And this is why if I were still a Massachusetts resident I would be voting for Brown for Senate - could be a dealbreaker on HCR. Should be quite interesting to see how this turns out...
They do target us up here, usually just around the border towns, but yes, they do target us. However, it is geared more to people that are impatient and want to jump the queu, or for the very wealthy where the cost is not an issue. The wait for services is not nearly as long as the fear mongers would have you believe, and I have never, ever heard of anyone waiting on a service and dying during their wait. Other than waiting on transplants, but that is a problem on both sides of the border and not an issue with our health services. Canada has one of the best health services in the world, it still fosters R & D, some of the most important life saving procedures have been developed in Canada, it still enables Dr's and surgeons to become very wealthy, the average salary of a nurse is upwards of 75K. There is absolutley zero issues with our health services or providers. I have discussed in the past wait times, they do exist, but not to the detriment of your health. One of the favourite targets of the fear mongers is MRI's and there can be an extended wait time for an MRI, but a necessary one (immediately health affecting) does not take a lot of time. If all the fear mongers can point to is wait times and MRI's then they should do their homework. I am not sure how to measure and compare health providers, but if we chose life expectancy, Canada is well ahead of the US: List of countries by life expectancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Infant mortality rates are higher in the US than they are in Canada: Infant Mortality and Life Expectancy for Selected Countries, 2007 — Infoplease.com Beyond these two indicators of health coverage, I am not sure where else to look. Obesity rates are higher in the US, this might not be related to health coverage, but it is probably related to lower life expectancy's due to diabetes, strokes and heart attacks. Although it is an individual decision to be overweight, our medical system does provide advise with regards to obesity, I am not sure about the US: Fattest Countries in the World — Infoplease.com Here's an interesting one, especially as we like to quote how bad Canada has it, Public health expenditures are actually higher in the US than they are in Canada: Public Health Expenditure, by Country — Infoplease.com Anyway, some interesting information, I just googled some stuff and it opened my eyes even wider.
Interesting that you could switch the word Canada with the word UK and the above statements would still be true. Must just be coincidence that both happen to have 'free' health care systems.
Good stuff! Thanks for posting!! Gotta like the bumper stickers! Now, for me... Back to the forum where we can discuss real fun - like, you know, boobies by the pool and stuff like that!!
Free Health Care? Hmmmm Doctors working for free? Now that would be free health care. Otherwise it's just paying for health care some other way. What's the tax rate in the UK? No wait.. let's not send US tax dollars overseas as aid anymore and I'm sure we can cover even the most expensive "free" health care package. There is no such thing as free health care and the 50% of the folks in the US that currently pay taxes aren't sure that paying the bill on this plan makes much sense. Nowhere in the plan do they talk about how they get costs under control which was in the beginning one of the main objectives. Sure they have concessions from folks to lower their existing costs now but who says they won't raise them next year to where they were? Government funded health insurance plans only put private health care plans out of business. I mean people are in business to make a profit. so if you go up against a business that says it's not going to make a profit their rate are automatically cheaper. People gravitate to the cheaper price and the for profit business goes under. Not rocket science, simple economics. So the introduction of a "public option" directly leads to a single payer government run solution. Unless of course the government looks as it as another way to gather money for some other purpose. Nah.. they would never do that. And no I am not for the status quo. Just for addressing the real problems as opposed to coming up with another way that the entire population is under the control of the government. If this is such a wonderful idea then why do they have to buy votes in congress? Why are the differences between the house and senate bill being negotiated in private and not public. Why do most Americans, even those that won’t have to pay for it against the solution? Why do we have to believe the congressional leadership that once it is passed we will love it so trust them, bend over, and take it? I like to think of myself as a reasonable person.. at times at least… so convince me. Show me what you are doing and how it solves the stated problems when you began the session. Don’t write a 12,000 document made up of bribes to fellow Democrats to but their votes and details that you’ll share after it passes, funded by taxes today and benefits, like actually providing the medical coverage to people, that don’t start happening for another 3 years and tell me trust me you’ll like it. If this is soooo good why is it all happening behind closed doors? Jamie
Very, very well put Jamie. The whole purpose of the government run health plan is to make people LESS accountable. So you smoke, no sweat the government will pay for your cancer treatments. Same thing with all manner of ailments. Until Americans are willing to wean themselves from the government and become accountable for their own actions it will be business as usual in Washington.
Ed, I think you and Jamie are both missing the context of Steve's and my reply. Yes, Health Care costs will go up for you in your situation, no doubt about it. Yes, certain sectors of the population will recieve a "free" ride at your expense. But your earlier reply focused on "free" health care in Canada (and as Steve said, subsitute Canada for England and the same thing applies). The focus of your earlier response was that "free" health care in Canada could potentially lead to the problems that Canada (and England) experience with their Health care systems. Mine and Steve's response was that the fear mongering that exists in the US, on billboards, advertisements, Republican sniping, etc., focuses on the downfalls of "Socialist" systems. The response from myself was that the sniping and fear mongering is nothing more than sniping and fear mongering. If the discussion revolves around your taxes going up, then fine, everyone acknowledges that, no plea entered, mea culpa. But to drag other democracy's into the debate and compare tham unfavourably that problems exist due to "free" health care is no more than drinking the kool aid that the Republican party is serving up. Health care will cost money, your taxes will increase, free loaders will free load, but you are operating under a completely different scenario than most free democratic countries in the world operate under. Hell, you are still operating under the Imperial system developed and since abolished by the English. 1 inch = the length of King Henry's thumb, 1 foot = the length of his foot, 1 yard = the length of his step, etc.,, not to start a separate debate but when you want to bring other countries into the mixture you open up a whole can of worms. "Free" health care exists in Canada, in England, in Sweden, in Cuba and if you review those links I provided every country listed above have better life expectancies and lower infant mortality rates (and less obesity factors and current lower health care costs per GDP) than the US does. If you want to argue why Health Care doesn't work for you then fine, argue on that basis, but as soon as you bring in country to country comparison's then be prepared to lose that argument on all available data. Just my thoughts for what they are worth.
Bob, I understand what you are saying about the respective health care systems of Canada and the US. The whole health care debate here starts with a government Desire to take over the health care system. The system does work and actually did work very well until the US government got involved with a program called Medicare which was supposed to provide inexpensive health care for the senior citizens part of our population. The net effect has been an overload of the system which then results in a proverbial supply and demand of the need for medical services and the provision of those services. No system that has been developed that is a perfect system. I really was not taking a shot at the Canadian system which does work for the most part. I think that the reason your system works as well as it does is that you don't have a government which is constantly trying to buy votes from one group or another as we currently seem to have here. Most of us here in the States are pretty much fed up with BOTH political parties and their constant sniping and misstatements. Here in the States the perception of something being free results in it being totally abused. That is one of our national problems. My concern is that Congress is so intent on taking over the health insurance that they are ignoring the reality that most, if not all, people are able to find health care regardless of their financial status or lack of insurance. The way our current government is going about this whole process is geared not to the provision of health care but the hijacking of another part of American society for the sake of more levels of government.
