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

[Guest American Woman]

How long do you have to be a resident before you can get healthcare?

[guyser]

How long do you have to be a resident before you can get healthcare?

Land in Canada and claim refugee status..?....about ten seconds. But I beleive for the rest it is 3 months. If as a Canuck you are away for more than 180 days then you do not get health care automatically. (students can sign waivers that exempts them if they are in school)

If you sponsor a family relative, you have to sign for them meaning no health care without a bill, and muist provide other necessaties of life. (clothing food shelter...)

[Guest American Woman]

Land in Canada and claim refugee status..?....about ten seconds. But I beleive for the rest it is 3 months. If as a Canuck you are away for more than 180 days then you do not get health care automatically. (students can sign waivers that exempts them if they are in school)

If you sponsor a family relative, you have to sign for them meaning no health care without a bill, and muist provide other necessaties of life. (clothing food shelter...)

So does that mean if you're a Canadian who has lived abroad, even if you return to Canada, you have to wait three months? What if you're a Canadian living abroad and you become sick or get hurt while in Canada visiting family; would you get free healthcare then?

Edited July 25, 2007 by American Woman

[guyser]

So does that mean if you're a Canadian who has lived abroad, even if you return to Canada, you have to wait three months? What if you're a Canadian living abroad and you become sick or get hurt while in Canada visiting family; would you get free healthcare then?

I can only surmise , so I may not be exact on these.

However, if you are living abroad your healthcard would reflect that when swiped and you would be asked for alternative payment.

As for visiting family you would, presumably, have travel coverage from originating country. The same as if I visit , and do, down in the USA. I have out of country coverage , dirt cheap by the way, covers me for up to $2M and costs me I think it is $1.33 a day. I know I know, it kills me to pay that bill.....

But also on out of country coverage for me, it is merely "top off" , meaning that OHIP pays what they would here in Ontario and then over and above is covered thru my own purchased coverage.

Now there are ways that one can get around that , but lets not go there.

I do know that awhile back when when all my friends were poorer, and we would make our winter sojourn to Buffalo to visit our friends there, we had a rule that if any of the Canucks got sick or injured we would bundle them up and head for the border tout de suite. Niagara Falls was closest so that is where we headed. We had nothing against the US docs , just that we didnt have any money. Only once did we have to do the run.

I can tell you that anyone in Ontario who has a green healthcard probably wishes that they kept their old red and white ones . I did, and it cannot be cancelled thereby not making me line up every 5 years , and gives the Docs office very little info, and in these days of info theft, all the better.

Edited July 25, 2007 by guyser

[Guest American Woman]

Thanks for the information, guyser. I actually don't get insurance when I travel, which I suppose is really stupid. But I was curious about the whole 'out of country' thing because one section of Sicko deals with Moore's Canadian relatives coming to the States and how they wouldn't do it even for a day because what if something happened to them? They make a point of saying they don't dislike America, etc., but they just can't afford to come here without buying coverage. To me that is misleading because it makes it sound as if Americans would be covered in Canada if a medical situation were to arise, and I know this is not true. Now you are saying even a Canadian living abroad wouldn't be covered. So I don't get the point of that part of the movie at all. Moore goes on to interview a Canadian who was hurt playing golf in the States and he says he wasn't concerned because he had out of country insurance, but when he found out it would cost $24,000 if he were treated here, he went back to Canada and was treated for free. But you're saying you can get 2M coverage for $1.33/day, so again, I'm wondering about that part of the film too.

[guyser]

Thats the part , likely, that Moore plays fast and loose with. It would be cheap for his CDN relatives to get out of country coverage, but that goes against what Moore wants to say. The ol' grain of salt thing. I think you see it.

Now it "could" be that his realtives have pre-existing conditions that makes the cost rise, but those people are in my estimation few and far bewteen. (I am an insurance broker and handle travel insurance too) The conditions that make "pre-existing" are any change in the past 90 days of your prescription, seen a doctor for an illness (apart from ongoing visit for the same thing) or been diagnosed for an illness. But that only means they wont cover you for that, so an exclusion is written and includes anyother illness as a "direct result of the other illness". (IOW if you have cancer of the throat and then travel, and subsequently become ill ,say in your stomach and is diagnosed as cancer of the throat and spread downward-you are not covered-this is only me making up the illness)

And lets not forget to add birth. If you are within 90 days I believe then the ins co will not cover any problems pertaining to your pregnancy, including but not limited to bitchiness, swelling, nausea..oh wait, your the women, you know the symptoms.(I joke about the bitchiness)

But most people that have an illness , apart from say a cold or flu, are not going to want to travel anyhow and generally will cancel for a time of better health to do so.

