Why do Americans fear Canadian style health care?

grif wrote:

Sorry for the long post, but this is an informative discussion on "rights"

(Etc. Etc. very long post)

Damn good post.

Chris Knight wrote:

I never said there was a free market in prisons. However, there are privatized prisons out there, and they are the worst. Also, I never said public golf courses are the best. I specifically mentioned public courses that were privatized. The private companies that buy them tend to let the course go to hell so they can maximize profits.

Well, the problem is that we don't have a free market in justice at all. The government goes out and arrests people for mostly nonviolent offenses and then lets private companies keep them incarcerated. It's a screwed up system. Using prisons as an example doesnt' work.

Why would a company let a course go to hell in order to make money? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. There's something missing there.

My parents are going broke paying for my father's medical bills. Sucks to have a motor neuron disease - "pay us $X per month for these pills or you will be unable to walk, feed yourself and you will piss all over yourself."

Mr. Price wrote:

How is healthcare different than the right to free speech, self-determiniation, and our other basic liberties? The founding fathers argued that these were so fundamental that they were self-evident to all. Well, isin't it self-evident that some level of healthcare is necessarry to live a worthwile life? Even if someone is a deadbeat isin't something like healthcare necessarry for them to make the most of their life should they choose? This certainly is the case for life, liberty, and the presuit of happiness.

Free speech, self-determination and other liberties do not require government intervention like healthcare. If I live on an island I still have the right to free speech and self-determination, but I don't have the right to healthcare (not only because it doesn't exist, but because it's a right I cannot exercise).

Healthcare is not as necessary as food. EVERYONE needs food, and they need it regularly. Some people can go without medical care their entire lives. So food is more important than healthcare. It is still not a right though.

People seem to think that if something is important that it is a right. That's not how rights work.

Also, why do you think that there are laws against assisted suicide and euthanasia? Morality? How about revenue?

Nursing homes will do everything they can to keep a body alive because bodies are friggin' revenue streams!

I think you and some buddies should move to an island somewhere and have your lord of the flies moment.

We agree that we need to join together to govern ourselves for many different reasons.

The free market ends with only very few being free.

We have recently realized the attempts of the Reagan conservatives and decreasing regulation with rather disastrous results.

Municipal golf courses offer the citizens of a community the chance to have recreational golf at a reasonable price with reasonable maintenance. The free market cannot compete with this type of golf course without cutting back on maintenance and other staff. The municipal entity agrees that the costs incurred are of value to the community.

Your right this deserves a lot more attention. The questions that spring to mind are 1) Preexisting conditions - If you have one, are you going to get coverage? Will it remotely affordable? 2) Rate increases - after you have coverage, how quickly can they raise the rates if you develop an expensive condition? 3) Discrimination. Do you charge 20-40 year old woman more because they have kids?, what about fat people, people with high cholesterol for genetic reasons, family history of heart disease,...If companies can target groups properly some people will see a small decrease and a small group will become uninsurable. The current system sucks in a lot of ways (it isn't remotely a free market. You as an individual have no incentive to be a smart consumer of health services) but at least we sort of know it. Changing to a new one is bound to have a lot of unexpected twists (some good some bad).

99 wrote:

You should vote for McCain then. He wants to break the connection between your job and health benefits. A radical idea that deserves more attention.

My opinion is that people are entitled to far fewer things than they think.

Life

Liberty

Pursuit of Happiness

is pretty much all I can think of.

Just about everything else is not a right, and must be earned, including healthcare. That's what insurance is for. Insurance itself is a huge racket, so there are many inefficiencies that can be eliminated with the right people in charge.

You are not entitled to a house, or a car, or food, or a roof over your head, or an education, or a big screen plasma TV, or most other things. This country will improve in a major way the second most people realize this. Unfortunately, we are an awfully long way from this sort of thinking. Turning your brain over to the government is never a way to improve your lot in life.

Actually your quoting the wrong document. The constitution lists rights. The D of I is just a propaganda paper:)But assume I have the right to life, doesn't that imply: 1) right to food and water 2) right to sheltersince you can't have much of a life without them. It isn't much of a stretch to add in health care.The government needs to step in and provide when it is hard/inefficent for the people to do if for themselves. People differ if health care is in that category. Personally I think the current system sucks. It isn't free market (my company will not pay me the money it pays for health insurance, I can't shop with pretax dollars, I will be charge much higher prices than a medium sized business, ...), it doesn't incentivize the right behavior (getting preventive care and avoiding unnecessary DRs visits), and is really expensive( US spends more than almost any other country in the world on health care). Of course this suckage might be less than other systems

Carnivore 69 wrote:

My opinion is that people are entitled to far fewer things than they think.

Life

Liberty

Pursuit of Happiness

is pretty much all I can think of.

Just about everything else is not a right, and must be earned, including healthcare. That's what insurance is for. Insurance itself is a huge racket, so there are many inefficiencies that can be eliminated with the right people in charge.

You are not entitled to a house, or a car, or food, or a roof over your head, or an education, or a big screen plasma TV, or most other things. This country will improve in a major way the second most people realize this. Unfortunately, we are an awfully long way from this sort of thinking. Turning your brain over to the government is never a way to improve your lot in life.

Americans fear Canadian style health care because of the long waiting to get common tests and procedures. When you're used to getting the care you need asap, it doesn't make sense to go to a system where people end up waiting 6 months for a colonoscopy when they have abdomal cramping and blood in their stool. And yes, I know firsthand that this happens because I speak to people everyday about their medical history when they are trying to obtain health insurance.

