Who is Really "Sicko"

BY DAVID GRATZER MD
Dr. Gratzer, a practicing physician licensed in Canada and the U.S. and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

TORONTO--"I haven't seen 'Sicko,' " says Avril Allen about the new Michael Moore documentary, which advocates socialized medicine for the United States. The film, which has been widely viewed on the Internet, and which will officially open in the U.S. and Canada on Friday, has been getting rave reviews. But Ms. Allen, a lawyer, has no plans to watch it. She's just too busy preparing to file suit against Ontario's provincial government about its health-care system next month.

Her client, Lindsay McCreith, would have had to wait for four months just to get an MRI, and then months more to see a neurologist for his malignant brain tumor. Instead, frustrated and ill, the retired auto-body shop owner traveled to Buffalo, N.Y., for a lifesaving surgery. Now he's suing for the right to opt out of Canada's government-run health care, which he considers dangerous.

Ms. Allen figures the lawsuit has a fighting chance: In 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that "access to wait lists is not access to health care," striking down key Quebec laws that prohibited private medicine and private health insurance.

In the U.S., 83 House Democrats voted for a bill in 1993 calling for single-payer health care. That idea collapsed with HillaryCare and since then has existed on the fringes of the debate--winning praise from academics and pressure groups, but remaining largely out of the political discussion. Mr. Moore's documentary intends to change that, exposing millions to his argument that American health care is sick and socialized medicine is the cure.

It's not simply that Mr. Moore is wrong. His grand tour of public health care systems misses the big story: While he prescribes socialism, market-oriented reforms are percolating in cities from Stockholm to Saskatoon.

Mr. Moore goes to London, Ontario, where he notes that not a single patient has waited in the hospital emergency room more than 45 minutes. "It's a fabulous system," a woman explains. In Britain, he tours a hospital where patients marvel at their free care. A patient's husband explains: "It's not America." Humorously, Mr. Moore finds a cashier dispensing money to patients (for transportation). In France, a doctor explains the success of the health-care system with the old Marxist axiom: "You pay according to your means, and you receive according to your needs."

It's compelling material--I know because, born and raised in Canada, I used to believe in government-run health care. Then I was mugged by reality.

Consider, for instance, Mr. Moore's claim that ERs don't overcrowd in Canada. A Canadian government study recently found that only about half of patients are treated in a timely manner, as defined by local medical and hospital associations. "The research merely confirms anecdotal reports of interminable waits," reported a national newspaper. While people in rural areas seem to fare better, Toronto patients receive care in four hours on average; one in 10 patients waits more than a dozen hours.
This problem hit close to home last year: A relative, living in Winnipeg, nearly died of a strangulated bowel while lying on a stretcher for five hours, writhing in pain. To get the needed ultrasound, he was sent by ambulance to another hospital.

In Britain, the Department of Health recently acknowledged that one in eight patients wait more than a year for surgery. Around the time Mr. Moore was putting the finishing touches on his documentary, a hospital in Sutton Coldfield announced its new money-saving linen policy: Housekeeping will no longer change the bed sheets between patients, just turn them over.
France's system failed so spectacularly in the summer heat of 2003 that 13,000 people died, largely of dehydration. Hospitals stopped answering the phones and ambulance attendants told people to fend for themselves.

With such problems, it's not surprising that people are looking for alternatives. Private clinics--some operating in a "gray zone" of the law--are now opening in Canada at a rate of about one per week.

Canadian doctors, once quiet on the issue of private health care, elected Brian Day as president of their national association. Dr. Day is a leading critic of Canadian medicare; he opened a private surgery hospital and then challenged the government to shut it down. "This is a country," Dr. Day said by way of explanation, "in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week and in which humans can wait two to three years."
Market reforms are catching on in Britain, too. For six decades, its socialist Labour Party scoffed at the very idea of private medicine, dismissing it as "Americanization." Today Labour favors privatization, promising to triple the number of private-sector surgical procedures provided within two years. The Labour government aspires to give patients a choice of four providers for surgeries, at least one of them private, and recently considered the contracting out of some primary-care services--perhaps even to American companies.

Other European countries follow this same path. In Sweden, after the latest privatizations, the government will contract out some 80% of Stockholm's primary care and 40% of total health services, including Stockholm's largest hospital. Beginning before the election of the new conservative chancellor, Germany enhanced insurance competition and turned state enterprises over to the private sector (including the majority of public hospitals). Even in Slovakia, a former Marxist country, privatizations are actively debated.
Under the weight of demographic shifts and strained by the limits of command-and-control economics, government-run health systems have turned out to be less than utopian. The stories are the same: dirty hospitals, poor standards and difficulty accessing modern drugs and tests.

