SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Orcastraiter who wrote (11243)7/12/2004 10:06:24 PM
From: Lazarus_Long  Read Replies (1) of 90947
 
You seem to think he's wrong about EVERYTHING. Why not this too? Did he suddenly grow a brain?

And, as Selectric pointed out, the argument you use, if valid at all, is a perfectly good one to nationalize all industries. The Brits tried something like that. That was when they were known as "the sick man of Europe". Thatcher reversed that. Now they've gotten well and are doing quite well.

If national health care is so great, why is it that so many Canadians come down here for treatment they can't get at home or can't get in any reasonable timeframe?

Case Study: Waiting lines in Canada. Access to a waiting
line is not the same (nor as good) as access to a doctor.
On Jan. 18, 2003, the Canadian Press carried the headline,
“Send cancer patients to U.S., Alberta MDs urge.” The
story begins, “Breast-cancer patients whose wait to see a
specialist has jumped up to eight weeks from less than
four should be sent out of province for treatment, the
president of the Alberta Medical Association says.”
In a story about a proposal to allow private day surgeries
in Vancouver, British Columbia, to reduce waiting times,
the Vancouver Province (June 11, 2003) reports, “But
even when the (Richmond) hospital was at its most effi-
cient, 40 per cent of patients were waiting three months or
more (for elective surgery).”
As bad as that is, it’s better than England, where 57-year-
old Peter Smith got his heart surgery a full five months
after he first complained of chest pains to his general
practitioner (London Observer, May 25, 2003).
Claim #3: The Quality of Care in Canada Is as Good
as or Better than the U.S. “Quality health care” means
different things to different people. For individuals, qual-
ity health care usually means a good outcome, conven-
iently obtained at a reasonable price. But can you have
quality health care if a patient can’t see a doctor?
Case Study: The quest for quality health care. The head-
line in the June 16, 2003, Vancouver Sun pretty much says
it all: “Doctors Demand Patient Care Guarantees.” The
The Myths of Canadian Health Care
July 2003
No. 102
Page 2
British Columbia Medical Association has released a pa-
per calling for “the establishment of maximum wait times,
or ‘care guarantees’ for various medical procedures,” ac-
cording to the story. The report “proposes that patients
not helped within the guaranteed time frame should be
able to seek care out of province – in a public or private
facility – at no cost to themselves.”
In Canada it is against the law for a citizen to pay out of
pocket for care that is provided by the government-run
health care system. The only other countries that crimi-
nalize privately paying for health care are North Korea
and Cuba.
Case Study: Canadians heading south. But it isn’t against
the law for Canadians to cross the U.S. border and pay for
care they can’t get in Canada. In fact, the U.S. has be-
come the safety valve for a foreign health care system that
would implode economically and politically without ac-
cess to U.S. doctors, hospitals and drugs.
On Jan. 16, 2000, the New York Times titled a story, “Full
Hospitals Make Canadians Wait and Look South.” The
article concludes: “As a result, Canada has moved infor-
mally to a two-tier, public-private system. Although pri-
vate practice is limited to dentists and veterinarians, 90
percent of Canadians live within 100 miles of the United
States, and many people are crossing the border for pri-
vate care.”
Claim #4: In Canada’s System, Everyone Is Treated
the Same. The push for socialized medicine isn’t just
about health care; it’s also a quest for social justice. Ad-
vocates don’t want the rich to get better care than the
poor. But the rationing that always accompanies a gov-
ernment-run system means that some people will not get
the care they need, and it is nearly always society’s mar-
ginal citizens – the poor, the very old and those with very
high costs – who get substandard care, if they get care at
all.
Just consider some of these headlines from England:

“Am I too old to be treated?” The Sunday Times,
April 17, 1994.

“Kidney patients die as costly dialysis machines lie
idle,” The Times, July 26, 1993.

“Too old to be cured of cancer,” The Times, Aug. 16,
1993.
But there can be other perverse results from rationing.
Greg Moulton of Guelph, Ontario, was in a three-month
wait to get a CT scan “to learn the cause of his
‘excruciating’ headaches.” Since York Central Hospital’s
radiology department was only open to the public at speci-
fied hours, the hospital decided to allow pet owners to
bring in their animals in need of a CT scan after hours —
for $300 a scan. “For dogs, a scan can be arranged within
24 hours,” according to the Canadian Press (“Humans
wait in pain, dogs don’t,” June 14, 1991).
Another Canadian was more resourceful. On Dec. 18,
1999, the Washington Post reported that waiting lines for
MRIs in Ontario had grown so long that one Ontario resi-
dent “booked himself into a private veterinary clinic that
happened to have one of the machines, listing himself as
‘Fido.’”
In a socialist effort to avoid a two-tiered system where
wealthy people can get health care but the poor can’t,
Canada has created a different kind of two-tiered system –
where people can’t get care, but dogs can.
Conclusion. These news articles (and many more not
included) tell the story of a financially strapped health
care system that threatens the health and lives of its citi-
zens. The dates on the articles, ranging over a decade, tell
the story that these are not simply past problems nor cur-
rent problems, but systemic problems inherent to govern-
ment-run health care.
Seniors in the U.S. Medicare program are already in a
government-run system; and they are experiencing many
of the same problems Canadians face every day. If we
emulate Canada, America’s health choices will narrow,
and health innovations and breakthroughs will be sup-
pressed. And while price controls and rationing mean we
may spend a little less money, we will get a lot less care –
just look at Canada. That is the story we are not being
told.

66.102.7.104

THAT'S what you want???????????
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext