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

[bush_cheney2004]

...The private system may have a basis in profit but exists only because it can provide a service at a cost people are willing to pay. The public system not concerned with profit concerns itself with cost and attempts to limit service according to cost, either way economics, the bottom line, factors in. Profit may be the private concern but limiting costs is the public concern. Choice being available to the consumer places a limit on profit. Attempting to limit costs serves to limit choice and quality to both the providers and ultimately the consumers of a public service and it only follows that limited choice results in a demand for better service which negates attempts to limit costs, and so the spiral goes.

I like this....the logical rebuttal to for-profits limiting care to maximize revenue. Bravo!

[Pliny]

I like this....the logical rebuttal to for-profits limiting care to maximize revenue. Bravo!

Im glad someone understood that. Thanks!

[Pliny]

I would like to argue as well that the proponent of a socialized system is arguing for a legalized monopoly. The same goal that any private corporation would love to achieve, and if it did would no longer concern itself with profit but cost, no longer being challenged to be innovative or use ingenuity, in its delivery of service. The only other concern it may have is an erosion of its position as a monopoly - consequently fighting innovation and ingenuity in service delivery.

Socialized services are promoted by vested interests, and painted with the altruistic motive of helping the poor or being collectively responsible. It looks very appealing but all socialism is, is capitalistic interests combining with government to gain the impossible (under true capitalism) position of a legalized monopoly. Those with a vested interest, I understand. Those that support a monopoly out of altruism are sorely misguided.

[geoffrey]

On Global News tonight in Calgary, they showcased the tradgic story of a cancer patient, who had to wait 3 weeks to get a PET scan because her cancer wasn't a priority case in Canada. She died because of the wait, even though she paid out of pocket to travel to the US to receive care (after waiting too long in Canada to save her life).

Say it saves all the money you want, the Canadian system kills people because they don't fit the cause of the hour. The ideology continues it's death toll. It's remarkable that people still support something so failed.

[Pliny]

On Global News tonight in Calgary, they showcased the tradgic story of a cancer patient, who had to wait 3 weeks to get a PET scan because her cancer wasn't a priority case in Canada. She died because of the wait, even though she paid out of pocket to travel to the US to receive care (after waiting too long in Canada to save her life).

Say it saves all the money you want, the Canadian system kills people because they don't fit the cause of the hour. The ideology continues it's death toll. It's remarkable that people still support something so failed.

Global news - Isn't that a right wing news organization? Just joking. I know that is impossible in Canada.

What the problem boils down to is whether the faceless state should have the power to decide which minorities should be denied service and which minorities should have privilege. Costs will determine this but they won't pick on the underdog. It just seems too cruel. If anyone need decide I would say the patient, those who are closest to the patient and the doctor should make final decisions and the State should never be allowed to determine who should or shouldn't get treatment based upon "cost".

[stevoh]

Are you a journalist or something? You have taken my statement completely out of context. How can you even pretend that is what I intended to say?

So, when you say Canada's is the most expensive system in the world, and it turns out it is half the cost, per person, of the USA, what did you intend to say?

Statistics are a poor form of argument unless methodology and extraneous criteria are known AND knowledge of the interpretation of statistics is known. Comparing the per capita health care expenditure dollar for dollar is of little value. Much more can be spent in the US on health care than in Canada as a matter of choice. The many non-Americans who seek medical treatment in the US also skew that statistic.

So, as long as we "choose" to spend more, then its somehow less expensive? How does that make any sense at all?

The truth is, there are no shortage of people who wish to point out the failings of the American system, the WHO not excluded. I still maintain they get better value for their dollar. You are somehow implying that a government can run something efficiently, a hard point for anyone below the level of Marxist to believe.

The canadian health care system is pretty good. Its not perfect, it needs work, all systems should be in a constant state of analysis for improvement, public or private.

The private system may have a basis in profit but exists only because it can provide a service at a cost people are willing to pay.

What if you can't afford it? Then you just go without. Too bad.

The public system not concerned with profit concerns itself with cost and attempts to limit service according to cost, either way economics, the bottom line, factors in.