Admittedly, the recent market reforms are gradual and controversial. But facts are facts, the reforms are real, and they represent a major trend in health care. What does Mr. Moore's documentary say about that? Nothing.

Any chance of getting a source for this?

Any chance of getting a source for this?


http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_wsj-whos_really_sicko.htm

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_wsj-whos_really_sicko.htm
Thanks, but I wanted to know where Brooks found it.

I enjoy following his links.

Thanks, but I wanted to know where Brooks found it.

?

I would rather 1 in 8 people have to wait for a surgery than 1 in 8 be completely unable to afford the surgery in the first place.

:thumbs:

???

I really don't understand why you are so reluctant to provide sources.

Take the time to read your policy and count how many times
"excluding, but not limited to..." appears in the fine print.
Insurance?
What a scam!
The big corporations have downsized, consolodated, outsourced,
streamlined, and off-shored your coverage right out of existence.
Most working class people I know are paying up to $400 month
for full family overage under various HMO's, PPO's, etc.
And that's with a $250 to $500 deductable yet.
And that doesn't even count huge co-pays.
I guess I can consider myself lucky that I'm a veteran.
I go to the VA and pay nothing but a $10 office visit and $8 per Rx.
And I have no complaints about the quality of VA service other
than long waiting times for appointments.
In this day & age it's a diamond in the rough.
I'm all for socialized medicine in the U.S. but until Congress
puts campaign contribution limits on the health care sector
you won't see it in our lifetime.

This thread is so full of crap it stinks to high heaven.

Emergency room waiting time in Canada is 4 hours or more? For starters, I don't believe it and even if it is true ... so what? Go to Phoenix where the average (read minimum) waiting time is 12 hours. I try to get sick in Los Angeles so I can cut the wait to 8 hours.

In England a person waits a full year for a necessary operation? That's an outright lie. Nuff said on that one.

If so many people around the world are unhappy with their health care, why is it, when asked if they would like to have USA-style health care, they all say no F'n thanks -- I'll keep what I have?

Lungdop says it's a le so it must be a lie. After all, Lungdop is an expert on health care. Dharmabum says people in the States don't get necessary operations so it must be true. People must be getting thrown out on the street and those EMS personel who are all over the place must be transporting doughnuts or something.

I spend the winter with a ton of Canadians and almost to a person they hate their system of socialized medicine and come to The States when they need an operation. Socialized medicine is good on paper but it sucks in reality.

I know lots of Americans who travel to Canada for their drugs and I know lots of Canadians who won't come to the states without their travel insurance from the Canadian NHS.

If the Canadian system is so bad why do even the conservatives scoff at switching to a for-profit system like we have?

:thumbs:

I agree that the Canadian drug dispension system and pricing is better than that of the United States. I wish prescription drugs were cheaper here. I disagree that the Canadian system of socialized medicine when taken as a whole is better than the American market driven system, especially when it comes to such things as surgery.

The for-profit system is immoral to it's core because it puts profit above the health of human beings.

:thumbs:

I know lots of Americans who travel to Canada for their drugs and I know lots of Canadians who won't come to the states without their travel insurance from the Canadian NHS.

If the Canadian system is so bad why do even the conservatives scoff at switching to a for-profit system like we have?

:thumbs:

There are lots of canadians who travel to the US for operations because the wait times for said operations are too long. There are lots of Canadians who travel to the US for MRI and Catscans because the wait times are too long. If your surgery is deemed 'cosmetic', (iow non life threatening, i.e hip replacement, knee surgery.....) your wait time can be up to 15 months depending on which provicne you live in. There are lots of Canadians that travel to the US and beyond for treatement because the Canadian system only pays for certain types of treatments. The Canadian system has some very good strengths and significant weakensses.

As to its immorality what a ridiculous assertion. The profit system is what drives medicine forward. How many medical Nobels have gone to countries with socialized medicine? (You wont' need to take off your shoes for that one.) How many discoveries come from socialized medicine, how many new drugs.......Profit helps drive progress.

I really don't understand why you are so reluctant to provide sources.
I thought the doctor's name and qualifications were more relevant than any of the myriad publications in which the article may have appeared.

1. Go to Phoenix where the average (read minimum) waiting time is 12 hours.
2. If so many people around the world are unhappy with their health care, why is it, when asked if they would like to have USA-style health care, they all say no F'n thanks -- I'll keep what I have?1. Average? Source please.

