# Canadian, British and American healthcare



## billc (Dec 31, 2010)

I found this interesting discussio with Glen Beck, John Stossle and Penn Jillette on the problems with both American and Canadian healthcare.  Jillette brings up the point that if people could by a catastrophic insurance plan, for serious medical problems, it would help our system deal with costs.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Dec 31, 2010)

One I posted eleswhere, but then i'm done on this topic. 

My nine year old nephew has had and continues to have more surgeries then any child should ever go through, there would be no possible way my sister, and our extended family could have ever paid for all of them. 

A couple of years ago my sister was visiting my Aunt and Uncle in Scotland, my Nephew, the same boy, had to be rushed to their emergency department because of a medical issue. Not even a citizen of the UK, the Drs treated him, and sent him on his way, no cost, no mess, no fuss, no money, no insurance. No problem. 

A few years ago both my Mom and Dad had serious health issues, my Mom had cancer, my Dad had heart problems. All happened in the same week. Quicker then you can snap your fingers, my Dad was in the best hospital, with the best Dr having a triple bypass, and my Mom was in the best hospital with the best cancer specialist have surgery and subsequent radiation and drug treatments. Minimal waiting, no ********, get in and get it done.

Our system isnt perfect by any means, but when I talk to my American friends, (half of my friends on FB are American), I hear serious horror stories when it comes to medical treatment. 

What Obama is doing, with you folks being forced to buy health insurance from private companies is wrong, there are much better ways to run national health care.

BTW, did I ever tell you that Im a Conservative party member? Card carrying? Active in the community? And there is zero chance I or my party will ever get rid of Canadas socialized medical care.


----------



## billc (Dec 31, 2010)

Ken, I agree with you, there are ways to fix the American healthcare system so that all of our citizens can get the medicine they need.  Obama care is not it.  If we let Obama care kick in, it will be impossible to get rid of.  Mark Steyn always points out that in Britain, their  system was set up from scratch.   He points out Our new system is already full of waivers, for McDonald's and 3M and other companies, plus the Pharmaseutical companies have their hand in it and the AARp is in there, it is starting out full of corruption and it will only get worse.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 31, 2010)

Constitutionally, the US Federal government has no business getting involved in health care.  Amend the USC, and create a real program for ALL Americans that is affordable, efficient and effective, and I'm fine with it.  Personally, I like the idea of being able to get my ills taken care of with the ease and headacheless Ken described. But it's currently not legal the way the current system is done.


----------



## CanuckMA (Dec 31, 2010)

You might be able to do it without an amendment to the Constitution. Even the Canadian system is not truly centralized. It is administared by the provinces. The federal govt sets minimal guidelines and ensures compliance by transfering of funds for healthcare, but most is paid out of the Provincial income taxes. 

The feds involvement is not all that different from Washington telling the States that they can set the drinking age to whatever they want, but they won't get highway money if it's less that 21.

What you need is to get rid of the insurance companies' involvement.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 31, 2010)

What the US Constitution allows is set forth in Article 1, Section 8.
Health care, retirement care, medical care, etc aren't listed.
The argument for the US Gov doing it is through a combination of 'implied power' and the definition of "general welfare", a vague and problematic clause, which is why the CSA removed it from their almost verbatim copy of the USC.

Leaving the Constitutional argument aside here though.

Assuming you can figure out a legal means of financing it, a composite system of providing all American's with basic care and emergency care along with allowing for 'luxury care' options seems to work best.  Arni and I banged out a solid idea for this in previous ah, arguments, on the topic.  Costs can be controlled by scale of economics, medical staff can be trained and kept through a system similar to existing military compensation. (ie the serve 2 years in the Army, get 2 years college idea).  Basic care and needs would be provided through a sliding scale based on income (ie poor person pays little to none, Bill Gates pays full price) that can be tied to IRS/SSI records (system currently used for other programs).  
So things like an annual eye exam and glasses would be covered. You'd pay for contacts and LASIK yourself.  Dental care, exams and fillings would be included, but gold and ruby crowns not.   Tattoo removal and boob jobs wouldn't be covered, but that gall bladder operation would be. And so on.

Funding this, is 1 of 2 of the major problems. 1st is the Constitutionality. 2nd also falls under #1, but if 1 can be solved, 2 would fall into place.  Funding would I expect come from a combination of payroll deductions, sales tax, and taxes on products like tobacco, combined with the usual maze of user fees. This however would seem to run afoul of USC Article 1-Section 9 absent resolving the initial Constitutional challenge.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 1, 2011)

Boob jobs are included in the NHS if they are reductions, some women have a lot of pain with large breasts so really need to have them reduced.

