The Moderate Voice - Latest Comments in Canadian ‘Health-Care Socialism’: When Will Americans Learn?

Re: Canadian ‘Health-Care Socialism’: When Will Americans Learn?

spamster — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 07:14:03 -0000

You can believe anything you want. I have talked to many Canadians and not one has made any positive comments about their health care system. Many Canadians travel to the US for health care and pay additional fees to get care or surgery.

My experience is that government creates problems, wastes money and generally impedes any process they are involved in. To think that by adding yet another layer of costly bureaucracy will improve service or enhance efficiency is tragically erroneous.

Let&#39s leave to government those legitimate services proscribed by the constitution. We can solve the health care dilemma without government intervention.

Re: Canadian ‘Health-Care Socialism’: When Will Americans Learn?

spamster — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 02:14:03 -0000

My experience is that government creates problems, wastes money and generally impedes any process they are involved in. To think that by adding yet another layer of costly bureaucracy will improve service or enhance efficiency is tragically erroneous.

Let's leave to government those legitimate services proscribed by the constitution. We can solve the health care dilemma without government intervention.

Re: Canadian ‘Health-Care Socialism’: When Will Americans Learn?

McMurtry — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:56:55 -0000

If Canada&#39s health care system is so terrible, then how do you explain the relative life expectancies of the two countries? Canada: 80.3; United States: 78.

Maybe the correlation between health and the health care system is not as great as other factors. What are some of the these factors? I could only speculate. Overpopulation, crime and materialism may undermine peoples&#39 health.

Remember: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Re: Canadian ‘Health-Care Socialism’: When Will Americans Learn?

McMurtry — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 07:56:55 -0000

If Canada's health care system is so terrible, then how do you explain the relative life expectancies of the two countries? Canada: 80.3; United States: 78.

Maybe the correlation between health and the health care system is not as great as other factors. What are some of the these factors? I could only speculate. Overpopulation, crime and materialism may undermine peoples' health.

Remember: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Re: Canadian ‘Health-Care Socialism’: When Will Americans Learn?

HilarySmith — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 07:40:53 -0000

Reform is code for "dismantle".

Re: Canadian ‘Health-Care Socialism’: When Will Americans Learn?

HilarySmith — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 02:40:53 -0000

Reform is code for "dismantle".

Re: Canadian ‘Health-Care Socialism’: When Will Americans Learn?

mikalra — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:10:52 -0000

DSL wrote: "not only is the "public option" dishonestly described by its proponents, but these same people would be venomous and vicious in a future with public care for everyone, if disenchanted people argue for a "private option" alternative."

That&#39s because it would by necessity *be* an alternative to public care for everyone. A single-payer system can&#39t work if it isn&#39t single payer: its efficiencies are built on the fact that very nearly every human being who walks into a doctor&#39s office or hospital has coverage, and has it from one provider with one set of coverage standards and one paperwork system that gives equal access to all without discrimination. Its efficiencies evaporate when alternative systems are introduced. By contrast, a system that is based in its architecture on multiple competing insurance plans is not fundamentally undermined in its very structure by introducing in one additional competitor, even if that competitor is a government-sponsored entity, especially when there are limited criteria for who can sign on to that option -- any more than Medicare, the VA, SCHIP, etc fundamentally undermine private insurance now, or Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac fundamentally undermine other mortgage options in a private marketplace.

Re: Canadian ‘Health-Care Socialism’: When Will Americans Learn?

OliveChirper — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 11:10:52 -0000

That's because it would by necessity *be* an alternative to public care for everyone. A single-payer system can't work if it isn't single payer: its efficiencies are built on the fact that very nearly every human being who walks into a doctor's office or hospital has coverage, and has it from one provider with one set of coverage standards and one paperwork system that gives equal access to all without discrimination. Its efficiencies evaporate when alternative systems are introduced. By contrast, a system that is based in its architecture on multiple competing insurance plans is not fundamentally undermined in its very structure by introducing in one additional competitor, even if that competitor is a government-sponsored entity, especially when there are limited criteria for who can sign on to that option -- any more than Medicare, the VA, SCHIP, etc fundamentally undermine private insurance now, or Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac fundamentally undermine other mortgage options in a private marketplace.