2. The doctor, who is licensed in the US and in Canada, has an opinion different from yours on these matters.
And many countries that have a more socialized system are slowly changing toward a style like ours.
You read the article and this didn't bother you at all: "a hospital in Sutton Coldfield announced its new money-saving linen policy: Housekeeping will no longer change the bed sheets between patients, just turn them over."

1. I know lots of Americans who travel to Canada for their drugs and I know lots of Canadians who won't come to the states without their travel insurance from the Canadian NHS.
2. If the Canadian system is so bad why do even the conservatives scoff at switching to a for-profit system like we have?
1. Prescription drugs are a different matter entirely.

2. Conservative: "Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change"
Geeze Dhrama, this is a tough one.

PS - read the article.

I know lots of Americans who travel to Canada for their drugs and I know lots of Canadians who won't come to the states without their travel insurance from the Canadian NHS.


:thumbs:

here we go again :rolleyes: I am sure you know a lot of canadians and I am sure they tell you about thier health fears when they travel to the US. You are a piece of work my friend.

The for-profit system is immoral to it's core because it puts profit above the health of human beings.
When doctors and hospitals in the UK and Canada work for free then I will acknowledge their system is different.

The profit system is what drives medicine forward. How many medical Nobels have gone to countries with socialized medicine? (You wont' need to take off your shoes for that one.) How many discoveries come from socialized medicine, how many new drugs.......Profit helps drive progress.This is the best point on the entire thread.

Maybe when Dhrama gets back he can tell us. I am sure he knows a lot of nobel prize winners from countries with socialized medicine. :rolleyes:

When doctors and hospitals in the UK and Canada work for free then I will acknowledge their system is different.

Your refusal to acknowledge any differences between their system and ours only shoots any credibility you might have had all to pieces.

How can I take you seriously when you refuse to acknowledge such obvious truths?

:rolleyes:

"Profit" is not progress.

It is immoral to put profit above the health of human beings. Period.

It is very simple.

:thumbs:

As to its immorality what a ridiculous assertion. The profit system is what drives medicine forward. How many medical Nobels have gone to countries with socialized medicine? (You wont' need to take off your shoes for that one.) How many discoveries come from socialized medicine, how many new drugs.......Profit helps drive progress.

Here you are simply flat out wrong and displaying gross ignorance.

Plenty of Nobel Prize winners in Medicine come from both countries with "socialized" medicine (which is what you call anyone without a for-profit system even though that is not correct) and they come from our "socialized" public universities, who do research with public funding.

Educate yourself (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2003/index.html)before you spout ignorant drivel like this and embarress yourself and ignorant fools who agree with you and call your ignorant post the "best in the thread". :rolleyes:

Maybe when Dhrama gets back he can tell us. I am sure he knows a lot of nobel prize winners from countries with socialized medicine. :rolleyes:

Yes, you raving retard, I don't know them personally but it wasn't hard too prove they exist.

:rolleyes:

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2003/index.html

you know everyone else in the world, cops, firemen, canadians who worry about health care, americans who go to cananda for health care, Aikido masters, crazy vietnam vets, to name but a few, why not nobel prize winners in medicine from socialist countries?

Plenty of Nobel Prize winners in Medicine come from both countries with "socialized" medicine :That is probably true since super-genuises are to some extent born and not made.

But medical innovations and medicines will, more often than not, come from systems with the profit motive.

Here you are simply flat out wrong and displaying gross ignorance.

Plenty of Nobel Prize winners in Medicine come from both countries with "socialized" medicine (which is what you call anyone without a for-profit system even though that is not correct) and they come from our "socialized" public universities, who do research with public funding.

Educate yourself (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2003/index.html)before you spout ignorant drivel like this and embarress yourself and ignorant fools who agree with you and call your ignorant post the "best in the thread". :rolleyes:

What a hoot. He directs us to the Noble Laureates from 2003 as if this proves his point.

Let's try this again. I suggested that very few come from countries with socialized medical systems and he points to a guy with a half socialized system. Are you farking kidding us. You just proved my point!

In fact if you go thru the complete list on the website the USA dominates the list of Nobel Prize Winners for Medicine. And of those not from the USA more than half of them are working for Universities or research organizations based in ......... the USA. How many from Sweden were there? Cuba? France? Germany? Venezuela???? Even you can count them on your thumb.

You really ought to stop posting such drivel, you're giving pseudo-intellectuals a bad name.