And I'm not expecting rude remarks here guys, so keep thoughts to yourself  

Our dental stuff isn't free though it's at reduced costs. What's a ruby crown? Heard of gold but not ruby.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 1, 2011)

> What's a ruby crown?


Me being a smart ***.   Reference to the folks that go designer on their teeth, gold grills, glue on jems, etc.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 1, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Me being a smart ***.  Reference to the folks that go designer on their teeth, gold grills, glue on jems, etc.


 
Ah! No reflection on the NHS but my crown still stuck in with superglue, no point in having it fixed until I give up martial arts lol! I pay for my own contact lenses too, I get through a lot because they get squeezed out when grappling, bit like my tooth really. I might have a gold crown put in when I'm very old, it might help attract the young men I intend to chase.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 1, 2011)

My issue with Govt Heathcare system is simply a matter of rights vs responsibility.

What responsibilitys do you have when you earn the "right" to health care?  

I pay for my health insurance approx $5000 a year.  So in order to keep my costs down My family and I have the responsibility to try and be as healty as we can. So we Eat well, stay active, dont smoke, dont do drugs, we drink very little. All this helps keep us healthy and out of the Docs office which helps keep my insurance cost down.  I have a stake it the process or as Biden likes to say I have "skin in the game"  

Now take these so call "poor" people that thru my taxes Im responsible for paying for their health care.  What Responsibility do they have?

 All these "poor" people that cant afford health care so they recieve Medicade from the Govt.  So you would think since they get free health care they would try to keep my costs down to be less of a burden on me right?  Since I dont make alot I'd much rather use my money to pay for my kids schooling or food or even a nice night out with my wife. 
If we are just going to be giving programs away then person that gets them needs to have a responsibility.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jan 1, 2011)

Most of those poor people don't have access to preventative health care. They make use of emergency rooms at a much greater cost.

It's funny, I have 'free' healthcare, but I still take care of myslef.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 1, 2011)

CanuckMA said:


> Most of those poor people don't have access to preventative health care. They make use of emergency rooms at a much greater cost.
> 
> It's funny, I have 'free' healthcare, but I still take care of myslef.


 
Actually most of the "poor" people have medicade so they already have govt health care thats the point.  

Im glad you take care of yourself keep it up.  Help keep your health care cost down.  Id just like to see the same here before Id even consider being ok with allowing my taxes to go even higher.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jan 1, 2011)

Ahhhhh.I dont want to be on this thread!!!

Working with the logic you suggest, (and I do understand the path youve chosen), then the USA should have some of the healthiest people in the world, certainly in comparison to countries with socialized medicine.

The USA has the highest obesity rate in the world, double that of Canada, and 30% greater then the UK. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-obesity

The USA has a higher rate of smoking then some countries with socialized medicine, but not others.

There are of course stats all over the board on various health related subjects that we can bat back and forth, but I think the main argument is, that there is no reasonable correlation to defend one side or the other.

People are going to eat, drink, sloth and whatever other activities they wish, because until were in our thirties, we are all of the understanding that we are going to live forever. 

Again, to beat a dead horse. Socialized medicine is not the enemy, the half-assed way your government created the monstrosity it has become, and is in turn shoving it down your gullet, is.


----------



## billc (Jan 1, 2011)

Ken, be honest, Canadian healthcare isn't that great either. If it was, all of your rich and famous and politicians wouldn't be coming down here to get advanced medicine.

http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/a-health-care-horror-story-from-canada/

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-07-06/...health-care-system-mayo-clinic?_s=PM:POLITICS

http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html

Mark Steyn wrote this column about why obamacare will be worse than canadian healthcare:http://lonelyconservative.com/2009/...re-will-be-even-worse-than-europe-and-canada/


----------



## billc (Jan 1, 2011)

I thought that this Mark Steyn youtube piece deserved a little attention. This is from a time when he filled in for Rush and gave a little talk about health care.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 1, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> Ahhhhh.I dont want to be on this thread!!!
> 
> Working with the logic you suggest, (and I do understand the path youve chosen), then the USA should have some of the healthiest people in the world, certainly in comparison to countries with socialized medicine.
> 
> ...


If you dont want to be here then dont come its pretty simple actually just dont click the link to this thread.

 Your making my point for me.  Nobody here takes responsibility for their actions there all fat unhealthy, smokers ect so why on earth do I want to help pay for them?  If im responsible enough to take care of myself and my family then I should be left alone.  if your not then suffer the results.  The left always talks about evolution well part of that is survival of the fittest.  If your not smart enought to put down the Candy bar and marlboros then why should I have to pay for your diabetes meds and your lung cancer treatments.  

Its like the story of the 3 little pigs.  The two lazy pigs dont have to do anything but party and have fun with the 3 pig busts his butt to provide form himself and when the crap hits the fan the first 2 go mooch of the 3rd.