Re: Canadian ‘Health-Care Socialism’: When Will Americans Learn?

DLS — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:37:21 -0000

... and that&#39s in a future in which I believe (inconceivable as it is economically, for one thing) many will want much greater Social Security retirement benefits (and expenditures). I believe it will happen later.

Re: Canadian ‘Health-Care Socialism’: When Will Americans Learn?

DLS — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:35:40 -0000

"are we going to have a sustainable health care plan or not"

Currently we don&#39t with Medicare, nor is Social Security sustainable.

So many people don&#39t realize what&#39s coming with the programs as they exist _now_.

Sibelius and the other new people gave cameras some dumb-eyed, shell-shocked looks when saying this once again, and it promptly died as a news item.

I wonder if entitlement and the sense of it simply has so many in the public robotically stupid and insensibly demanding and expecting things never to go awry. Have they any idea of the fraction of GDP the federal government (and these two monster programs, in their current state _alone_) will later consume?

It&#39s a European-level fraction of the GDP but not necessarily a European extent of social spending and dependence on government.

Of course, by that time, European programs and society will face far worse economic and related problems.

Re: Canadian ‘Health-Care Socialism’: When Will Americans Learn?

DLS — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:31:17 -0000

Dr. J: I wasn&#39t thinking here of finances (no matter what is to be done, it has to be paid for, which as I&#39ve said numerous times is a major reason why the current legislation, which also is horribly over-complex, should be killed and we should start over after a few months). Reform of Medicare finance is in order (as with Social Security, which also will fail as it currently exists), hopefully before we&#39re forced to once the trust fund bonds need to start being redeemed in Social Security&#39s case (when most will "discover" what some of us have spent years already trying to educate the ineducable about). But by "reform Medicare" I meant not necessarily (only) the finances, but details about the program, including a review of procedures with regard to streamlining them (before we add all kinds of new benefits to a much larger population than just the elderly -- consider pre-natal care, pregnancy care, contraception, abortion [more political than medical], to name a few new things along with child-related things, to consider more). What about the current under-payment to providers (which Obama deliberately and openly wants to make _worse_)? What about fraud? Etc. These need addressing as much as funding for the existing as well as future larger public care. (The fradulent "premiums" only pay about a quarter for care; 3/4 comes from general revenue as "mandatory" spending. Making everything "mandatory" by itself solves nothing for the future.)

Re: Canadian ‘Health-Care Socialism’: When Will Americans Learn?

Dr_J — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:15:09 -0000

DLS: "Reform of Medicare, which has long been sought, is a separate issue."

I don&#39t see how you can separate the notion of expanding medicare from reforming its finances. It seems to come down to a basic question: are we going to have a sustainable health care plan or not?

Re: Canadian ‘Health-Care Socialism’: When Will Americans Learn?

DLS — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:50:48 -0000

"What they&#39re talking about is adding in a restricted-access "public option" to compete with private insurers for an as-yet-undefined subset of the insurance market, possibly run by state or regional cooperatives to avoid the constant yammering about a &#39government takeover of health care.&#39"

They&#39re afraid of a backlash from a public already worried about excess government intrusion (there is no yammering and mischaracterizing common sound-minded public concern is self-defeating and -debasing) and fiscal mischief. The "public option" is an incrementalist maneuver, a partial government takeover of health care, the same kind of maneuver as what was done earlier with S-CHIP. "Competition" will of course not be fair, nor to "keep the private sector honest" [sic] or any other lies. It&#39s simply a way to siphon people into public care out of private care (and encourage employers to drop employer benefits, in addition to the motive resulting from taxation of those benefits).

As I&#39ve said correctly before, not only is the "public option" dishonestly described by its proponents, but these same people would be venomous and vicious in a future with public care for everyone, if disenchanted people argue for a "private option" alternative. It&#39s years, decades away but fully predictable.

Re: Canadian ‘Health-Care Socialism’: When Will Americans Learn?