I bet doctors from other countries prefer to work here because they can get rich. If a guy can get rich doing something is there something inherantly wrong with it? The idea that making a profit or doing something with profti in mind is bad is a fundamental flaw in liberalsim that it will never overcome. The fact is profit has motivated almost every invention we use and all the advancment to date on those inventions. It drives competition, it drives humanity to great things. When we start labeling it as morally wrong we take a step backwards.

I bet doctors from other countries prefer to work here because they can get rich. If a guy can get rich doing something is there something inherantly wrong with it? The idea that making a profit or doing something with profti in mind is bad is a fundamental flaw in liberalsim that it will never overcome. The fact is profit has motivated almost every invention we use and all the advancment to date on those inventions. It drives competition, it drives humanity to great things. When we start labeling it as morally wrong we take a step backwards.

Nobody said making a profit was morally wrong Trav, it's just that capitalism isn't the solution to all problems either. Health Care is about making sick people well, and capitalism is about making a profit. If at times their goals merge that's great, but you can't tell me that capitalism will make The "most" sick people well, and that's the system we need.

For all those who say that capitalism is the answer to our health care woes, I must ask...didn't we arrive at our current state of affairs because of capitalism?

It's obvious to me that we need to rethink the idea that the profit motive will solve all our social problems if only we let the market decide the matter.

For all those who say that capitalism is the answer to our health care woes, I must ask...didn't we arrive at our current state of affairs because of capitalism?
What state of affairs? One time I broke my toe doing something stupid. When my dad got home, he took one look at the dislocated toe at a 45 degree angle to the rest of my toes, and took me to the emergency room.

Obviously, I was a non-critical case. We waited in the waiting room maybe fifteen, twenty minutes before I was taken to an X-ray, then in a room where a doctor relocated the toe, asked if I needed any painkillers (I didn't), gave me crutches, and told me to stay off it for X time. The whole thing was quick and surprisingly painless. I don't see what "state of affairs" everyone is wailing about.

What state of affairs?...I don't see what "state of affairs" everyone is wailing about.

The one where we have 45 million people who have no health insurance.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/05/us/politics/05cnd-health.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin

How many of those 45,000,000 do not have access to health care, Vilepagan?

The one where we have 45 million people who have no health insurance.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/05/us/politics/05cnd-health.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin
Ah. If they're unhappy about not having health insurance, why don't they get it?

Nobody said making a profit was morally wrong Trav, it's just that capitalism isn't the solution to all problems either. Health Care is about making sick people well, and capitalism is about making a profit. If at times their goals merge that's great, but you can't tell me that capitalism will make The "most" sick people well, and that's the system we need.

For all those who say that capitalism is the answer to our health care woes, I must ask...didn't we arrive at our current state of affairs because of capitalism?

It's obvious to me that we need to rethink the idea that the profit motive will solve all our social problems if only we let the market decide the matter.\

I would say lawyers and politicians got us where we are, not health corperations.

Ah. If they're unhappy about not having health insurance, why don't they get it?

Which corporation would you force to insure me? They won't do it willingly.

How many of those 45,000,000 do not have access to health care, Vilepagan?

I don't understand your question.

Which corporation would you force to insure me? They won't do it willingly.
I wouldn't force any corporation to do so. That's the whole point of this discussion, is it not? It's equally insidious to force Joe Taxpayer to pay for the health insurance, and thus health care, of 45 million. Much less to have Joe Taxpayer foot the bill for everyone's health care.

Why would it make a difference, you ask? We're already paying for our own health care, this won't change anything. Well, that's not exactly true. I eat fairly healthy things, I don't smoke (except every once in a while I'll get an urge for a cigar), I wear my seatbelt in the car and am a safe driver. Oh, and I'm not yet old. Socialized medicine would shift the burden of the costs of taking care of all the people who make poor choices (or are old) onto Joe Taxpayer, and I don't think that's fair.

Many of those with no health insurance can afford it but choose not to get it because they prefer spending their money on other things. Lots of young people feel they are healthy and don't really need health insurance yet. Others don't have health insurance because they know they will be taken care of anyway if they have a catestrophic illness. Many are illegal aliens who are not entitled to health insurance and should return to their own countries if they wish to be insured. The 45,000,000 figure is misleading because it assumes that all 45,000,000 desire but cannot afford health insurance.

Of that 45,000,000 people how many would not be treated if they had a life threatening condition, Vilepagan?

Every time I enter a hospital for treatment I pay a surcharge so that uninsured people can be treated.

I wouldn't force any corporation to do so. That's the whole point of this discussion, is it not?

Odd, I thought the point was to discuss the best method for providing adequate health care to 45 million fellow citizens.


It's equally insidious to force Joe Taxpayer to pay for the health insurance, and thus health care, of 45 million. Much less to have Joe Taxpayer foot the bill for everyone's health care.