I have no problems with socilaized medicine if thats what your country wants and your happy with it then keep it.  In my country  first its UnConstitutional and 2nd I get tired of all you guys with govt health care systems tell us how great it is and how ours is broken.  If yours is so great then how come anyone with money from Canada runs down here to Johns Hopkins, UCLA medical center, or any other of the top hospitals in the US.


----------



## billc (Jan 1, 2011)

And more NHS horror stories:http://angusdeionallandsundry.weebly.com/nhs-the-other-side.html

This is one of my favorite stories about bad medical treatment.  This is the broken ankle story I spoke about in another post.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ilders-broken-ankle-unless-quits-smoking.html


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 1, 2011)

There is no such thing as "Free" health care. Someone, somehow, pays for it.

Pulling from Wikipedia here. Bold notations are mine.



> *Health care in Canada* is delivered through a publicly-funded health care system, which is mostly free at the point of use and has most services provided by private entities.[1] It is guided by the provisions of the Canada Health Act.[2]  The government assures the quality of care through federal standards. The government does not participate in day-to-day care or collect any information about an individual's health, which remains confidential between a person and his or her physician. Canada's provincially-based Medicare systems are cost-effective partly because of their administrative simplicity.[citation needed]  In each province each doctor handles the insurance claim against the provincial insurer. There is no need for the person who accesses health care to be involved in billing and reclaim. Private insurance is only a minimal part of the overall health care system. Competitive practices such as advertising are kept to a minimum, thus maximizing the percentage of revenues that go directly towards care.[citation needed]  In general, *costs are paid through funding from income taxes, although three provinces also impose a fixed monthly premium which may be waived or reduced for those on low incomes. *There are no deductibles on basic health care and co-pays are extremely low or non-existent (supplemental insurance such as Fair Pharmacare may have deductibles, depending on income).


 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada

Canadian's like the system. Walk in, show your card, get treatment and leave. It's simple. It's effective, it works, but it's not perfect. Some treatments have long waits, and some non-covered ones are about as expensive as the US. I know at least 2 Canadians who went abroad for dental work rather than have it done at home due to the costs.  The article listed goes into great detail on the hows, whats, %'s and so on that make up the meat of the CHS.  I recommend reading it before criticizing the Canadian system.

Also read this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Health_Act


> *The Canada Health Act *(CHA) [2] is a piece of Canadian federal legislation, adopted in 1984, which specifies the conditions and criteria with which the provincial and territorial health insurance programs must conform in order to receive federal transfer payments under the Canada Health Transfer [3]. These criteria require universal coverage (for all "insured persons") for all "medically necessary" hospital and physician services, without co-payments.
> 
> The CHA deals only with how the system is financed. Because of the constitutional division of powers among levels of government, adherence to CHA conditions is voluntary. However, the fiscal levers have helped to ensure a relatively consistent level of coverage across the country. Although there are disputes as to the details, the CHA remains highly popular.



The current Canadian system is relatively new, at 27 years old. Canadian's had the Constitutional arguments about if their federal government could/should get involved almost 3 decades ago. The consensus basically was, yes it could with limits. However, their system basically runs off revenues and GIVES every Canadian insurance.

The US version by comparison fines US Citizens if they don't BUY insurance from a private party or otherwise obtain it (ie employers, of government offerings if available and qualified for).  

The Canadian system is however not a true National plan, as due to their own Constitutional limitations, the plan is run at the Provincial level, requiring Federal guidelines be met for reimbursement. (simplified for brevity). 
The passed US system by comparison violates various clauses of the US Constitution as well as numerous State Constitutions, the later arguments not fully brought up in court.


The Canadian system works, because care and attention was paid to create a voluntary system that was left to the Provinces to implement. Some variation between each exists, however most Canadians as previous stated support the system due in part to it's simplicity on their part in using.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 1, 2011)

The British system has some key differences, however on the surface works similar to the Canadian one.

Again, pulled from Wiki, Bolding mine.


> *The National Health Service or NHS is the publicly-funded healthcare system in England.* The term is also commonly used to refer to any other or all the national health services  in the UK but there has never been only one system since they were *created in 1948*; only the English system is named without national qualification.
> 
> The NHS provides healthcare to anyone normally resident in England or any other part of the United Kingdom with *most services free at the point of use for the patient though there are charges associated with eye tests, dental care, prescriptions, and many aspects of personal care.* The NHS has agreed a formal constitution which sets out the legal rights and responsibilities of the NHS, its staff, and users of the service and makes additional non-binding pledges regarding many key aspects of its operations.[1]
> 
> ...


 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Health_Service_(England)



> A recent comparative analysis of health care systems put the NHS second in a study of seven rich countries.[96] [97]  The report put the UK health systems above those of Germany, Canada and  the US; the NHS was deemed the most efficient among those health  systems studied.



