Michael Moore's 'Sicko' Scrutinizes Canada's Healthcar

[Pliny]

That said, allowing private clients does not mean we would abandon the single payer model. Very few people want to see an end to the universal coverage and most recognize that the US heath care system is the worst in the industrialize world and has little or nothing to offer Canadians.

"Universal coverage" sounds great like most socialistic plans. It is a Utopian concept and I think people should be wary of any "perfect" plan that satisfies one and all. There isn't one in any area of life.

I see nothing wrong with working towards an ideal but "no change" becomes the hue and cry of those feeding off any socialist plan because it is "universal" so what would could possibly require change. Once the structure and heirarchy is The result is stagnation and mediocrity with a little bit of tyranny and intimidation towards any invitation to change, much like any monopoly would stifle competition. A"legalized" monopoly is inviting tyranny and I don't think cost is the big factor any more. Solutions to keep it working are becoming draconian, such as limiting treatment based upon lifestyle and some doctors are advocating that.

If the American system can teach us anything it is that change is necessary along with choice so that there is incentive to change. There is a necessity for both systems to change but only the American system has the ability to adopt change. The Canadian system is too "perfect" at least for those on the delivery side and those with chronic illness for there to bring change.

[Riverwind]

There is a necessity for both systems to change but only the American system has the ability to adopt change.

Pfft. The American system is held hostage by the insurance and pharmaceutical industry which spends huge sums of money blocking any reform that would affect their profits.

There are vested interests in Canada that also oppose reform, however, claiming that no such vested interests exist in the states is simply ridiculous.

Every citizen should have access to affordable basic healthcare for the same reason every citizen should have access to basic education. There are different models that can be used to achieve this goal, however, the most successful are those where the government provides basic health care insurance to everyone and the services are delivered by the private sector.

[Bryan]

...that's why there is so much waiting going on in Canada.

What do you consider waiting? A couple of hours for an MRI? An hour to see the doctor when you show up without an appointment? 4 or 5 days to get in to see a specialist? A week to schedule elective surgery? That's how it works around here.

If you can get your services quicker than me, I'm happy for you. I'll take those miniscule waits as a price I'm more than willing to pay to ensure that not only I, but all of my fellow Canadians have direct access to the healthcare they need.

[geoffrey]

Actually, it would appear that one of the worst systems in the "industrialized world" that has universal access as a goal can be found in Canada. That only 16% of US citizens lack insurance (not healthcare) is remarkable given that universal access is not the goal.

When Canada's system fails miserably, patients are sent to the "worst" system in the industrialized world. Telling indeed.

The US system is crap. It's expensive and not all that more efficent at proving results (survival of various disease, ect.). The Canadian system is also crap because it infringes on someone's liberty to save their own life. Thankfully, the SCC recognized this and has effectively said that private insurance must be allowed. Good news.

Canada is coming around. Of course you have the "Friends of Medicare" that will protest as they are more concerned with union jobs and watching people suffer, but as a whole Canadians are starting to see the other side. The Tommy Douglas lovers are reaching retirement/death so it's a matter of time.

Europe has it figured out. Anyone that thinks Canada or the US has a better system than most of the European nations is very mistaken. Younger Canadians realise that we want choice and freedom over ideology. Just a matter of waiting out the shorter-than-neccessary lifespan of the left wing Doulgas babies.

If you can get your services quicker than me, I'm happy for you. I'll take those miniscule waits as a price I'm more than willing to pay to ensure that not only I, but all of my fellow Canadians have direct access to the healthcare they need.

Sometimes you wait years to be told Canada doesn't have the ability or desire to deal with your medical condition... it's outside of the system's interest.

[Pliny]

There is a necessity for both systems to change but only the American system has the ability to adopt change.

Pfft. The American system is held hostage by the insurance and pharmaceutical industry which spends huge sums of money blocking any reform that would affect their profits.

There are vested interests in Canada that also oppose reform, however, claiming that no such vested interests exist in the states is simply ridiculous.

Every citizen should have access to affordable basic healthcare for the same reason every citizen should have access to basic education. There are different models that can be used to achieve this goal, however, the most successful are those where the government provides basic health care insurance to everyone and the services are delivered by the private sector.

Yes there are vested interests that oppose reform in both systems. There is more opportunity for effective change in a pluralist system (American) than in a legalized monopolist system (Canadian). If people demand change in a system and it is a government institution, the powers that be will tinker with it, add more money, increase taxation, all political solutions that rarely amount to effective change.