The CDN who was hurt playing golf is presented, assuming of course your accuracy and I do not doubt so, was either A-not hurt very bad and could live with it, or B- was injured but had no insurance. I am pretty confident to say that he did NOT make the decision to travel home because of the $24,000 cost in the US to the Ins Co, why would he? He paid, presumably, for coverage,and to hell with what it cost.

Let me re-iterate one thing though. A CDN living out of the country , meaning anywhere including the US , for more than 180 days is then not eligible for the healthcare system to pick up the cost. But as is seen in border states , and some further south as I know one person is doing, is that they return home for a day and make a purchase or pay a bill, or many other things that can literally prove that they were in the country. I have a client who is in Florida for most of the year, but she flies back and goes to her house , does some things for a few days and returns back to FLA.

As costs for seniors, or as they are called "Snowbirds" , they can get quite pricey and we had a real bad run for a few years due to the exchange rate, and the costs of US care on top of that. I think it was pushing 3.50 to $5.00 a day. It does get cheaper if you purchase longer term coverage versus the 7 day and 14 day stuff.

If , and when , I see this film, I may be able to give you more info his family, but really, I suspect I am close on my assumptions.

[jbg]

Not necessarily, many "Ma and Pa" stores exist (or used to exist) that, as long as they maintained stock and made a reasonable salary, were content to simply exist. Hobby stores can also be run by enthusiasts that are not in it to make lots of money, but are in it because they love the hobby and being involved in the community. As long as they are making enough money to get by, they are quite happy to continue to run their businesses.

A lot of that is the "underground economy". My great aunt, back in the 1950's, owned a newstand/ice cream counter business in Putnam County, New York. Every night, her cash bags, I believe, went home with her.

On paper, her and her husband's earnings were minimal. Somehow, that morphed into an estate worth about $900,000 when she passed away in 1999, at 99 years old.

[guyser]

My great aunt, back in the 1950's, owned a newstand/ice cream counter business in Putnam County, New York. Every night, her cash bags, I believe, went home with her.

On paper, her and her husband's earnings were minimal. Somehow, that morphed into an estate worth about $900,000 when she passed away in 1999, at 99 years old.

Ah jbg, that takes me back a while. The old cash economy.

Reminds me, has anyone ever seen a poor barber ? Yoiu have..?...then follow them home.

My barber sits and does nothing all day but cut the odd guys hair. It is never really busy save for Sat mornings, yet somehow he has a 4000sf house up in Woodbridge (heavy Italian presence) valued at $1M and sent his kids through University to become , for one a Surgeon, the other A PHD in Poli Sci and Int'l Relations, and in fact doing work for the White House. I asked him one day, how bad were the kids student debt loads after getting out? He said his daughter is still at Univ at one of the Ivy schools (you know better than me the cost) and no debt for either one.

I will bet his tax return says $12,000. That was a standing joke barbers told me.

Cash is king baby.

[bush_cheney2004]

Capital re-invested in the business to allow growth is not the same as profit, ask any small startup business owner.

Where did the capital come from? For many companies, it comes from profit margins. If borrowed, it means investment profit for somebody else. If reinvested, it can be deducted as a business expense. "Profit" is the lifeblood of business, even when it is skimmed off into non-profit coffers. First world economies are not sustained by non-profit Ma and Pop grocery stores or quaint hobby shops.

[SkyhookJackson]

Sicko finally made it to the hinterlands and I saw it this afternoon. Now I'm more cranked up than ever (and more grateful than ever my husband was born in Canada). How anyone can see this film and not question the sanity of our "for profit" system is beyond me. Re the previous post about businesses and tax advantages: everyone who paid more income taxes than Rupert Murdoch last year, raise your hand (if you paid a dollar, that hand needs to be up).

If your husband is a Canadian, why can't you, as his spouse, get healthcare there?

As a number of posters noted, you need to be a resident of Canada. For me, that may happen sooner than later. We've been delaying our final decision until election night, 2008, hoping a supermajority of Democrats in Congress and a Democratic president might adopt the Conyers/Kucinich legislation.