The NHS doesn't have ID check requirements, allowing non-UK residents to sneak in and get free treatment. There are some dental and optical plans available, and prescription coverage is included with nominal copays in most cases.  Overall support by the British public rates over 80%.

Funding


> The money to pay for the NHS comes directly from taxation. The 2008/9  budget roughly equates to a contribution of £1,980 for every man, woman  and child in the UK.[16]



For comparison to the US system, see the previous post on the US/Canada comparison.


----------



## billc (Jan 1, 2011)

An article from another post on NHS being short on Maternity beds.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/278301

From the Daily Mail original article about 4,000 women giving birth outside of hospitals because of a lack of beds.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ers-birth-lifts-offices-hospital-toilets.html

*Pregnant Linda Corbett, 33, was turned away from one hospital and gave birth in a car as she dashed to another. *
*Her husband Chris, 39, delivered their daughter Iona in the back seat while her father raced to the hospital at 70mph. *
*'I was really scared but I had to hold*

*Ann Coulter has a series on Health care at her site, here is one of them:*http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=327 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-offices-hospital-toilets.html#ixzz19qoTCTdF


----------



## billc (Jan 2, 2011)

Here is another good set of columns on the NHS and the Canadian health service.  One is by Mark Steyn and there are two others here that address healthcare in these other countries.

http://socglory.blogspot.com/2009/08/careless-nhs-kills-again-by-mark-steyn.html 

From the Deroy Murdock article:


Breast cancer kills 25 percent of its American victims. In Great Britain, the Vatican of single-payer medicine, breast cancer extinguishes 46 percent of its targets.

Prostate cancer is fatal to 19 percent of its American patients. The National Center for Policy Analysis reports that it kills 57 percent of Britons it strikes.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development data show that the U.K.&#8217;s 2005 heart-attack fatality rate was 19.5 percent higher than America&#8217;s. This may correspond to angioplasties, which were only 21.3 percent as common there as here.
The U.K.&#8217;s National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) just announced plans to cut its 60,000 annual steroid injections for severe back-pain sufferers to just 3,000. This should save the government 33 million pounds (about $55 million). &#8220;The consequences of the NICE decision will be devastating for thousands of patients,&#8221; Dr. Jonathan Richardson of Bradford Hospitals Trust told London&#8217;s Daily Telegraph. &#8220;It will mean more people on opiates, which are addictive, and kill 2,000 a year. It will mean more people having spinal surgery, which is incredibly risky, and has a 50 per cent failure rate.&#8221;

Are these stats accurate?  If the last one is, that is called rationing, and if it is happening in the NHS over there, how can it not happen over here?


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 2, 2011)

Ok so now it's turned into a Brit bashing thread? shall we swap 'horror' stories that aren't really horror stories? The funny thing is that if you turn up at a hospital that doesn't have a maternity ward you will get sent to another hospital that does, it's your reponsibility to turn up at the correct hospital, you usually have a few months to get that right.

I don't know why you are bashing the NHS as whatever system you have it won't be the same, no system is ever going to be perfect, you are always going to get mistakes and human error because, well, people are human and make mistakes. 

You are quoting firugres about breast cancer for example without knowing anything about it, the same for heart patients. Unless you are a qualified doctor I think you should probably not bother bombarding us with figures unless you can actually can explain them. Expecially when figures are over five years old, even the articles you post up are years old and quoted by a consrvative newspaper when we had a Labour government, I bet you'll find the figures differently reported now when we have a different government.

We are due to have a shortage of beds in maternity in my area in a few months but the NHS is working on it, well when you get a few thousand soldiers away on deployment what do you get when they come back? Not for the obvious reasons either, watching mates being killed, being shot at etc hits a switch with many who feel they'd like something to go on after them, a son or daughter. After all now it's the New Year they only have a year to go before they are in Afghan again. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/birmingham/content/articles/2009/09/22/selly_oak_hospital_feature.shtml


You'll note they say they fulfil their NHS obligations as well as those to the military.


