vote for someone else.

[Argus]

If we look at the last year in politics, the NDP was the only one who appeared to be on the side of "the public".  I think that next time around, if we really want to fix health care, lets elect a party that has an interest in doing so...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As long as the NDP sees itself as the guardian of minorities and the enemy of those horrible white straight middle class people, it has no chance of ever gaining power.

[tml12]

If we look at the last year in politics, the NDP was the only one who appeared to be on the side of "the public".  I think that next time around, if we really want to fix health care, lets elect a party that has an interest in doing so...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As long as the NDP sees itself as the guardian of minorities and the enemy of those horrible white straight middle class people, it has no chance of ever gaining power.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're right. But do you agree that they are the only party with the CLEAR mandate to save the public system?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

You're right. But do you agree that they are the only party with the CLEAR mandate to save the public system?

I am not sure how you would respond to this question, as it appears that it is basically correct. My take on it is that the price the NDP asks is too high. Health care might get vastly improved, but how long could it be sustained after all the businesses get taxed out of Canada?

[tml12]

I am not sure how you would respond to this question, as it appears that it is basically correct. My take on it is that the price the NDP asks is too high. Health care might get vastly improved, but how long could it be sustained after all the businesses get taxed out of Canada?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is true and, for the record I am not an NDP supporter. However, although I may just vote Liberal, it angers me that Martin calls himself "one of us" when he so obviously uses the private system?

[Guest eureka]

When did the NDP show any intent to "tax all the businesses out of Canada." On that aspect of their policy, I have seen nothing but a responsible stand.

Did Blair tax all the businesses out of Britain? He has made them pay a fairer share than did Thatcher and Major who did drive many businesses out of businesses.

The NDP is similar to Blair's Labour party; just a little to the Left of the Third Way.

[Whosoever]

But do you agree that they are the only party with the CLEAR mandate to save the public system?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is the STUPIDEST thing that I have ever heard !!!

PS - Don't take my tone to mean a lack of respect, if anything I tend to become more aggressive with people I respect.

[FTA Lawyer]

Well...pretty good...it took 5 pages before this topic became 100% partisan political rhetoric. Alas, it nevertheless became 100% partisan political rhetoric.

Thanks to Argus and a few others for the meaningful debate. I too plan to vote Conservative with the hopes of breaking free of the status quo on a number of issues and we'll see where the chips fall.

FTA Lawyer

[Argus]

If we look at the last year in politics, the NDP was the only one who appeared to be on the side of "the public".  I think that next time around, if we really want to fix health care, lets elect a party that has an interest in doing so...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As long as the NDP sees itself as the guardian of minorities and the enemy of those horrible white straight middle class people, it has no chance of ever gaining power.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're right. But do you agree that they are the only party with the CLEAR mandate to save the public system?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The NDP have no ideas for "saving" the system, other than spend, spend, spend. I see nothing that indicates their approach to government has changed in the last twenty five years. The left has modernized somewhat in Europe. But the NDP still think they're leading the revolution against the imperialists and the borgeois. Since I am not a minority the NDP sees me only as the enemy of their social engineering plans, and a taxable resource they can use to provide a better life for those who don't work for a living. I could see myself voting for Tony Blair. I cannot see myself voting for Jack Layton.

[err]

The NDP have no ideas for "saving" the system, other than spend, spend, spend. I see nothing that indicates their approach to government has changed in the last twenty five years. The left has modernized somewhat in Europe. But the NDP still think they're leading the revolution against the imperialists and the borgeois. Since I am not a minority the NDP sees me only as the enemy of their social engineering plans, and a taxable resource they can use to provide a better life for those who don't work for a living. I could see myself voting for Tony Blair. I cannot see myself voting for Jack Layton.

Your verbal excrement comes with no backing. The supposition that the NDP party doesn't support classes other than minorities and "those who don't work for a living" is rather ignorant.... I guess all those unionized workers who the NDP supports don't work... or are they all immigrants ???

In an earlier post, you stated that the NDP supported the underdog, and that there was nothing wrong with supporting the underdog. I would suggest that the majority of Canadians are the underdogs... Our recent governments have favoured corp Canada and the investor classes, and taken from the middle and lower income brackets to finance tax cuts etc.... I would suggest that the underdog realize what's happining, wake up, and do something about the situation.

My senses tell me that you, Argus, are in this class of citizens (the middle one) who hasn't yet realized that he is being hoodwinked.

[August1991]

I would suggest that the majority of Canadians are the underdogs... Our recent governments have favoured corp Canada and the investor classes, and taken from the middle and lower income brackets to finance tax cuts etc.... I would suggest that the underdog realize what's happining, wake up, and do something about the situation.