Don't disagree with that.

Profit may be the private concern but limiting costs is the public concern. Choice being available to the consumer places a limit on profit. Attempting to limit costs serves to limit choice and quality to both the providers and ultimately the consumers of a public service and it only follows that limited choice results in a demand for better service which negates attempts to limit costs, and so the spiral goes.

What choice do you have when you can't afford it? Of course there is a balance between providing the best service possible and attempting to keep control of costs, at least its not a balance between making the most profit possible while giving the perception of the best service possible. Without needing the profit layer, health care costs less.

If anyone need decide I would say the patient, those who are closest to the patient and the doctor should make final decisions and the State should never be allowed to determine who should or shouldn't get treatment based upon "cost".

So, we should replace that system with a faceless insurance company that will determine who should and shouldn't get treatement based on profit? Hardly a better choice.

[M.Dancer]

So, when you say Canada's is the most expensive system in the world, and it turns out it is half the cost, per person, of the USA, what did you intend to say?

Must be a politician to object to being quoted in context and still come out wrong.......

[Pliny]

Must be a politician to object to being quoted in context and still come out wrong.......

I was quoted in context? Really?

[stevoh]

I was quoted in context? Really?

Instead of playing context games, why don't you clarify what your statement:

Our health care system is the best in one respect only, and that is it is the most expensive of any nation in the world.

Means?

[Pliny]

Instead of playing context games, why don't you clarify what your statement:

Means?

It means exactly that - "it is the most expensive health care system in the world", and I stated why I believed it to be true.

Here is a quote from the wikipedia article you quoted which is basically my complaint.

It should be noted however, that the WHO Health Care Ranking has been criticized for its choice of ranking criteria and statistical methods, and the WHO is currently revising its methodology and is withholding new rankings until the problems are addressed.

Now I am not playing context games. I totally understand why someone would perceive the statements, "one of the worst systems in the developed countries" and "the worst system in the developed countries" are identical. It is the same affliction as thinking the 30th ranked system is the best in the world.

[Pliny]

So, when you say Canada's is the most expensive system in the world, and it turns out it is half the cost, per person, of the USA, what did you intend to say?

So, as long as we "choose" to spend more, then its somehow less expensive? How does that make any sense at all?

The canadian health care system is pretty good. Its not perfect, it needs work, all systems should be in a constant state of analysis for improvement, public or private.

What if you can't afford it? Then you just go without. Too bad.

Don't disagree with that.

What choice do you have when you can't afford it? Of course there is a balance between providing the best service possible and attempting to keep control of costs, at least its not a balance between making the most profit possible while giving the perception of the best service possible. Without needing the profit layer, health care costs less.

So, we should replace that system with a faceless insurance company that will determine who should and shouldn't get treatement based on profit? Hardly a better choice.

You posted a website with some statistics and I stated I didn't accept them as valid. Once again, within that same article was a qualification, criticizing the methodology and criteria used for the rankings.

"The Canadian health care system is pretty good." What can I say here? It is ranked 30 in the developed countries. It is not ranked pretty good. It is one of the worst in the developed nations. By the way, that ranking has not been criticized,

although I would be glad to offer my opinion and state it seems a bit high.

What choice do you have when you are denied it?

If you can't afford it you have to rely on friends and family. If you have no friends or family what's the sense in it all. If they can't afford it appeal to the community, if the community can't afford it then appeal to the nation - anything but government who cannot provide health care. They only make laws and shift money around.

I didn't say the option was private insurance. If the health care industry would have evolved correctly it would have been in the same category as a religious charity tax-wise. Not paying corporate taxes, income taxes, capital taxes or any taxes. It would be fairly easy to become quite viable without those burdens especially when heavily contributed to by the community and it's importance is indubitably recognized by society. This would also not sacrifice choice and options and ensure innovation and ingenuity in the field. It is government that considers it a business and enforces it to adhere to the business model even under its socialized form.

What has to happen now is the whole thing has to collapse because of the many who are reliant upon it for their sustenance, and I am not speaking of consumers in this case.