You should be discussing your own system not trying to disparage ours because whatever you end up with it's won't be the same as the NHS.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 2, 2011)

> *Overview*
> 
> Despite having the most costly health system in the world, the  United States consistently underperforms on most dimensions of  performance, relative to other countries. This report&#8212;an update to three  earlier editions&#8212;includes data from seven countries and incorporates  patients' and physicians' survey results on care experiences and ratings  on dimensions of care. Compared with six other nations&#8212;Australia,  Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and the United  Kingdom&#8212;the U.S. health care system ranks last or next-to-last on five  dimensions of a high performance health system: quality, access,  efficiency, equity, and healthy lives.


http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/Fund-Reports/2010/Jun/Mirror-Mirror-Update.aspx

*NHS Critisism*


> *Criticism*
> 
> Although the NHS has a high level of popular public support within  the country, the national press is perceived to be highly critical of  it. This may have affected perceptions of the service within the country  as a whole and outside. An independent survey conducted in 2004 found  that users of the NHS often expressed very high levels of satisfaction  about their personal experience of the medical services. Of hospital  inpatients, 92% said they were satisfied with their treatment; 87% of GP  users were satisfied with their GP; 87% of hospital outpatients were  satisfied with the service they received; and 70% of Accident and  Emergency department users reported being satisfied.[57]  When asked whether they agreed with the question "My local NHS is  providing me with a good service&#8221; 67% of those surveyed agreed with it,  and 51% agreed with the statement &#8220;The NHS is providing a good service."  [57]  The reason for this disparity between personal experience and overall  perceptions is not clear. It is also apparent from the survey that most  people believe that the national press is generally critical of the  service (64% reporting it as being critical compared to just 13% saying  the national press is favourable), and also that the national press is  the least reliable source of information (50% reporting it to be not  very or not at all reliable, compared to 36% believing the press was  reliable) .[57]  Newspapers were reported as being less favourable and also less  reliable than the broadcast media. The most reliable sources of  information were considered to be leaflets from GPs and information from  friends (both 77% reported as reliable) and medical professionals (75%  considered reliable).[57]  On many occasions, however, the uncovering of a scandal leads to  changes which improve the service in many ways, and sometimes  unexpectedly.


 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Health_Service_(England)#Criticism


----------



## billc (Jan 2, 2011)

I bring up the NHS because the advisors to Obama are big fans of your system.  The new head of Medicare loves the NHS and Zeke emanuel is also a fan.  They want your system here, I don't think that is a good idea.  Wikipedia doesn't seem to be the most unbiased source available.  My sources are partisan, but you can tell where they come from.  Wikipedia has a feelig of neutrality but I don't think that it does.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 2, 2011)

Wikipedia is on average as reliable as Encyclopedia Britannia.
That said, it's 1 source that's easier to pull from. The articles have extensive references in most cases for deeper digging which is encouraged, as Wiki frowns on research. 

Bottom line on all of this:
British systems been in effect and been repeatedly tweaked for 60+ years.
Canadian system's been in effect and tweaked for 25+ years.
Neither are perfect, however both have aspects the US should consider if the goal is to really provide real health care to it's citizens. Both have problems that the US would want to avoid, especially given our larger population and larger scale implementation needs.

And...that's about it for me.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jan 2, 2011)

I did not take the comparison of statistics between US and Brittish medical issues as a bash on the Brittish.
I dont see why you would be so damn sensitive to think that that somehow demeans you and your "people"
Its simply facts, statistics that were provided, and you do not have to be a damn doctor to look at them and understand which is worse.
If you have statistics that contradict those provided then I would love to see them.
I know I pay about 10,000 dollars a year for medical coverage for my family of 4.
If I can get better coverage for alot cheaper then I would love to find out how.
The way I see it, from looking at dozens of conversations, and dozens of statistics provided by peopel on both sides of the issue, is that universal health care tends to be more of a smokescreen then true advanced top of the line medical care.
It seems anytime anyone who has alot of money in countries with universal health care gets something really bad going on they flee the universal health care system to doctors in other countries that are not universal health care affiliated.
That sends huge smoke signals to me that there is a problem.
I have seen different statistics on the big issues... cancers mostly and it seems the fatality and recovery rate in always alot worse in these universal health care countries, and always better in the the united states, even though we seem to have some of the most unhealthy living habits in the world when it comes to food, drink, drugs, and cigarettes, etc.etc.
you would think with all the big fat, unhealthy peopel here we would be knocking off at an ever increasing rate, yet it doesnt appear to be that way...
I just get tired of everyone thinking that they deserve everything to be handed to them.
I get sick of everyone expecting me to provide for them, and people like me to provide for them. 
Universal healthcare only seems to be a valid thing to me if the population keeps expanding and getting younger, and if they exclude treatments for the most costly of illnesses and issues thus making it a profitable business, rather then healthcare. Anything else seems to just push the bill till tomorrow,and on our kids and their kids... but it seems most people dont give a crap about their own kids anyways so why would they care about mine...


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 2, 2011)

Are you readin my posts Lucky Boxers? After all those insults you sent me and saying you'd put me on ignore? Well, well roflmao.


----------



## billc (Jan 2, 2011)

Lucky Boxer, keep in mind, if you pay that 10,000 dollars through your employer, you won't have to much longer.  The fine for employers not covering employees is miniscule compared to that 10,000 dollars, so it will be worthwhile for you employer to drop your coverage and force you into the government system.   Obama care is meant for everyone, not just for the uninsured, and they are going to force you into it wethor you like it or not. 