Why would it make a difference, you ask? We're already paying for our own health care, this won't change anything. Well, that's not exactly true. I eat fairly healthy things, I don't smoke (except every once in a while I'll get an urge for a cigar), I wear my seatbelt in the car and am a safe driver. Oh, and I'm not yet old. Socialized medicine would shift the burden of the costs of taking care of all the people who make poor choices (or are old) onto Joe Taxpayer, and I don't think that's fair.

Who said anything about fair? No system will insure that everyone, rich and poor alike, receives the exact same health care, but I'm willing to bet we could do better. :)

Many of those with no health insurance can afford it but choose not to get it because they prefer spending their money on other things. Lots of young people feel they are healthy and don't really need health insurance yet. Others don't have health insurance because they know they will be taken care of anyway if they have a catestrophic illness. Many are illegal aliens who are not entitled to health insurance and should return to their own countries if they wish to be insured. The 45,000,000 figure is misleading because it assumes that all 45,000,000 desire but cannot afford health insurance.

You may be right with your stats Frogger, but you didn't mention those that can't get health insurance because the cost would be prohibitive.


Of that 45,000,000 people how many would not be treated if they had a life threatening condition, Vilepagan?

Of those "life-threatening" conditions, how many could be avoided if more, or all, people were covered to begin with?


Every time I enter a hospital for treatment I pay a surcharge so that uninsured people can be treated.

Assuming you don't want these people to be turned away at the emergency room, isn't this an argument that there's a problem with our present system?

Who said anything about fair? No system will insure that everyone, rich and poor alike, receives the exact same health care, but I'm willing to bet we could do better. :)
I'm perfectly content to remain with the system we have now where health care is a commodity. I remember a question on that Political Compass which essentially said "Those with the ability to afford higher standards of medical care should receive better quality care." I put "Strongly agree". Viva la capitalism.

Borg,

As someone who is, at least to you, old, and someone who didn't always make the wisest choices health wise I agree with you. It should not be your responsibilty to pay my way because I chose to smoke when young, to eat too much and to exercise too little.

Borg,

As someone who is, at least to you, old, and someone who didn't always make the wisest choices health wise I agree with you. It should not be your responsibilty to pay my way because I chose to smoke when young, to eat too much and to exercise too little.

Aren't you already doing that when you pay those surcharges?

I'm perfectly content to remain with the system we have now where health care is a commodity.

A succinct recounting of the problem.

The profit motive is a great thing to stimulate an economy, but we recognize as a society that some services should be taken out of private hands. We have governmental police and fire protection partly because we recognize that a "low-bidder' system for selecting these services would leave us with the worst possible protection the economy would provide, and partly because we don't want our policemen and firemen to be motivated by profit. I see no reason that we should leave our health in the hands of people whose main focus is making the most profit, rather than making us as healthy as possible.

Many of those with no health insurance can afford it but choose not to get it because they prefer spending their money on other things. Lots of young people feel they are healthy and don't really need health insurance yet. Others don't have health insurance because they know they will be taken care of anyway if they have a catestrophic illness.These are excellent reasons to be in favor of universal coverage. If all of these people were enrolled in Medicare, for example, they would each be paying a reasonable $93 monthly premium -- thus reducing the burden on the rest of us.

I thought the doctor's name and qualifications were more relevant than any of the myriad publications in which the article may have appeared.In this instance that may be true but this is hardly an isolated occurrence. You regularly post articles without providing a source and it's become a pet peeve for me. First of all, it's common courtesy to provide a source. Second, I really do enjoy seeing where you get your material. I like to explore where the links from that site take me. It's a way to explore places I'd never find on my own. :)

Sedan,

Are you suggesting we institute universal health care so that people can buy a new car or go on a vacation?

The one where we have 45 million people who have no health insurance.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/05/us/politics/05cnd-health.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin

And a state of affairs in which we have conditions such as these (http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml):

A recent study by Harvard University researchers found that the average out-of-pocket medical debt for those who filed for bankruptcy was $12,000. The study noted that 68 percent of those who filed for bankruptcy had health insurance. In addition, the study found that 50 percent of all bankruptcy filings were partly the result of medical expenses (14). Every 30 seconds in the United States someone files for bankruptcy in the aftermath of a serious health problem.

Sedan,

Are you suggesting we institute universal health care so that people can buy a new car or go on a vacation?Yes, Frogger, that's exactly what I mean.

:@@: :@@: :@@:

But medical innovations and medicines will, more often than not, come from systems with the profit motive.