People such as yourself will only allow tinkering with it and will make increasing demands from the taxpayer but the camel's back will eventually break.

[Pliny]

Well, killed that thread, I guess.

[Pliny]

Still haven't seen "Sicko". Does it say Canada's health care system is number one? It is rated better than the American system but I wouldn't trust the ratings of a socialist organization to judge anything with even a hint of private or capitalist-for-profit flavour to be superior - too much of a conflict of interest.

The problem with western medicine is it was entirely swayed by scientific medical advances and became entirely about science when, at least in my view, medicine is as much an art as a science.

[sucker punch]

Still haven't seen "Sicko". Does it say Canada's health care system is number one? It is rated better than the American system but I wouldn't trust the ratings of a socialist organization to judge anything with even a hint of private or capitalist-for-profit flavour to be superior - too much of a conflict of interest.

The problem with western medicine is it was entirely swayed by scientific medical advances and became entirely about science when, at least in my view, medicine is as much an art as a science.

I don't remember the health care systems being ranked per se, but it was obviously Moore's intention to imply the Canadian system was immeasurably better than the American.

From what I remember, the French or British system were portrayed as the best.

[geoffrey]

From what I remember, the French or British system were portrayed as the best.

The French, maybe. The British nah. They are bad like ours.

Canada's health care system is clearly one of the worst in the Western world. Ancedotal evidence but interesting none the less... they had a lady on global TV a few nights back that was sick and needed an PET scan to determine if she had some type of cancer. In the US, there is no wait as it must be treated within days.

In Canada, she was told she would wait six weeks. She paid a few thousand to send herself to Montana to get the scan after waiting a week, found out it was too late and died.

Sounds like a great system?

When you add up the costs of suffering, death and lost working time in Canada, it's much more expensive than the US system. I'd rather have the choice.

I'll tell you all again, when my sister got sick, the Canadian doctors would spend 15 minutes with her, write a prescription for something new and send her home. They did this for two years while she suffered through the best part of her life, in extreme pain everyday. $20k and a week in a US hospital had her completely treated. A team of doctors worked tirelessly to find out the source of the trouble and put together an effective treatment plan. Thank God our family could afford it.

What of those that can't? They'd suffer until they died. That's Canada. It's the worst two tier system going, those that have the money to go to the US for real health care, and those that have to get rubber stamped through processes in Canada's bureaucracy. Allowing private provision in Canada would at least level the playing field abit, especially if you could buy insurance for it.

Already, the SCC agrees with me, forcing the government to allow private insurance and provision because there is both no threat to the public system and because too much death and suffering occurs in our outdated system. So I've got the SCC on my side for the first time. It's time we move on this a little more quickly.

[Pliny]

Hear! Hear!

Perhaps the new director of the CMA will encourage change. He has some rather different views and recognizes the inadequacies of the current monopoly.

[margrace]

The French, maybe. The British nah. They are bad like ours.

Canada's health care system is clearly one of the worst in the Western world. Ancedotal evidence but interesting none the less... they had a lady on global TV a few nights back that was sick and needed an PET scan to determine if she had some type of cancer. In the US, there is no wait as it must be treated within days.

In Canada, she was told she would wait six weeks. She paid a few thousand to send herself to Montana to get the scan after waiting a week, found out it was too late and died.

Sounds like a great system?

When you add up the costs of suffering, death and lost working time in Canada, it's much more expensive than the US system. I'd rather have the choice.

I'll tell you all again, when my sister got sick, the Canadian doctors would spend 15 minutes with her, write a prescription for something new and send her home. They did this for two years while she suffered through the best part of her life, in extreme pain everyday. $20k and a week in a US hospital had her completely treated. A team of doctors worked tirelessly to find out the source of the trouble and put together an effective treatment plan. Thank God our family could afford it.

What of those that can't? They'd suffer until they died. That's Canada. It's the worst two tier system going, those that have the money to go to the US for real health care, and those that have to get rubber stamped through processes in Canada's bureaucracy. Allowing private provision in Canada would at least level the playing field abit, especially if you could buy insurance for it.