[jbg]

As a number of posters noted, you need to be a resident of Canada. For me, that may happen sooner than later. We've been delaying our final decision until election night, 2008, hoping a supermajority of Democrats in Congress and a Democratic president might adopt the Conyers/Kucinich legislation.

Likelihood either way is a narrow Congressional majority and bare plurality, if that, for the prevailing Presidential candidate. Edited July 26, 2007 by jbg

[Pliny]

Sicko finally made it to the hinterlands and I saw it this afternoon. Now I'm more cranked up than ever (and more grateful than ever my husband was born in Canada). How anyone can see this film and not question the sanity of our "for profit" system is beyond me. Re the previous post about businesses and tax advantages: everyone who paid more income taxes than Rupert Murdoch last year, raise your hand (if you paid a dollar, that hand needs to be up).

If your husband is a Canadian, why can't you, as his spouse, get healthcare there?

As a number of posters noted, you need to be a resident of Canada. For me, that may happen sooner than later. We've been delaying our final decision until election night, 2008, hoping a supermajority of Democrats in Congress and a Democratic president might adopt the Conyers/Kucinich legislation.

Welcome to Canada!

[Pliny]

This is a false premise and recipe for business failure.

Not necessarily, many "Ma and Pa" stores exist (or used to exist) that, as long as they maintained stock and made a reasonable salary, were content to simply exist. Hobby stores can also be run by enthusiasts that are not in it to make lots of money, but are in it because they love the hobby and being involved in the community. As long as they are making enough money to get by, they are quite happy to continue to run their businesses.

Non-profits have distinct tax advantages that for-profits do not have.

If they are officially designated as non profits. Other businesses exist and survive without those tax breaks (see above)

Without working capital, a business cannot make investments for growth or survive business downturns.

Capital re-invested in the business to allow growth is not the same as profit, ask any small startup business owner.

Capital can be borrowed (profit for somebody else), or developed with adequate product or sales margins. Shareholders who provide working capital deserve a return on their investment.

If that is how the business is set up, fine. But profit and shareholder support are not necessary to create a viable business.

Anything else smacks of communism. And that won't play in Canada or the USA.

And next on fox news...

Steve, that kind of thinking is not conducive to a long life.

Profit and savings are necessary. Your concept of "profit" has no preparation for contingency. There are all manner of things like health, any kind of disaster like fire, the replacement of capital assets to consider, all of these things require you be prepared financially for the future.

I see why you would be a proponent of big government with a socialist bent. You feel that government should take care of all the things that could happen to you that you don't prepare yourself for. You can live day by day worry free.

I had a brother in law that thought that way until he had to pay for some medical procedures he wanted in the States.

The big problem in the economy today is that taxes and inflation make it very difficult to save. When 50% of your earnings go to taxes and your savings lose purchasing power over time it is hardly encouraging to financially prepare yourself. It is kind of a self-fulfilling prophesy for socialism and a managed economy. They create this scenario of allowing their citizens to become reliant upon them, eroding their ability to meet contingencies through political promises, increased taxation and inflation and then offer political solutions to socio-economic problems people find it difficult to prepare themselves for because of this erosion resulting in the creation of an even larger government and bureaucracy, increasing the demand for further taxation. And so the cycle goes.

I had mentioned recently that eventually people will balk at increased taxation and somebody said, "Who is going to balk by not paying taxes and going to jail?". The balk will come in the form of "voting". Taxation creates conflict in society and eventually the people demanding more from government will find opposition and they will find that they have been using government as an agency of force in the name of compassion, benevolence, and today, political correctness that enforces absurdities. In order to maintain control of this force they will redouble their efforts and create further conflict and increased Statism. One day a law will be passed and they may have an epiphany that this force has become too great. At which point there is only a waiting, and the creation of a vast underground, until economic collapse arrives.

[stevoh]

Profit and savings are necessary. Your concept of "profit" has no preparation for contingency.

There are all manner of things like health, any kind of disaster like fire, the replacement of capital assets to consider, all of these things require you be prepared financially for the future.

I am not arguing against the desirability and planning benefits of profit. I am arguing that some businesses, most importantly, a hospital and health care system, can be viable without requiring a focus on profit.