You keep touting that theory but I have yet to see even a shred of evidence to support it.

:(

You keep touting that theory but I have yet to see even a shred of evidence to support it.

:(

here are a few, seems MOST from the US

http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blmedical.htm

In fact if you go thru the complete list on the website the USA dominates the list of Nobel Prize Winners for Medicine. And of those not from the USA more than half of them are working for Universities or research organizations based in ......... the USA.

Just because someone is from the US hardly indicates that they do what they do because of profit motive. Most of the people on that list work for public universities, doing research paid for with our taxes. You know, a "socialized" system that you ignorantly think is so evil.

You are quickly over taking Freethinker for most annoying poster.

Just because someone is from the US hardly indicates that they do what they do because of profit motive. Most of the people on that list work for public universities, doing research paid for with our taxes. You know, a "socialized" system that you ignorantly think is so evil.

tell me where one has worked, and also tell me how many have sprung up fascist regimes?

For a country that supposedly has such poor health care, we sure have a lot of foreigners coming here for treatment.
If you doubt that statement visit the UCLA Medical Center, or the Shiner's Burn Center, in Galveston, TX., or any of the children's hospitals around the country. All of these places are treating people that have arrived, specifically for medical treatment unavailable elsewhere.
Why do they come here, rather than one of the countries with socialized medical care? Could it be because that care is only for citizens of that specific country?
People keep talking about the uninsured, and how they are lacking in medical care. If they are lacking in care, its because they won't go to an emergency room. A place that can not refuse them treatment, even if they are in this country illegally. Hell, uninsured Hispanics use Calif. emergency rooms to treat common colds, and for prenatal care.

For a country that supposedly has such poor health care, we sure have a lot of foreigners coming here for treatment.
If you doubt that statement visit the UCLA Medical Center, or the Shiner's Burn Center, in Galveston, TX., or any of the children's hospitals around the country. All of these places are treating people that have arrived, specifically for medical treatment unavailable elsewhere.
Why do they come here, rather than one of the countries with socialized medical care? Could it be because that care is only for citizens of that specific country?
People keep talking about the uninsured, and how they are lacking in medical care. If they are lacking in care, its because they won't go to an emergency room. A place that can not refuse them treatment, even if they are in this country illegally. Hell, uninsured Hispanics use Calif. emergency rooms to treat common colds, and for prenatal care.

They come here cause they get the treatment free. No more, no less.

They come here cause they get the treatment free. No more, no less.


Yet all the people advocating National Health Care are only talking about changing the method of payment, not improving the quality of care.
As far as I have been able to figure out, the NHC people want most of it paid for by employers. Talk about chasing jobs out of the country. Thats one sure way to do it.

Yet all the people advocating National Health Care are only talking about changing the method of payment, not improving the quality of care.
As far as I have been able to figure out, the NHC people want most of it paid for by employers. Talk about chasing jobs out of the country. Thats one sure way to do it.

Yeah I want my employer to have me by the nuts with the company health care.

WTF?

Yeah I want my employer to have me by the nuts with the company health care.

WTF?


Yeah, WTF? Yet that is just what most of those advocating such a system are talking about, increasing the taxes on companies and corporations to cover the largest part of the cost. How that will empower the employer escapes me. I also fail to see where it will improve the quality of care provided. But hell, thats not really the point, is it? As long as someone can claim to be providing another "free" service, everyone will be happy.

As far as I have been able to figure out, the NHC people want most of it paid for by employers.

FYI, Eliminating the employer based system we have now is one of the things I advocate.

:thumbs:

You are quickly over taking Freethinker for most annoying poster.


I will never be as annoying as you Trav.

:stfu

For a country that supposedly has such poor health care, we sure have a lot of foreigners coming here for treatment.

That is quite suprising since we have 50 million people right here who can't get health care coverage and thus cannot afford treatment.

:rolleyes:

FYI, Eliminating the employer based system we have now is one of the things I advocate.

:thumbs:

That what you say. Now you want them to pay additional taxes to cover the govt. cost. That is not removing a burden from employers, its adding to the one they already have. The new taxes will be higher than any thing they now pay. Or can you certify that such taxes will be lower?

That what you say.

Yes, "that what I say". LOL...


Now you want them to pay additional taxes to cover the govt. cost.

Where did I ever say that I want business to "pay additional taxes"?

Please stop trying to put words in my mouth.

The new taxes will be higher than any thing they now pay. Or can you certify that such taxes will be lower?

Where are you getting these wild ideas about "new taxes"???