What is the reason that everyone should have access to basic education?

You describe the most successful model for health care as the Canadian model which is not much better than the American model.

Your bias towards the Canadian system tells me you are more than likely employed in the industry or receive some benefit from it. If the State takes from Peter and gives to Paul, then Paul will always support the State. Peter may or may not.

[Pliny]

Actually, it would appear that one of the worst systems in the "industrialized world" that has universal access as a goal can be found in Canada. That only 16% of US citizens lack insurance (not healthcare) is remarkable given that universal access is not the goal.

When Canada's system fails miserably, patients are sent to the "worst" system in the industrialized world. Telling indeed.

The US system is crap. It's expensive and not all that more efficent at proving results (survival of various disease, ect.). The Canadian system is also crap because it infringes on someone's liberty to save their own life. Thankfully, the SCC recognized this and has effectively said that private insurance must be allowed. Good news.

Canada is coming around. Of course you have the "Friends of Medicare" that will protest as they are more concerned with union jobs and watching people suffer, but as a whole Canadians are starting to see the other side. The Tommy Douglas lovers are reaching retirement/death so it's a matter of time.

Europe has it figured out. Anyone that thinks Canada or the US has a better system than most of the European nations is very mistaken. Younger Canadians realise that we want choice and freedom over ideology. Just a matter of waiting out the shorter-than-neccessary lifespan of the left wing Doulgas babies.

If you can get your services quicker than me, I'm happy for you. I'll take those miniscule waits as a price I'm more than willing to pay to ensure that not only I, but all of my fellow Canadians have direct access to the healthcare they need.

Sometimes you wait years to be told Canada doesn't have the ability or desire to deal with your medical condition... it's outside of the system's interest.

I don't know if Europe has it figured out but I agree with the rest of your comments.

I believe Canadians are held to ransom in order for a monopoly to be maintained. Of course the vested interests in the US will attempt to maintain their system but they are not a monopoly.

Health care insurance, whether government or private, relieves the medical profession from having to make morally related economic decisions regarding the delivery of its services.

[Guest American Woman]

It would be interesting to know what percentage of Canadians seek healthcare outside the country and what percentage of Americans do. "Medical tourism" is a booming business, and I know it includes Americans who have insurance but can't afford the deductable as well as those who have no coverage.

[SkyhookJackson]

It would be interesting to know what percentage of Canadians seek healthcare outside the country and what percentage of Americans do. "Medical tourism" is a booming business, and I know it includes Americans who have insurance but can't afford the deductable as well as those who have no coverage.

I can't imagine being ill and having to endure a 14 hour trip to India. What's the world coming to???

[bush_cheney2004]

What do you consider waiting? A couple of hours for an MRI?

This is what I mean by waiting.....MRI wait times in Nova Scotia:

http://www.gov.ns.ca/health/waittimes/wt_t...gnostic/mri.htm

A couple of hours?

[Guest American Woman]

This is an interesting article about wait times in the U.S.:

The Doctor Will See You—In Three Months

...both data and anecdotes show that the American people are already waiting as long or longer than patients living with universal health-care systems.

And this is worth noting:

The Commonwealth study did find one area where the U.S. was first by a wide margin: 51% of sick Americans surveyed did not visit a doctor, get a needed test, or fill a prescription within the past two years because of cost. No other country came close.

[bush_cheney2004]

A Short Course In Brain Surgery (A Canadian's Story):

Edited July 20, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[Pliny]

There is no shortage of data, both pro and con in this area. I suspect a lot of it is biased. "Sicko" is no exception. Studies and statistics can be tossed around endlessly in this area most of them are produced to make a point that furthers their socio-economic political point of view rather than present a truly workable system. There isn't one that is going to be thought perfect by everybody.

I find the arguments of the left rather disingenuous though regarding most of their arguments for social programs. They will argue that universal health care is a right and then talk about restricting or providing selective treatment to unhealthy lifestyles. So not only do they feel they should have someone else make all your medical decisions for you but how you should live as well.

The problem with having a universal system is that the individual drops his guard and believes that the government would never allow harm to come to him. He then does exactly what is advised. A system that determines what is best for the individual means he needn't look any further and it encourages him to remain ignorant of health matters. The doctor will tell him all he needs to know. Vioxx is a good example of government approved treatments gone awry. Low fat diets have been pushed for the last forty years, resulting in an epidemic in obesity today. Is it because people aren't following advice given them? I don't think so. People are buying lowfat this and diet that and "lite" this. The demand is there or they wouldn't be on the shelves. I think the demand is there because the medical establishment promotes it as healthy, the producers see the opportunity and provide it. The consumer connects the two and voila - makes his choice - I'll take the "lite".