Already, the SCC agrees with me, forcing the government to allow private insurance and provision because there is both no threat to the public system and because too much death and suffering occurs in our outdated system. So I've got the SCC on my side for the first time. It's time we move on this a little more quickly.

When my daughter developed leukemia and had a year to live, one of my family inquired into costs in the US and guess what, up front $250.000 before they even looked at her. Glad your family is rich, my daughter had only OHIP because Mr. Harris saw fit to lay off 20% of the nursing "Bimbo" in Ontario. My daughter lost her coverage and some of her medicine cost $!,000 a pill. Thanks Ontario for Trillium, they picked up some of the costs.

Its easy to be want private care when you can afford it.

[Renegade]

Its easy to be want private care when you can afford it.

It's easy to want public care when you want someone else to pay for it.

[margrace]

It's easy to want public care when you want someone else to pay for it.

I hope you are always in top health, otherwise look out, your life can change in an instant. Of course the young and selfcentred do not care even if the guy next door starves, much like Saddam's beliefs

[Guest American Woman]

It's easy to want public care when you want someone else to pay for it.

I don't get this whole "someone else to pay for it" comeback. Are some people exempt from paying taxes? Cuz I'd like to know how to do that if that's the case.

[Renegade]

I don't get this whole "someone else to pay for it" comeback. Are some people exempt from paying taxes? Cuz I'd like to know how to do that if that's the case.

The question is not a binary yes/no question. To determine if "someone else is paying for it" you need to look at how much is contributed. Many people contribute very little in taxes yet consume a large number of publicly provided services. The difference between what they contribute and what the consume is what someone else must pay for.

Do you think everyone's contribution is in line with their public services consumption?

[Renegade]

I hope you are always in top health, otherwise look out, your life can change in an instant.

I hope you too are always in top health, because anything less will inevitably cost everyone else.

Of course the young and selfcentred do not care even if the guy next door starves, much like Saddam's beliefs

Some care, some don't. It should matter not whether the guy starving is next door or on the other side of the world. In either case, IMO, the care should be expressed through charitable giving, not through forced taxation.

Just as some people don't particularly care about whether their fellow man starves, some people have a sense of entitlement who don't care who pays for a service, so long as they get it for "free".

[Shakeyhands]

its not free, but you know that. We all contribute. I personally have no issue paying a little so that you aren't destroyed financially (and eventually die because you can't afford treatment, or have to throw your wife/husband off a balcony or something) should you become ill.

[Guest American Woman]

The question is not a binary yes/no question. To determine if "someone else is paying for it" you need to look at how much is contributed. Many people contribute very little in taxes yet consume a large number of publicly provided services. The difference between what they contribute and what the consume is what someone else must pay for.

Do you think everyone's contribution is in line with their public services consumption?

No, I don't. But that goes for everyone, no matter what income bracket they are in. Some people contribute to interstates with their taxes even though they never use an interstate. Some people never need the national guard since they don't live in flood/hurricane areas. Yet we all contribute. What about taxes people who never have kids pay towards schools? And I could go on.

Why people feel as if the "someone else's money" applies to health care is beyond me. Everyone is paying according to their capacity to pay, therefore everyone is contributing equally. Actually, a lower income person with a lower percentage of cash left over after paying for the necessities in life is really paying more in the sense that it's more of a hardship for them.

Everyone benefits from a healthy society, just like everyone benefits from an educated society. That's why there should be public healthcare, same as there's public education. And as I already pointed out, the U.S. Constitution guarentees "life," and life requires healthcare.

[bush_cheney2004]

And as I already pointed out, the U.S. Constitution guarentees "life," and life requires healthcare.

This is patently false....The US Constitution only guarantees that life, liberty, and property will not be deprived without the due process of law. The concept of universal health care was not included or guaranteed. Indeed, even in CHA Canada, health care IS NOT A RIGHT. The phrase "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" has its foundation in John Locke's writings, and was included in the American's Declaration of Independence by Jefferson, not the US Constitution.