The real problem with government run/socialized medicine is that it kills innovation and new advances in medicine.  Most of the advances in medicine happen here in the states because of the profit motive.  That is why everyone who is famous, rich or a politician in Britain, and Canada come here for advanced medical procedure's, like that one Canadian politician who needed heart surgery.  He would have had to wait for it in canada, and they would have cracked his chest to do it.  He came here, had it done right away, and they went through his armpit to avoid the drastic step of cracking the chest.

Those advances in medicine will diapear, as will life saving drugs.  No profit, no incentive to innovate and advance.  Watler Williams points out that deaths from drugs that will never be discovered are never noticed, because you will never see the victims.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 2, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Lucky Boxer, keep in mind, if you pay that 10,000 dollars through your employer, you won't have to much longer. The fine for employers not covering employees is miniscule compared to that 10,000 dollars, so it will be worthwhile for you employer to drop your coverage and force you into the government system. Obama care is meant for everyone, not just for the uninsured, and they are going to force you into it wethor you like it or not.
> 
> The real problem with government run/socialized medicine is that it kills innovation and new advances in medicine. Most of the advances in medicine happen here in the states because of the profit motive. That is why everyone who is famous, rich or a politician in Britain, and Canada come here for advanced medical procedure's, like that one Canadian politician who needed heart surgery. He would have had to wait for it in canada, and they would have cracked his chest to do it. He came here, had it done right away, and they went through his armpit to avoid the drastic step of cracking the chest.
> 
> Those advances in medicine will diapear, as will life saving drugs. No profit, no incentive to innovate and advance. Watler Williams points out that deaths from drugs that will never be discovered are never noticed, because you will never see the victims.


 
Not everyone goes to America you know lol, you might think so but it's just not true.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jan 2, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Are you readin my posts Lucky Boxers? After all those insults you sent me and saying you'd put me on ignore? Well, well roflmao.


 
No I still think you are disgusting, and a hypocrite
I just was reading all the messages here before I realized I stumbled on your nonsense.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jan 2, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Lucky Boxer, keep in mind, if you pay that 10,000 dollars through your employer, you won't have to much longer. The fine for employers not covering employees is miniscule compared to that 10,000 dollars, so it will be worthwhile for you employer to drop your coverage and force you into the government system. Obama care is meant for everyone, not just for the uninsured, and they are going to force you into it wethor you like it or not.
> 
> The real problem with government run/socialized medicine is that it kills innovation and new advances in medicine. Most of the advances in medicine happen here in the states because of the profit motive. That is why everyone who is famous, rich or a politician in Britain, and Canada come here for advanced medical procedure's, like that one Canadian politician who needed heart surgery. He would have had to wait for it in canada, and they would have cracked his chest to do it. He came here, had it done right away, and they went through his armpit to avoid the drastic step of cracking the chest.
> 
> Those advances in medicine will diapear, as will life saving drugs. No profit, no incentive to innovate and advance. Watler Williams points out that deaths from drugs that will never be discovered are never noticed, because you will never see the victims.


 
um ya I decided a long time ago I was not going to work to make another man rich.

I also came to the conclusion a long time ago that there are rarely ever any real cures..
there is simply no incentive for the medical establishment to cure anything, the real thing they do is to find ways to make you live with the illness for as long as possible. They dont make cures, they make treatments. The money is in making you have to take their treatments for as long as your alive.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 2, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Not everyone goes to America you know lol, you might think so but it's just not true.



the point was if your system is so great why would anyone come here and pay for something they get for free at home?


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 2, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> the point was if your system is so great why would anyone come here and pay for something they get for free at home?


 

Well tell us who of the great and good is going to America to be treated for something they can have done over here?

We didn't say it was so great, you were all saying it was lousy.


----------



## billc (Jan 2, 2011)

Well these people have:http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/09/the-canadian-patients’-remedy-for-health-care-go-to-america/

I believe they mention the Italian prime minister, and I pointed out the Canadian politician.  Remember, medical records are also protected by privacy laws over here so they can come over and hide what they had done.


----------



## billc (Jan 2, 2011)

Another article on British people going abroad for treatment:

http://www.deadfishwrapper.com/britons_flee_socialized_medicine


----------



## granfire (Jan 2, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Another article on British people going abroad for treatment:
> 
> http://www.deadfishwrapper.com/britons_flee_socialized_medicine



I think you should look into the system how it works from the source and not through something called 'deadfishwrap' 

Considering that the British people do indeed live long lives, etc, the system can't be all that bad.

I find it troubling that in this great nation of ours a man on disablily with part time job can't afford to get his teeth fixed. Even if he had to pay a part of it, it's long been known oral health trickles down to the rest of the body. 