The problem in America is that frivolous lawsuits exist and doctors are forced to pay exorbitant rates for malpractice insurance. From 97-03, premiums increased between 37 and 241 percent for internal medicine. Doctors have to charge ridiculous prices so they can afford this insurance. If government could somehow stop these frivolous lawsuits from going to court and in many cases, winning, health care costs would be much lower and more affordable for all. I realize this does not address the problem of those who are un-insurable, but it's a start to lower costs for everyone paying for medical care with or without insurance. In fact, I think many aspects of the economy would be positively affected if frivolous lawsuits were put to a stop, but that's another discussion.

It's not a myth that Canadians have to wait that long for health care services.

I don't know what sources you have, but since my family is from Canada, I can tell you that all of my older relatives who have had to get surgeries and the like complain like no other about their health care. I can't tell you how many times I've had to listen to stories of waiting crazy times for procedures or surgeries.

Yes, it's an example of only a couple families, but it happens. I can't tell you if everyone goes through it or not for sure, but at least it's a concrete fact and not something that some liberal or conservative media outlet tells me is happening.

But your right. It's a "myth". Keep listening to whatever media is telling you that.

The US can't afford a national health care plan and continue to police the world, continue multitudes of social programs, and have the FED continue to decrease the value of the dollar. In case you haven't noticed, the US is flat broke and we are starting to see the consequences of this. Adding a health care plan is simply unreasonable.

People have no idea how inexpensive, convenient, and successful medical care was before government started to get involved. Sure, the intentions were good, but the results have been disastrous. We can't have a half capital, half communist system in place for health care. I agree, medical costs are staggering. But in a true capitalist country, these outrageous expenses would lead to cheaper hospitals, clinics, insurance companies, and prescriptions because the market would demand it. I think the real problem with health care is government intervention along with special interest groups that are forcing these costs upon us.

Another reason for me to love Australia.

You obviously don't understand capitalism...

If your neighbour's house is being attacked by criminals, you should call the state (police) to intervene.

If your neighbour's house is being attacked by fire, you should call the state (fire brigade) to intervene.

Likewise, if your neighbour is a Wall Street banker in danger of losing his job, the state should bail him out also.

However, if your neighbour's child is being attacked by cancer, it would be wrong for the state to assist him, as that would send the wrong signals to the free market.

I hope this helps clarify things.

i think health insurance should be provided by the gov't, and paid for by each of us, and that hmos should be outlawed.

employers should not be saddled with the responsibility of health care.

people may want to look at europe, japan, etc. for examples.

the main reason people won't consider the canadian system is because of the low regard americans generally have for canada and anything canadian.

canadians are simply disgusting, pathetic little cowards, who didn't fight in vietnam, yet let draft dodgers live in their pussy country.

Mtn Dew wrote:

Free speech, self-determination and other liberties do not require government intervention like healthcare. If I live on an island I still have the right to free speech and self-determination, but I don't have the right to healthcare (not only because it doesn't exist, but because it's a right I cannot exercise).

Healthcare is not as necessary as food. EVERYONE needs food, and they need it regularly. Some people can go without medical care their entire lives. So food is more important than healthcare. It is still not a right though.

People seem to think that if something is important that it is a right. That's not how rights work.

Actually, they do. All government is... is a loose agreement by the people to "secure rights." Look at the Declaration of Independence. The founding fathers declared independence because a new government was necessary to ensure that their liberties were fully protected. The Crown simply was failing to live up to their responsibilities. So we broke away.

Now, I will agree that the creation of a socialized health care system would require more involvement than is typically required to protect free speech, self-determination, and other liberties. But you haven't shown me a reason that separates their fundamental and self-evident worth.

You mention that if you were on an island you would still have the right to free speech and self-determination but not health care. But the matter of fact is those "rights" would be no longer something of inherent value. There would be no one to speak to. There would be no way to exercise self-determination. I question if it is really all that self-evident that they are rights in that situation at all.

Rights don't exist in a vacuum. Show me the atom that endows liberty. It doesn’t exist without the society and individuals *together* to lend them value.

I won't go so far to say that everything "of value" is a right but there is some very real credence to the saying that "free men aren't necessitous men." No man is an island either.

Mtn Dew wrote:

People seem to think that if something is important that it is a right. That's not how rights work.

I think you are right (ha ha). There are no such things as Zeus-decreed rights; instead this is a label a society (through legislative policy) places on things it values highly. Canadians did not always have a publicly funded medical system, but today most of them value it highly and view it as an obvious good. Many Americans, no doubt, agree.

It comes down to an ethical choice: is it better that someone not be financially crippled because s/he has lost the genetic lottery and is severely ill? Should society, through taxes, bear the burden?

I saw Sicko. I understand that Michael Moore is hyperbolic. However, I also believe that an insurance company should not force me, or anyone, to choose which of two fingers should be kept intact after their accidental amputation.

CraigMac wrote:

Rainy Day wrote:

Name one thing the government does better than the private sector?

Fight fires?

Last time I checked, we don't have competing fire-fighting companies playing the "free market."

Have you never heard of volunteer fire departments? Which begs the question how efficient are fire department that pay for full staffs if people are willing to volunteer? I never hear anyone complain more about a volunteer department than a professional department.

So I guess the government doesn't do a better job than the private sector. Please provide another example.

f*** off with the old health care debate