:confused:

That is quite suprising since we have 50 million people right here who can't get health care coverage and thus cannot afford treatment.

:rolleyes:

Like I said: Visit some hospitals and treatment centers. You'll find plenty of "guests" here, just for medical treatment. The govt. even has a special visa for it, the B2 Visa.

Like I said: Visit some hospitals and treatment centers. You'll find plenty of "guests" here, just for medical treatment. The govt. even has a special visa for it, the B2 Visa.

So what? Some rich foreigners come here for treatment or some hospital offers charity to a foreigner and you think that means our system is perfect and it somehow makes the 50 Million Americans who cannot get health insurance irrelivent?

:confused:

Yes, "that what I say". LOL...



Where did I ever say that I want business to "pay additional taxes"?

Please stop trying to put words in my mouth.



Where are you getting these wild ideas about "new taxes"???

:confused:

OK wise ass, how do you plan on paying for this National Heal care, or Single payer program? Where will you get the money to cover all these uninsured people, if not thur additional taxes.
Stop slinging shit, and admit it.

OK wise ass, how do you plan on paying for this National Heal care, or Single payer program? Where will you get the money to cover all these uninsured people, if not thur additional taxes.

Recinding Bush's Paris Hilton tax giveaway would pay for half the system by itself. There is plenty of waste that can be cut to pay for the rest.

Physicians for National Health Care (http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_resources.php) published an article that points out we can save $350 Billion just by eliminating the waste and paperwork of the multi-payer system we have now and that would be more than enough to pay for the whole system and cover every American.

Constantly Creating new taxes to pay for everything is quite silly and is not something I ever advocated.



Stop slinging shit, and admit it.

Admit what? You are the one "slinging shit" by making up lies and trying to put them in my mouth.

:upyours:

Recinding Bush's Paris Hilton tax giveaway would pay for half the system by itself. There is plenty of waste that can be cut to pay for the rest.

Physicians for National Health Care (http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_resources.php) published an article that points out we can save $350 Billion just by eliminating the waste and paperwork of the multi-payer system we have now and that would be more than enough to pay for the whole system and cover every American.

Constantly Creating new taxes to pay for everything is quite silly and is not something I ever advocated.

Admit what? You are the one "slinging shit" by making up lies and trying to put them in my mouth.

:upyours:


You are as full of shit as any person I have ever chatted with dhramabutt. Good luck passing your crap to others, because I sure don't buy any of it.

You are as full of shit as any person I have ever chatted with dhramabutt. Good luck passing your crap to others, because I sure don't buy any of it.

If that is the best response you can come up with then you lost the debate before you started.

Have a nice night!

:thumbs:

I will never be as annoying as you Trav.

You are not only more annoying than Trav you are one of the meanest spirited posters on Allforums and you seem to be becoming meaner spirited and more annoying with each passing day.

That is quite suprising since we have 50 million people right here who can't get health care coverage and thus cannot afford treatment.

It seems you are not only annoying and mean spirited but are also a liar. You have suddenly added five million to the forty five million figure, upping the figure by more than 10% and unilaterally declared that none of that number can afford health care when the actuality is that many of them can afford it and choose to not pay for it.

You seem to want to take over the place of the mssing Warrior1972, being nasty, calling names, making up facts to suit yourself, misquoting others. Keep it up you are doing a pretty good job of it so far.

You are not only more annoying than Trav you are one of the meanest spirited posters on Allforums

Mean spirited? That is laughable coming from you Frogger.

You are far meaner of spirit than I could ever be. You proved that when you trolled warrior for days calling her "dumbass" for no good reason.

I am getting very close to putting you on my ignore list Frogger.

:rolleyes:

Just because someone is from the US hardly indicates that they do what they do because of profit motive. Most of the people on that list work for public universities, doing research paid for with our taxes. You know, a "socialized" system that you ignorantly think is so evil.

The first rule of holes. When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

1) I am a distinct beneficiary of socialized medicine. I haven't stated that i am opposed to it whatsoever. I have acknowledged that it has strengths and weaknesses. that you think i am opposed to it, that i think it evil, is a function of your intellectual haze. You should give some thought to the notion of stop digging.
2) The statement has been made that the profit motive is what drives progress in the medical community. Proof of that is easily found in the lack of Nobel laureates from Socialist medical systems. You have not refuted the point. That you continue to refuse to recognize the notion, yet still assert that socialized medicine is the best indicates you should..... stop digging.
3) That you are now attempting to pose the US educational system as socialist is further evidence that having found yourself in a hole, you continue to dig. (Are you vying for the position of village idiot?) Have a guess at what the tuition for SUNY, or Michigan State University, or UCLA. What do you think the tuition for an out of stater at UCLA might be. A piece of advice.....stop digging.