DLS — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:45:14 -0000

I&#39ve not only lived and traveled all over the USA, and visited Mexico, but have traveled extensively in Canada. The "Canadian model" is probably preferable to the "British model" (National Health Service), but no foreign model is necessarily what we should follow; we merely should look at the details and the advantages and disadvantages of these relative to what we have now ...

... which includes Medicare, a partial model we&#39ve put in place for ages already, and which makes the most sense to take and expand. (Reform of Medicare, which has long been sought, is a separate iseue.)

"If we introduce a system of universal coverage, we must close our borders. If we don&#39t close our borders, there&#39s no way to control the costs of a system of universal coverage."

Do you see the Dems closing the borders, and do you see the Dems worried about the costs, not now when they claim costs will be lowered, but once they have expanded public care to everyone? And what of the Dems and the group of people beyond our southern border that comes here, politically? They already face abuse whenever they even mention one word about reversing their pro-immigration and pro-amnesty (and benefits-for-aliens) stance.

Do you see the Dems closing the borders, ever?

Re: Canadian ‘Health-Care Socialism’: When Will Americans Learn?

mikalra — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:39:19 -0000

While I&#39m pleased to see some Americans who&#39ve had experience with single-payer systems chiming in to note how well they work in the real world (certainly, as compared to the standout madness in the United States), it&#39s important to note that there are *no* plans to implement a single-payer system in the USA: the President ruled it out early on, and it&#39s firmly off the agenda in Congress. What they&#39re talking about is adding in a restricted-access "public option" to compete with private insurers for an as-yet-undefined subset of the insurance market, possibly run by state or regional cooperatives to avoid the constant yammering about a &#39government takeover of health care.&#39

Re: Canadian ‘Health-Care Socialism’: When Will Americans Learn?

Rambie — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:34:29 -0000

The unofficial slogan for both the Democrats and Republicans is often times, "We never let facts get in the way of a good talking point"

Re: Canadian ‘Health-Care Socialism’: When Will Americans Learn?

shannonlee — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:02:27 -0000

Germany has a private health care industry too. It costs twice as much as the normal plan, but you get instant access to your private doctor for any issue, as opposed to having to wait a couple of weeks for something non-urgent...like a yearly physical.

It is good to have both public and private plans. The public plan forces the private plan to have much higher service standards.

I was on the public plan and had the same care there that I have here in the US with my PPO.

Re: Canadian ‘Health-Care Socialism’: When Will Americans Learn?

casualobserver — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:45:29 -0000

And let&#39s not forget about this phenomenon respecting the much-loved Canadian public healthcare system...

October 6, 2008 12:35 PM
A Ontario Health Coalition study exposes the explosive growth of private, for-profit diagnostic, surgical and “boutique” physician clinics across Canada.
http://cupe.ca/health-care/private-clinic-study

Dave Schuler, for the last three years, you drop in every couple of months, drop a ton of facts about healthcare, with only a trickle of personal opinion, and then disappear. IMO, you possess about 3 times the knowledge of anyone else here........hope you can find more time in your schedule as this matter heats up.

Re: Canadian ‘Health-Care Socialism’: When Will Americans Learn?

DLS — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:37:21 -0000

... and that's in a future in which I believe (inconceivable as it is economically, for one thing) many will want much greater Social Security retirement benefits (and expenditures). I believe it will happen later.

Re: Canadian ‘Health-Care Socialism’: When Will Americans Learn?

DLS — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:35:40 -0000

"are we going to have a sustainable health care plan or not"

Currently we don't with Medicare, nor is Social Security sustainable.

So many people don't realize what's coming with the programs as they exist _now_.

Sibelius and the other new people gave cameras some dumb-eyed, shell-shocked looks when saying this once again, and it promptly died as a news item.

I wonder if entitlement and the sense of it simply has so many in the public robotically stupid and insensibly demanding and expecting things never to go awry. Have they any idea of the fraction of GDP the federal government (and these two monster programs, in their current state _alone_) will later consume?

It's a European-level fraction of the GDP but not necessarily a European extent of social spending and dependence on government.

Of course, by that time, European programs and society will face far worse economic and related problems.

Re: Canadian ‘Health-Care Socialism’: When Will Americans Learn?