Or you can buy insurance that covers next to nothing (had that type, was glad I did never have to find out it didn't cover the day I got sick) including the pre-existing condition of being female....

Please, do get your facts straight: A lot of working people were just rich enough to not qualify for medicate, but too poor to afford the coverage the employer did not provide. 
Not to mention all the good stuff that eventually drives you into selling everything you own so you can keep paying the medical bills when your money runs dry. Even _with _insurance you are always just one major illness or accident away from financial ruin. 

and medicate is a charmer in itself: I took a friend of mine to her clinic one time, she had the flu...the computer systems were down that day, they would not see her! Did not try to accomodate her, help her out in any way. An I am talking about somebody being visibly sick! I took her to another place of the same club. As soon as I mentioned the computer system being down they too did not touch her...

She ended up going to my doctor, not a medicate provider and having to pay for it out of pocket, but she was treated like a human being. Not to mention the visit was cheaper than what the other club billed medicate for...

No matter how you twist it, the system needed an overhaul. And it is just do damn easy to poo-poo those who do while not contributing one damn thing.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 2, 2011)

*Folks, knock off the shots, insults, digs, barbs, and other crap before we have to lock this and start dealing out infractions.*


----------



## MJS (Jan 2, 2011)

*Admin Note:*

_*ATTENTION ALL USERS:

*_*Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.  Please use the Ignore feature, which is found on each users profile, if you do not wish to read their posts.

MJS
MT Asst. Admin*


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 2, 2011)

There are people here who have gone to the States and other places for experimental treatments that haven't been licensed here yet or they have very rare conditions and we don't have any experts in it. Most British people couldn't afford to travel to America for treatment and it can't be got on any insurance policy here. The people I know that have had to have treatment in America because it's been something they can't get here ie surgery for muscluar dystrophy have had to fund raise to get the money. That particular treatment has started being done here now, it was a very new treatment until recently with, I believe, only one hosptial in the States doing the op.

The Brits who go abroad usually do so for the cosmetic surgery you cannot get on the NHS ie facelifts, tummy tucks, boob jobs that sort of thing. Many countries offer them cheaper than here as part of a holiday package. Not all are successful sadly.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-11784754

http://cosmeticsurgerytoday.wordpress.com/category/medical-tourism/


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 2, 2011)

As I believe I stated earlier, I know a few Canadians who went to Cuba and Belize (I think) for dental as it came in significantly cheaper than at home.

When I had LASIK, the Canadians were ahead of the US in successful procedures however, and had the greater experience, at least in my region.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jan 2, 2011)

Dental is generally not covered in Canada anyway. It generally only covers the young, old or poor.

However, because our employers don't have to pay insurance for basic medical coverage, most offer dental and drug coverage as part of the benefits.

We never claimed our system is perfect. It's practically a national sport to complain about it. But you will find few people willing to give it up.

What baffles a lot of us is that the US had the opportunity to look at healthcare systems arounf the world, from the totally govt run to many blended systems like France, then pick the best part and build a truly affordable national universal coverage system. And istead it chose to cave to the insurance companies.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jan 2, 2011)

Bill, Canadian hospitals and universities are on the forefront of medical breakthroughs. This may come as a shock to you, but $$$ is not always the motivator for finding cures. AAMOF, not having to produce a profit enables reaearchers to focus on more obscure diseases and cures.


----------



## billc (Jan 2, 2011)

From yahoo answers: In terms of technically advanced medicine and surgery, then the USA has the edge as this is where the most research is carried out.

Also, say goodbye to cheap drugs in canada.  You have cheap drugs because the majority of the money spent on drug research comes from the U.S.  Then canada can take those drugs and make the 3o cent pill and provide cheap drugs.  Once obama care kicks in  the opportunity for new, life saving drugs is going to decline or disappear.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 2, 2011)

Bill,
 Canadian drugs are lower than their US equivalent due to being subsidized in part by Canadian tax payers. Drug coverage varies by Province, and other factors.  When you buy a Canadian drug, part of the cost was prepaid by a Canadian tax payer. Drugs still under patent have their prices set by the Canadian governement, a step that the US Special Interests and Lobbyists would never accept here.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 2, 2011)

Also, currently the Chinese are leading in drug innovation.....


----------



## Steve (Jan 2, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Constitutionally, the US Federal government has no business getting involved in health care. Amend the USC, and create a real program for ALL Americans that is affordable, efficient and effective, and I'm fine with it. Personally, I like the idea of being able to get my ills taken care of with the ease and headacheless Ken described. But it's currently not legal the way the current system is done.


Here here!  But that would be single payer, which Fox News says is bad.