Many of the disasters you mention can be taken care of by insurance, which is a normal part of business expenses. Even the largest companies in the world don't have enough money squirrelled away to take care of major disasters, they rely on insurance.

I see why you would be a proponent of big government with a socialist bent. You feel that government should take care of all the things that could happen to you that you don't prepare yourself for. You can live day by day worry free.

My argument is focussed on the health care system. There is a fundamental conflict between the desire to generate profit and the desire to provide the best care possible. If care can be denied, profit goes up. There is no way around that fundamental flaw. And the fact that those who can't afford it are denied care, that is unacceptable.

I had a brother in law that thought that way until he had to pay for some medical procedures he wanted in the States.

He should have bought insurance. Or moved to Canada.

The big problem in the economy today is that taxes and inflation make it very difficult to save. When 50% of your earnings go to taxes and your savings lose purchasing power over time it is hardly encouraging to financially prepare yourself. It is kind of a self-fulfilling prophesy for socialism and a managed economy. They create this scenario of allowing their citizens to become reliant upon them, eroding their ability to meet contingencies through political promises, increased taxation and inflation and then offer political solutions to socio-economic problems people find it difficult to prepare themselves for because of this erosion resulting in the creation of an even larger government and bureaucracy, increasing the demand for further taxation. And so the cycle goes.

Even in the US I fail to see the lower taxation creating a larger number of people saving successfully for the future. Lower taxation does not automatically create higher personal responsibility.

I had mentioned recently that eventually people will balk at increased taxation and somebody said, "Who is going to balk by not paying taxes and going to jail?". The balk will come in the form of "voting". Taxation creates conflict in society and eventually the people demanding more from government will find opposition and they will find that they have been using government as an agency of force in the name of compassion, benevolence, and today, political correctness that enforces absurdities. In order to maintain control of this force they will redouble their efforts and create further conflict and increased Statism. One day a law will be passed and they may have an epiphany that this force has become too great. At which point there is only a waiting, and the creation of a vast underground, until economic collapse arrives.

I believe the balance swings back and forth. The people get tired of the higher taxes and excessive social spending, and vote in right wing. Then, they see programs they themselves value or are effected by being eroded, and they vote left wing. The beauty of democracy is that no "side" ever truly gets all it wants, it is always a compromise. And this meets the needs of more individuals than any system that is entirely left (communism) or right (fascism) wing.

[Renegade]

The balk will come in the form of "voting".

If I want to balk, who should I be voting for to save me from the plague of taxation?

My argument is focussed on the health care system. There is a fundamental conflict between the desire to generate profit and the desire to provide the best care possible. If care can be denied, profit goes up. There is no way around that fundamental flaw. And the fact that those who can't afford it are denied care, that is unacceptable.

Why do you think this conflict exist only in healthcare? Any other customer service industry also can reduce cost by providing reduced customer service. If the relationship that less customer care = more profit, why is healtcare unique in that relationship? Edited July 26, 2007 by Renegade

[stevoh]

Why do you think this conflict exist only in healthcare? Any other customer service industry also can reduce cost by providing reduced customer service. If the relationship that less customer care = more profit, why is healtcare unique in that relationship?

Your life, or the lives of those you care about, doesn't depend on getting good customer service in other industries.

Once someone dies due to poor service or lack of coverage, the option to "make a better choice next time" rings pretty hollow.

For critical services, police, fire, ambulance, and hospitals, customer service is not a nice to have, your life depends on it.

So, human life has to take priority over profit. As it should.

[Renegade]

Your life, or the lives of those you care about, doesn't depend on getting good customer service in other industries.

Sure it does. Do you think your life doesn't depend upon how well your mechanic fixes your brakes? In any case it is irrelevant to the question asked. Regardless of if your life depends upon it or not, as a consumer you want and demand better customer service.

Once someone dies due to poor service or lack of coverage, the option to "make a better choice next time" rings pretty hollow.

Sure ok, but first, only a very very small number of interactions with the healthcare industry result in death of the patient. In the bulk of the interactions the patients survive and do indeed have the option to "make a better choice next time". Second, it is not necessary for the patient to have the option to "make a better choice next time". Reputation and brand are key differentiators in many industries. If a house builder has a poor reputation for quality and service, he will have a problem attracting new customers even if his previous customers are no longer a potential market.