DLS — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:31:17 -0000

Dr. J: I wasn't thinking here of finances (no matter what is to be done, it has to be paid for, which as I've said numerous times is a major reason why the current legislation, which also is horribly over-complex, should be killed and we should start over after a few months). Reform of Medicare finance is in order (as with Social Security, which also will fail as it currently exists), hopefully before we're forced to once the trust fund bonds need to start being redeemed in Social Security's case (when most will "discover" what some of us have spent years already trying to educate the ineducable about). But by "reform Medicare" I meant not necessarily (only) the finances, but details about the program, including a review of procedures with regard to streamlining them (before we add all kinds of new benefits to a much larger population than just the elderly -- consider pre-natal care, pregnancy care, contraception, abortion [more political than medical], to name a few new things along with child-related things, to consider more). What about the current under-payment to providers (which Obama deliberately and openly wants to make _worse_)? What about fraud? Etc. These need addressing as much as funding for the existing as well as future larger public care. (The fradulent "premiums" only pay about a quarter for care; 3/4 comes from general revenue as "mandatory" spending. Making everything "mandatory" by itself solves nothing for the future.)

Re: Canadian ‘Health-Care Socialism’: When Will Americans Learn?

Dr_J — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:42:33 -0000

The Canadian system isn&#39t a single federal system, it&#39s a collection of different provincial and territorial programs. A closer analog for us would be state-run systems running some common federal guidelines. Nor is it quite universal, there are residential eligibility requirements that vary by province, so they wouldn&#39t be covering illegal immigrants either.

Wikipedia has a pretty good description. It suggests the Canadians are spending less at least in party by not meeting demand very well. Queues get too long, there are shortages of doctors and equipment, and pressure to spend more or cut back care rises.

Re: Canadian ‘Health-Care Socialism’: When Will Americans Learn?

Gootmud — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:15:09 -0000

DLS: "Reform of Medicare, which has long been sought, is a separate issue."

I don't see how you can separate the notion of expanding medicare from reforming its finances. It seems to come down to a basic question: are we going to have a sustainable health care plan or not?

Re: Canadian ‘Health-Care Socialism’: When Will Americans Learn?

DLS — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:50:48 -0000

"What they're talking about is adding in a restricted-access "public option" to compete with private insurers for an as-yet-undefined subset of the insurance market, possibly run by state or regional cooperatives to avoid the constant yammering about a 'government takeover of health care.'"

They're afraid of a backlash from a public already worried about excess government intrusion (there is no yammering and mischaracterizing common sound-minded public concern is self-defeating and -debasing) and fiscal mischief. The "public option" is an incrementalist maneuver, a partial government takeover of health care, the same kind of maneuver as what was done earlier with S-CHIP. "Competition" will of course not be fair, nor to "keep the private sector honest" [sic] or any other lies. It's simply a way to siphon people into public care out of private care (and encourage employers to drop employer benefits, in addition to the motive resulting from taxation of those benefits).

As I've said correctly before, not only is the "public option" dishonestly described by its proponents, but these same people would be venomous and vicious in a future with public care for everyone, if disenchanted people argue for a "private option" alternative. It's years, decades away but fully predictable.

Re: Canadian ‘Health-Care Socialism’: When Will Americans Learn?

DLS — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:45:14 -0000

I've not only lived and traveled all over the USA, and visited Mexico, but have traveled extensively in Canada. The "Canadian model" is probably preferable to the "British model" (National Health Service), but no foreign model is necessarily what we should follow; we merely should look at the details and the advantages and disadvantages of these relative to what we have now ...

... which includes Medicare, a partial model we've put in place for ages already, and which makes the most sense to take and expand. (Reform of Medicare, which has long been sought, is a separate iseue.)

"If we introduce a system of universal coverage, we must close our borders. If we don't close our borders, there's no way to control the costs of a system of universal coverage."

Do you see the Dems closing the borders, and do you see the Dems worried about the costs, not now when they claim costs will be lowered, but once they have expanded public care to everyone? And what of the Dems and the group of people beyond our southern border that comes here, politically? They already face abuse whenever they even mention one word about reversing their pro-immigration and pro-amnesty (and benefits-for-aliens) stance.

Do you see the Dems closing the borders, ever?