----------



## billc (Jan 2, 2011)

this is a column by Walter Williams, an economist at George Mason University and former chair of the economics dept. there.  He also fills in for Rush when Rush goes on vacation.  He discusses the cost of Canadian drugs and the problem with re-importation of drugs from canada.

http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2003/07/30/drug_industry_destruction


----------



## billc (Jan 2, 2011)

Here is another article by Thomas Sowell on Canadian drugs and why they cost less. http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/index.php?news=4474

"One major consequence is that Canada and other countries do not create nearly as many of the new life-saving pharmaceutical drugs as the United States does. These other countries live off the results -- the medicines -- produced by the enormously costly research that "obscene" pharmaceutical profits finance in America."


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 2, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Here here!  But that would be single payer, which Fox News says is bad.


Fox News, like any news source, has a bias and lean.  I tend to check Fox, CNN, MSNBC, and the BBC sites to get a bit of the fuller spectrum, as well as Slashdot and Consumerist for some balance and debate.

I'm ok with single payer, as long as it's done legally.  The problem is, it's not, if done currently at the Federal level.  

Legally, by the Constitution, the Federal government shouldn't be in any of these: retirement, medical, drugs, education, environmental, economics and a dozen other things they do. Previously mentioned bits spell out the limits ot what the Fed should be doing.  The only way they can get involved, is by Amending the Constitution.  This is why we had to make a change to even allow for an income tax on the people. Prior to the 16th Amendment it just wasn't legal to tax peoples incomes. That passed in 1913.

Assuming they were to pass an amendment authorizing the Fed to handle health care, funding it then becomes a problem, unless the amendment also addresses it.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 2, 2011)

billcihak said:


> this is a column by Walter Williams, an economist at George Mason University and former chair of the economics dept. there.  He also fills in for Rush when Rush goes on vacation.  He discusses the cost of Canadian drugs and the problem with re-importation of drugs from canada.
> 
> http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2003/07/30/drug_industry_destruction



He didn't discuss the cost of the drugs, but the price. Those are 2 separate things. The price of the drugs is lower because they are subsidized.



billcihak said:


> Here is another article by Thomas Sowell on Canadian drugs and why they cost less. http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/index.php?news=4474
> 
> "One major consequence is that Canada and other countries do not create nearly as many of the new life-saving pharmaceutical drugs as the United States does. These other countries live off the results -- the medicines -- produced by the enormously costly research that "obscene" pharmaceutical profits finance in America."



There are other factors including population density, access to researchers, and so on to determine development ability. US drugs often do not meet safety and quality checks in other countries, while safe alternatives from non-US companies are withheld from US markets simply to prop up profits. Stevia for example is a safe natural sweetener, as is Agave, yet both were denied FDA approval for use in the US despite centuries of evidence as well as use in other nations, so to keep dangerous artificial sweeteners markets secure.  Germany long approved Ginko, St. Johns Wort and other natural herbs for medical use, while the US denied approval while proping up complication rich drugs.  No one has the perfect system, and the US one is as flawed as the rest.

Drug companies enjoy several years (10 I believe) of exclusive marketing of their creations in order to help them make back development costs and make a profit. After that, the drugs are then allowed on the market as generics.  But a Bayer aspirin in the US is a Bayer aspirin in Canada, both made by the Bayer company. The only real difference between them is how much tax payer money subsidizes them.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jan 2, 2011)

Our patent is also shorter (7 years I believe), allowing generics to get to market faster. 

Whoever says that drug manufacturers would stop R&D if the US had a single payer system is either a moron, or is ou honestly believe that they would stop R&D in a system that does not usually affect drugs anyway?

Bob, we subsidize drug prices for people who can't afford it, and set limits on the price of generics. Most people buy drugs at retail prices, helped by drug plans from work. Those plans are part of normal benefits mostly because the employer does not have to pay for expensive medical insurance.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 2, 2011)

Even if all drug R&D in the US ground to a full stop, I'm sure that Europe and Asia will continue to develop on their own.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 3, 2011)

I'm looking to Baghdad for treatment!
I was reading an article in a newpaper here about the Church of England Bishop of Baghdad just out of interest as to how he manages to run his diocese in war torn Iraq, it mentioned he is receiving stem cell treatment for MS which isn't available here due to it's experimental nature. I'm now keeping a close eye on this, as it could be something good.


----------



## Steve (Jan 3, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Fox News, like any news source, has a bias and lean.  I tend to check Fox, CNN, MSNBC, and the BBC sites to get a bit of the fuller spectrum, as well as Slashdot and Consumerist for some balance and debate.
> 
> I'm ok with single payer, as long as it's done legally.  The problem is, it's not, if done currently at the Federal level.
> 
> ...


I don't disagree at all, although Social Security has set a precedent for single payer without an amendment.  We've talked about that before.


----------