For critical services, police, fire, ambulance, and hospitals, customer service is not a nice to have, your life depends on it.

OK. so how do you propose to have your police, fire, ambulance...etc, grant superior customer service. I can give you many examples of very bad customer service from those institutions from those very institutions, despite the fact that "your life depends on it". (Do some research if you are interested in the NY police system in the early 90s).

So, human life has to take priority over profit. As it should.

Yes of course. But as I have said before, profit or some equally compelling incentive is necessary IN ORDER TO SAVE LIVES not replace saving lives.

[stevoh]

Sure it does. Do you think your life doesn't depend upon how well your mechanic fixes your brakes? In any case it is irrelevant to the question asked. Regardless of if your life depends upon it or not, as a consumer you want and demand better customer service.

A mechanic who makes life threatening repairs may not go out of business due to poor customer service, as they are shut down first by the government. Once again, intervention beyond simply "not earning profit" is necessary. Unsafe practices, such as sub standard food quality, life threatening repairs, go beyond the market model and require government intervention.

Sure ok, but first, only a very very small number of interactions with the healthcare industry result in death of the patient. In the bulk of the interactions the patients survive and do indeed have the option to "make a better choice next time".

Even in non-life threatening cases that choice can have exteme consequences, infection, wrong medication, health is just too important to play "better luck next time" with.

Second, it is not necessary for the patient to have the option to "make a better choice next time". Reputation and brand are key differentiators in many industries. If a house builder has a poor reputation for quality and service, he will have a problem attracting new customers even if his previous customers are no longer a potential market.

Not if the market is strong enough, the demand high enough, and choice limited. Thanks to our housing boom, that crappy house builder can continue working and profitting, perhaps moving his location from time to time. Even government intervention for fraud might not prevent him setting up shop somewhere else under a different name.

This kind of strong market influence can not be allowed to taint the quality of health care. A shortage of care in a region should not mean the "customer" has to tolerate life effecting poor service.

OK. so how do you propose to have your police, fire, ambulance...etc, grant superior customer service. I can give you many examples of very bad customer service from those institutions from those very institutions, despite the fact that "your life depends on it". (Do some research if you are interested in the NY police system in the early 90s).

Oh definitely, and I can site just as many examples of poor customer service in private industry. There are different ways of tackling these issues for each. One has market influences and regulation to assist. The other has regulation and various monitoring groups to monitor quality and deal with "customer" complaints.

The NY city police system was improved through government (mostly civil and local I believe) intervention. Not the introduction of private competitive policing forces. Or through a profit making police force.

Yes of course. But as I have said before, profit or some equally compelling incentive is necessary IN ORDER TO SAVE LIVES not replace saving lives.

If the primary incentive hospitals have to save lives and provide health care is profit we are indeed in trouble. If profit was a major motivator, then less profitable surgeries would be recommended less, and a more profitable one recommended instead, even if it isn't the medically most adventageous choice.

Profit cannot be a primary motivator for human health services. The best choice for the health of the patient has to be the primary concern.

[Renegade]

A mechanic who makes life threatening repairs may not go out of business due to poor customer service, as they are shut down first by the government. Once again, intervention beyond simply "not earning profit" is necessary. Unsafe practices, such as sub standard food quality, life threatening repairs, go beyond the market model and require government intervention.

First you are quite wrong. It is quite easy for a mechanic to make life threatening repairs. Unless those actions are due to negligence or criminal intent, any recourse the customer has is through the courts. Show me some evidence of the government shutting down automobile repair shops in advance before the cause safety to be at risk. The extent of government intervention is at best to mandate what the level of training is required, and minimial standard of the result, but it leaves it to profit-motivated private enterprise to actually implement.

Even in non-life threatening cases that choice can have exteme consequences, infection, wrong medication, health is just too important to play "better luck next time" with.

You are not answering the question asked. I asked "why doesn't the profit motive work", your response is "it's too important to trust to the profit motive. You still havent shown that the profit motive doesn't produce superiour care, you have simply stated over and over that you don't trust the profit motive.

Not if the market is strong enough, the demand high enough, and choice limited. Thanks to our housing boom, that crappy house builder can continue working and profitting, perhaps moving his location from time to time. Even government intervention for fraud might not prevent him setting up shop somewhere else under a different name.

So under similar market conditions, what does government takeover do to prevent the problem?