No one really differentiated between what fats were necessary and what fats were bad until recently when obesity became a major concern. Against the advice of the medical establishment I decided in the seventies to go back to butter rather than hydrogenated oils which is what 99% of margarines were made of. Margarine in the seventies was the "healthy" choice.

The good thing about the American system is that people may do a little research before they buy because they have a choice. If you don't have a choice, as in Canada, what's the point - you may find out, horror of horrors, the doctor is wrong but it doesn't make any difference - treatment is all government sanctioned and approved. The best a "free" system can buy. What do you expect for nothing?

[SkyhookJackson]

What do you consider waiting? A couple of hours for an MRI?

This is what I mean by waiting.....MRI wait times in Nova Scotia:

http://www.gov.ns.ca/health/waittimes/wt_t...gnostic/mri.htm

A couple of hours?

My first reaction was - wow! BC2004 is right - then I remembered where I was. The wait time for my MRI is FOREVER. I've actually had to wait 6 months for a mammogram. The wait times you cite are not good, to be sure, but is that because of the triage system used in Canada? The sickest go to the front of the line, as opposed to the U.S. where the first one through the door with money gets treated and sometimes the sickest are left to die. Canada has problems, to be sure, but the overall system is fixable and they are working on it. Meanwhile, back in the states, Mr. Bush is denying coverage to sick kids reasoning that an expansion of the SCHIP program will encourage people to leave private insurance. Ka-ching, ka-ching. Is that the political donation machine I hear???

[SkyhookJackson]

There is no shortage of data, both pro and con in this area. I suspect a lot of it is biased. "Sicko" is no exception. Studies and statistics can be tossed around endlessly in this area most of them are produced to make a point that furthers their socio-economic political point of view rather than present a truly workable system. There isn't one that is going to be thought perfect by everybody.

I find the arguments of the left rather disingenuous though regarding most of their arguments for social programs. They will argue that universal health care is a right and then talk about restricting or providing selective treatment to unhealthy lifestyles. So not only do they feel they should have someone else make all your medical decisions for you but how you should live as well.

The problem with having a universal system is that the individual drops his guard and believes that the government would never allow harm to come to him. He then does exactly what is advised. A system that determines what is best for the individual means he needn't look any further and it encourages him to remain ignorant of health matters. The doctor will tell him all he needs to know. Vioxx is a good example of government approved treatments gone awry. Low fat diets have been pushed for the last forty years, resulting in an epidemic in obesity today. Is it because people aren't following advice given them? I don't think so. People are buying lowfat this and diet that and "lite" this. The demand is there or they wouldn't be on the shelves. I think the demand is there because the medical establishment promotes it as healthy, the producers see the opportunity and provide it. The consumer connects the two and voila - makes his choice - I'll take the "lite".

No one really differentiated between what fats were necessary and what fats were bad until recently when obesity became a major concern. Against the advice of the medical establishment I decided in the seventies to go back to butter rather than hydrogenated oils which is what 99% of margarines were made of. Margarine in the seventies was the "healthy" choice.

The good thing about the American system is that people may do a little research before they buy because they have a choice. If you don't have a choice, as in Canada, what's the point - you may find out, horror of horrors, the doctor is wrong but it doesn't make any difference - treatment is all government sanctioned and approved. The best a "free" system can buy. What do you expect for nothing?

In the United States, it would not be the health CARE that would change (other than everyone would get it), it would be the health PAYMENT system that would change. The government will not be directing a person's medical care. Like Medicare and Medicaid, you will go to your doctor of choice, produce your card, receive your treatment, go home. There will be no sleepless nights worrying about money, no bake sales to pay for your chemo, you'll be able to focus on getting better and becoming a productive citizen again.

[Guest American Woman]

Canada isn't the only country with universal healthcare, either, yet for some reason bush_cheney2004 seems intent on bringing up only Canada in his responses to the issue of universal healthcare in the States. An interesting fact regarding wait times from the source I cited earlier:

"...a 2005 survey by the Commonwealth Fund of sick adults in six nations found that only 47% of U.S. patients could get a same- or next-day appointment for a medical problem, worse than every other country except Canada.

he Commonwealth survey did find that U.S. patients had the second-shortest wait times if they wished to see a specialist or have nonemergency surgery, such as a hip replacement or cataract operation (Germany, which has national health care, came in first on both measures). But Gerard F. Anderson, a health policy expert at Johns Hopkins University, says doctors in countries where there are lengthy queues for elective surgeries put at-risk patients on the list long before their need is critical. 'Their wait might be uncomfortable, but it makes very little clinical difference,' he says."