My senses tell me that you, Argus, are in this class of citizens (the middle one) who hasn't yet realized that he is being hoodwinked.

err, you are making the same argument that Leftists have made for about a century or two: steal from the rich and give to the poor. It's not a bad argument, but I think there are better ways to enact it than what is proposed by the NDP. Furthermore, the NDP's lack of electoral success shows that most Canadians don't agree.

And also err, can you and Argus knock off the personal insults?

[Argus]

Since I am not a minority the NDP sees me only as the enemy of their social engineering plans, and a taxable resource they can use to provide a better life for those who don't work for a living.I could see myself voting for Tony Blair. I cannot see myself voting for Jack Layton.

Your verbal excrement comes with no backing.

How could you possibly know, what with your head stuffed so deep within your rectal cavity?

The supposition that the NDP party doesn't support classes other than minorities and "those who don't work for a living" is rather ignorant....

True, though.

I guess all those unionized workers who the NDP supports don't work... or are they all immigrants ??? 

The NDP doesn't support union workers. It supports big unions. But big unions don't care about their workers. The senior leaders of big unions have long since gone political, and care far more about the glorious social revolution than they do their own workers. This is evidenced by the fact that the union movement is firmly in favour of wide-open immigration - even though that harms their own workers - not to mention the working poor. Union leaders are political, and care more about political ideals and ideology than the welfare of the people they are supposed to be representing. My own union chases after numerous causes I don't support, and supports the NDP even though I don't. Actually, I should clarify by saying that PSAC is the umbrella union which my own union belongs to. My own union leaders, the ones I've seen, are far more down to earth and have little time for the idiots who run PSAC.

In an earlier post, you stated that the NDP supported the underdog, and that there was nothing wrong with supporting the underdog.  I would suggest that the majority of Canadians are the underdogs...

The NDP doesn't think so. The NDP needs to put you into a nice little niche in order to have any care or interest in your well-being. That is why the NDP remains the enemy of the common working man. I'd suggest they are simply a less obvious version of the NAC - the National Action Commitee on the status of women (are they even still around?). This is a group whose mandate was to represent Canadian women. But gradually they came to see their mandate as really looking after minority women and lesbians and the disabled. And as they made this more and more obvious - outright saying so, finally, it lost support from Canadian womens organizations and become little more than a shrill, largely ignored shell.

If you only support niche groups you only get support from niche groups. The NDP should understand that, but it's too gripped by ideologues.

My senses tell me that you, Argus, are in this class of citizens (the middle one) who hasn't yet realized that he is being hoodwinked.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perhaps, but nothing the NDP has ever proposed has struck me as favourable to my interests. All they seem interested in doing is taking away more of my money to give it to someone else.

[err]

The supposition that the NDP party doesn't support classes other than minorities and "those who don't work for a living" is rather ignorant....

True, though.

I guess all those unionized workers who the NDP supports don't work...

The NDP doesn't support union workers. It supports big unions. But big unions don't care about their workers. The senior leaders of big unions have long since gone political, and care far more about the glorious social revolution than they do their own workers.

Wow.... Your vision is astounding.... you can see things from a different angle.... backwards....

In an earlier post, you stated that the NDP supported the underdog, and that there was nothing wrong with supporting the underdog.  I would suggest that the majority of Canadians are the underdogs...

The NDP doesn't think so. The NDP needs to put you into a nice little niche in order to have any care or interest in your well-being. That is why the NDP remains the enemy of the common working man.

And which party, pray tell, is the friend of the "common man"..... this should be interesting...

My senses tell me that you, Argus, are in this class of citizens (the middle one) who hasn't yet realized that he is being hoodwinked.

Perhaps, but nothing the NDP has ever proposed has struck me as favourable to my interests. All they seem interested in doing is taking away more of my money to give it to someone else.

And the Liberals and Conservatives don't do that... I think that you'll find that the NDP supports lower taxation for the lower income brackets, and higher taxation for the higher tax brackets. So unless you are in the latter category, the NDP is probably your best choice.....

[err]

err, you are making the same argument that Leftists have made for about a century or two: steal from the rich and give to the poor.  It's not a bad argument, but I think there are better ways to enact it than what is proposed by the NDP.  Furthermore, the NDP's lack of electoral success shows that most Canadians don't agree.

Most Canadians are heavily influenced by advertising. And who gets the most advertising.... not the NDP. Our media is owned, operated, and controlled by big business. So are they going to promote a party that is for the common man, or their own personal/business interests..... It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

Coke is the number one soft drink... probably because Coke is the number one soft drink advertiser....