This kind of strong market influence can not be allowed to taint the quality of health care. A shortage of care in a region should not mean the "customer" has to tolerate life effecting poor service.

You seem to believe that the government can somehow "mandate" good care. It can't. It can simply set up a system which is best suited to deliver quality care. If it could mandate good care, state-run hospitals in Russia would be exemplary in the care they provided.

Oh definitely, and I can site just as many examples of poor customer service in private industry. There are different ways of tackling these issues for each. One has market influences and regulation to assist. The other has regulation and various monitoring groups to monitor quality and deal with "customer" complaints.

Of course there is poor service in the private industry, but as a consumer of that service, you have the ultimate weapon. Go find another service provider. If you police department provides poor service, what is your option? Despite the government intervention and regulation all that poor service still did occur.

The NY city police system was improved through government (mostly civil and local I believe) intervention. Not the introduction of private competitive policing forces. Or through a profit making police force.

According to the theories you advance that the poor quality service shown by the NY city police system should never have occured, yet it did. You statement about how it improved is completely irrelevant to the point.

If the primary incentive hospitals have to save lives and provide health care is profit we are indeed in trouble. If profit was a major motivator, then less profitable surgeries would be recommended less, and a more profitable one recommended instead, even if it isn't the medically most adventageous choice.

Profit cannot be a primary motivator for human health services. The best choice for the health of the patient has to be the primary concern.

You don't like profit as an incentive. I get that. But you have yet to offer any alternative incentive or are you offering altruism as the ony incentive in your model system?

[Guest American Woman]

If your husband is a Canadian, why can't you, as his spouse, get healthcare there?

As a number of posters noted, you need to be a resident of Canada. For me, that may happen sooner than later. We've been delaying our final decision until election night, 2008, hoping a supermajority of Democrats in Congress and a Democratic president might adopt the Conyers/Kucinich legislation.

So evidently, in spite of what you think about the U.S. and the war and healthcare, etc., you've found it preferrable to live in the States rather than in Canada. I find that interesting.

[stevoh]

You are not answering the question asked. I asked "why doesn't the profit motive work", your response is "it's too important to trust to the profit motive.

The profit motive doesn't work because, as illustrated in the hospital surgery example above, patient care can be compromised when profit is the primary consideration.

You seem to believe that the government can somehow "mandate" good care.

Good care is not mandated, in the medical profession, good care is provided by people genuinely interested in helping people and who take pride in the work they provide.

According to the theories you advance that the poor quality service shown by the NY city police system should never have occured, yet it did. You statement about how it improved is completely irrelevant to the point.

I have never stated that a government run system cannot fail. Of course it can. You seem to feel that a government run system cannot be improved. Of course it can.

Cops are a great example of how profit is a poor motivator. Taking bribes and profitting from them is one of the sources of corruption. Here, profit is a negative motivator away from the true purpose of the position.

Profit is neutral, it has no morality. In some cases it is a motivator for the desirable, greater service, greater efficiency. In some cases it is a motivator for corruption, lack of ethics, making decisions that effect the bottom line over any human considerations.

You don't like profit as an incentive. I get that. But you have yet to offer any alternative incentive or are you offering altruism as the ony incentive in your model system?

Altruism is one reason, yes. Pride in work. Fascination and passion towards the subject and human care. Compassion. Being part of highly effective team. Respect. Being able to make a real difference in many peoples lives. Don't underestimate these motivations. They are the primary reason many people join the medical profession, or they would all become lawyers or CEOs (or at the very least plastic surgeons).

The canadian health care system is far from perfect, but its pretty damn good. How is it that it operates as well as it does without profit as a motivator?

[SkyhookJackson]

If your husband is a Canadian, why can't you, as his spouse, get healthcare there?

As a number of posters noted, you need to be a resident of Canada. For me, that may happen sooner than later. We've been delaying our final decision until election night, 2008, hoping a supermajority of Democrats in Congress and a Democratic president might adopt the Conyers/Kucinich legislation.

So evidently, in spite of what you think about the U.S. and the war and healthcare, etc., you've found it preferrable to live in the States rather than in Canada. I find that interesting.