Compare that to 51% of sick Americans not even visiting a doctor, getting a needed test, or filling a prescription within the past two years. I imagine if everyone who needed medical care in the U.S. actually sought medical care, it would affect our wait times too.

Edited July 20, 2007 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

Canada isn't the only country with universal healthcare, either, yet for some reason bush_cheney2004 seems intent on bringing up only Canada in his responses to the issue of universal healthcare in the States.

You are mistaken....I have specifically referred to Japan, Germany, and the UK in this and other threads related to healthcare. Also, the title of the thread is directed at Canada's role in Moore's documentary "Sicko".

For some reason you (and others) are fixated on me instead of what I post. Even If I agreed that the USA needed universal access, it would not change healthcare conditions in Canada.

So now wait times are good? I suppose that's true for rationed CommieCare!

Edited July 20, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

My first reaction was - wow! BC2004 is right - then I remembered where I was. The wait time for my MRI is FOREVER. I've actually had to wait 6 months for a mammogram. The wait times you cite are not good, to be sure, but is that because of the triage system used in Canada? The sickest go to the front of the line, as opposed to the U.S. where the first one through the door with money gets treated and sometimes the sickest are left to die.

You can wait if you wish or have to....many others don't have to wait such lengthy periods. That's the choice that comes with insurance or cash in the USA.

[Pliny]

There is no shortage of data, both pro and con in this area. I suspect a lot of it is biased. "Sicko" is no exception. Studies and statistics can be tossed around endlessly in this area most of them are produced to make a point that furthers their socio-economic political point of view rather than present a truly workable system. There isn't one that is going to be thought perfect by everybody.

I find the arguments of the left rather disingenuous though regarding most of their arguments for social programs. They will argue that universal health care is a right and then talk about restricting or providing selective treatment to unhealthy lifestyles. So not only do they feel they should have someone else make all your medical decisions for you but how you should live as well.

The problem with having a universal system is that the individual drops his guard and believes that the government would never allow harm to come to him. He then does exactly what is advised. A system that determines what is best for the individual means he needn't look any further and it encourages him to remain ignorant of health matters. The doctor will tell him all he needs to know. Vioxx is a good example of government approved treatments gone awry. Low fat diets have been pushed for the last forty years, resulting in an epidemic in obesity today. Is it because people aren't following advice given them? I don't think so. People are buying lowfat this and diet that and "lite" this. The demand is there or they wouldn't be on the shelves. I think the demand is there because the medical establishment promotes it as healthy, the producers see the opportunity and provide it. The consumer connects the two and voila - makes his choice - I'll take the "lite".

No one really differentiated between what fats were necessary and what fats were bad until recently when obesity became a major concern. Against the advice of the medical establishment I decided in the seventies to go back to butter rather than hydrogenated oils which is what 99% of margarines were made of. Margarine in the seventies was the "healthy" choice.

The good thing about the American system is that people may do a little research before they buy because they have a choice. If you don't have a choice, as in Canada, what's the point - you may find out, horror of horrors, the doctor is wrong but it doesn't make any difference - treatment is all government sanctioned and approved. The best a "free" system can buy. What do you expect for nothing?

In the United States, it would not be the health CARE that would change (other than everyone would get it), it would be the health PAYMENT system that would change. The government will not be directing a person's medical care. Like Medicare and Medicaid, you will go to your doctor of choice, produce your card, receive your treatment, go home. There will be no sleepless nights worrying about money, no bake sales to pay for your chemo, you'll be able to focus on getting better and becoming a productive citizen again.

Sorry. I don't have much confidence in a legalized monopoly. Your personal guarantee of excellent service is not very reassuring. Solutions being debated regarding the health care crisis in Canada today are, euthanasia, selective delivery of services, lifestyle taxes and of course abortion is an already accepted method of birth control and population control. Before anyone gets their shorts in a knot and somebody accuses me of being an extremist moralistic right wing Christian fundamentalist let me say I have no problem with any of the above in cases where the individual makes a rational decision based upon circumstance, advice and their own set of moral values. Those "solutions" are solutions to a political and economic problem and, if enacted as legislation, i.e., encased in law, would contribute nothing but a temporary availability of cash for redistribution to other troughs in the sty and an increased ability for the State to meddle in your life.