Well . . . duh. I was born in the United States. I've lived in the United States my entire 58 years. I've lived in the same home in the same place for years and years. I love the place we live - my gardens, the wild life, our surroundings. It's called "life." Until 3 years ago I could (barely) afford health insurance. Until 6 years ago we had presidents who didn't belong in an insane asylum. God! I look back on the Nixon years as the "good old days" at this point. I do have hope that once the "evil doers" at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue are gone, the U.S. might head in the right direction again. Maybe not. Who knows at this point? In any case, Canada is a wonderful place and I can see myself living quite happily there. By the way, what exactly do you mean by what I think of the U.S.?? The country is separate from the sorry leadership. It's a shame we don't have a parliamentary system, we could throw the bums out now. The majority of Americans are just as pissed off as I am, if not more. You must see the polls. It's not that we don't love the country, it's that the country has changed and not for the better. Outsourced jobs, unaffordable college tuitions, health care. And, worst of all, we've gone from a "we" mentality to a "me" mentality. "I've got mine, to hell with you." That's not the way it should be.

[bush_cheney2004]

It's not that we don't love the country, it's that the country has changed and not for the better. Outsourced jobs, unaffordable college tuitions, health care. And, worst of all, we've gone from a "we" mentality to a "me" mentality. "I've got mine, to hell with you." That's not the way it should be.

Got news for you....been there..done that in the 1980's..and long before that. America is the same as it ever was, only now you want something different. Then it wouldn't be America anymore.

Health care is readily available....what's it worth to those who want it? What will they give up?

[Renegade]

The profit motive doesn't work because, as illustrated in the hospital surgery example above, patient care can be compromised when profit is the primary consideration.

I have no idea what example you are talking about.

Good care is not mandated, in the medical profession, good care is provided by people genuinely interested in helping people and who take pride in the work they provide.

So what steps have been taken to ensure that the only people in the profession are "people genuinely interested in helping people and who take pride in the work they provide". How do I know I won't get one of the doctors who took up the profession to get rich and is now demotivated because his incentive has been removed.

I have never stated that a government run system cannot fail. Of course it can. You seem to feel that a government run system cannot be improved. Of course it can.

Most government run systems provide at mediocre service because there is very little incentive to improve it. Government bureaucrats don't get fired and will get paid regardless if the system runs well or badly, so why bother to put in the effort to improve it.

The canadian health care system is far from perfect, but its pretty damn good. How is it that it operates as well as it does without profit as a motivator?

I'll skip the other response because this gets to the heart of the issue. The Canadian system does use profit as a motivator. Doctors and health-care providers are not employees of the state. For the most part they are self-employed individuals who essentially run a business who's motive (at least one motive) is profit. The only thing the state does, is pay the bills. IOW, profit has not been taken out of the system because it serves a useful purpose.

[Guest American Woman]

So evidently, in spite of what you think about the U.S. and the war and healthcare, etc., you've found it preferrable to live in the States rather than in Canada. I find that interesting.

Well . . . duh. I was born in the United States. I've lived in the United States my entire 58 years. I've lived in the same home in the same place for years and years. I love the place we live - my gardens, the wild life, our surroundings. It's called "life." Until 3 years ago I could (barely) afford health insurance. Until 6 years ago we had presidents who didn't belong in an insane asylum. God! I look back on the Nixon years as the "good old days" at this point. I do have hope that once the "evil doers" at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue are gone, the U.S. might head in the right direction again. Maybe not. Who knows at this point? In any case, Canada is a wonderful place and I can see myself living quite happily there. By the way, what exactly do you mean by what I think of the U.S.?? The country is separate from the sorry leadership. It's a shame we don't have a parliamentary system, we could throw the bums out now. The majority of Americans are just as pissed off as I am, if not more. You must see the polls. It's not that we don't love the country, it's that the country has changed and not for the better. Outsourced jobs, unaffordable college tuitions, health care. And, worst of all, we've gone from a "we" mentality to a "me" mentality. "I've got mine, to hell with you." That's not the way it should be.

Excuse me, but was I rude in my response to you?

You've been saying things like "what a country" about the U.S., and not in a good way, and you said since seeing Sicko you're "prouder than ever that [your] husband was born in Canada." Under the circumstances, I think it was perfectly understandable that I would find your preference to live in the States interesting. Furthermore, your husband wasn't born in the United States and he didn't live here all of his life and I'm guessing he must love where he lived, etc, so again, my finding your choice "interesting" is not deserving of rudeness.