If you are going to have a single payer system in place then there must be ultimate control of costs. That means the determination of salaries for individuals in the health care industry as well as what services will be made available. No more unions, and doctors will be salaried. Why should doctors be allowed to run private businesses for profit? How do they escape the leftist condemnation of for-profit enterprises?

Can you still get health care services if you are a Canadian citizen and do not pay your MSP premium? I know you are harrassed and threatened if you don't. You can have payments disregarded in case of hardship, which doesn't mean you have suffered a financial setback in your life and need a little help getting through a rough time. It means you have already sacrificed everything but your first born as with any government benefit.

I will have to leave that for now. Have a glorious day!

[jdobbin]

In the United States, it would not be the health CARE that would change (other than everyone would get it), it would be the health PAYMENT system that would change. The government will not be directing a person's medical care. Like Medicare and Medicaid, you will go to your doctor of choice, produce your card, receive your treatment, go home. There will be no sleepless nights worrying about money, no bake sales to pay for your chemo, you'll be able to focus on getting better and becoming a productive citizen again.

Some of the right simply believe that if you end universal healthcare, the healthcare system will improve.

Only one industrialized country doesn't have universal healthcare coverage. Canada should be looking at what other countries do to have a good universal system rather than dropping a percentage of the population from being covered.

It will be hard to convince some people of that in Canada. For the most part though, they are a small minority given polls that have come out every year asking people about the healthcare system.

[SkyhookJackson]

Here's a new fund raising idea for those Americans trying to fund a medical procedure: a "dessert auction." Our local newspaper had a letter to the editor today that thanked all who participated in a dessert auction to help fund cancer treatment for a little girl. Another cake for chemo. What a country.

[Pliny]

Here's a new fund raising idea for those Americans trying to fund a medical procedure: a "dessert auction." Our local newspaper had a letter to the editor today that thanked all who participated in a dessert auction to help fund cancer treatment for a little girl. Another cake for chemo. What a country.

People helping people. A great country it is!

Unlike the cry of the Nanny State. The gummerment oughta do something!

[Riverwind]

People helping people. A great country it is!

It disgusting that a nation would allow access to medical care be decided on the basis of a popularity contest. For every positive story like that there are many more where the person in need does not have the charisma necessary to attract the sympathy donations in the quantity required.

[Pliny]

People helping people. A great country it is!

It disgusting that a nation would allow access to medical care be decided on the basis of a popularity contest. For every positive story like that there are many more where the person in need does not have the charisma necessary to attract the sympathy donations in the quantity required.

I admit friends, relatives and charities are necessary where the person cannot provide for himself - and most of us can't. However, I think encouraging government to replace them isn't the answer. The ability to form loving and symbiotic relationships is key, in my view. Charisma? Maybe the government can pass a little of that around if you think that seems to be what is lacking. Of course, they can't, so you are only talking about money basically. I don't know your political persuasions but it seems to me that people on the left seem to spend a lot of time focusing on money; especially other people's money, when they talk about things like compassion and caring and sharing and perhaps charisma. The value of such seems to be measured in monetary quantities. Would you say you are on the left?

[Drea]

Money is what keeps people from getting the care they need (in the US). If they don't have the money they do not recieve treatment. Ever.

Bloated bureacracy is what keeps people from getting the care they need in Canada. People wait for non-lifethreatening surgeries. They eventually receive treatment. Always*.

*ok so you can cite a case or two where the person died. Canada's system is far from perfect. (At least we can admit it).

Edited July 23, 2007 by Drea

[Guest American Woman]

People helping people. A great country it is!

It disgusting that a nation would allow access to medical care be decided on the basis of a popularity contest. For every positive story like that there are many more where the person in need does not have the charisma necessary to attract the sympathy donations in the quantity required.

It has nothing to do with a "popularity contest" and "charisma." Americans care about their neighbors; we are very giving and caring as a nation and I'm proud of that fact. We pull together and support one another. If someone is hurting, if a house burns down, a sudden death occurs, the community is there for them. This is a great nation to live in for a lot of reasons, and this is one of those reasons. Of course it doesn't mean we don't need universal health coverage; we shouldn't have to rely on the help of our neighbors, but it's nice to know that so many people do care. A bake sale to help others isn't something I'd make fun of. And even with universal health care bake sales can be necessary for things like time off of work and gas and motels if the medical facility isn't within one's own city, so it's nice to know that people care and will go out of their way to help.