The more you dig the sillier you look. OTOH that doesn't seem to be a concern. Carry on, as before.

They come here cause they get the treatment free. No more, no less.

As Moore tells us its free there too. So the fact that it might be free isn't a motive. Have another guess.

FYI, Eliminating the employer based system we have now is one of the things I advocate.

:thumbs:

Then you won't like Canada's system. The employer pays a tax specifically for health care. In my case they pay over $1500 a year. On top of which i have to pay a $750 surtax on my income. And they still have to suck revenues out of the general tax system to pay for our health care. And we still have waiting lines. And costs keep rising.

Then you won't like Canada's system.

I don't know about that.
It has employers paying a LOT less for health care than our system does right now. That is why Toyota decided to move a plant from Tennessee to Canada, because the health care costs are so much lower for employers over there.

:thumbs:

I don't know about that.
It has employers paying a LOT less for health care than our system does right now. That is why Toyota decided to move a plant from Tennessee to Canada, because the health care costs are so much lower for employers over there.

:thumbs:

Obviously not. The primary reason Toyota said they came was the education of the labor force.

Obviously not. The primary reason Toyota said they came was the education of the labor force.

It would seem both reasons were cited by Toyota for locating in Ontario.

""The educational level and the skill level of the people down there is so much lower than it is in Ontario," Fedchun said.

In addition to lower training costs, Canadian workers are also $4 to $5 cheaper to employ partly thanks to the taxpayer-funded health-care system in Canada, said federal Industry Minister David Emmerson.

"Most people don't think of our health-care system as being a competitive advantage," he said. "

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/business/050630/b0630102.html

You regularly post articles without providing a source and it's become a pet peeve for me.
Sorry about distracting this thread momentarily.
I think you have me confused. I'll mention an article's highlights and leave a link. Posting articles is a pet peeve of mine also. If a thread begins with a posted article I skip it.

I posted in this case because it came from a blog with about thirty articles listed so a link would have been much more frustrating to people.

I know lots of Americans who travel to Canada for their drugs...
Yeah, and who pays for the development of those "drugs", genius? You don't think American pharmaceutical companies are selling our medications (which account for the VAST majority out there) to other countries at an enormous discount when it's the American populace who pays for their creation and testing in the first place?

Get a clue.
For all those who say that capitalism is the answer to our health care woes, I must ask...didn't we arrive at our current state of affairs because of capitalism?
Damn straight, we did. Unfortunately, we're not making other countries pay as much as they should for our products. Therein lies a big problem.
...and I know lots of Canadians who won't come to the states without their travel insurance from the Canadian NHS.
Yeah, well, they usually find a way - just ask the good folks at Mayo Clinic.

It would seem both reasons were cited by Toyota for locating in Ontario.

""The educational level and the skill level of the people down there is so much lower than it is in Ontario," Fedchun said.

In addition to lower training costs, Canadian workers are also $4 to $5 cheaper to employ partly thanks to the taxpayer-funded health-care system in Canada, said federal Industry Minister David Emmerson.

"Most people don't think of our health-care system as being a competitive advantage," he said. "

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/business/050630/b0630102.html

i'd direct you to krugman's column which says education was the primary reason. Health insurance was also a consideration, but not the primary.

Yeah, and who pays for the development of those "drugs", genius?

We do, with out taxes, since most Pharma companies rely heavily on public research done at public universities with public money.

Okaaaaaay, so what does that tell ya?

Why do we pay more again???

Is Canada just some wonder of medical science - what, with their 2 hour long waits in triage and "cheap" medicine to boot, or are we just subsidizing their industry at a fraction of the cost?

I think you have me confused.Yay! I win.I'll mention an article's highlights and leave a link.Sometimes you link, sometimes you don't. I don't care if you only give highlights or paste the whole article. The link is what's important to me. And I wouldn't be making an issue of this if it weren't a recurring behavior on your part. Here are two other occasions I thought of off the top of my head:

http://www.allforums.net/showthread.php?p=271506&highlight=media#post271506

http://www.allforums.net/showthread.php?p=277855&highlight=source#post277855

I'm certain I can find more but hopefully you see my point.I posted in this case because it came from a blog with about thirty articles listed so a link would have been much more frustrating to people.The simple solution would have been to paste the article as you did and then post a link to the blog.

I would have liked to have visited the blog.

I don't know about that.
It has employers paying a LOT less for health care than our system does right now. That is why Toyota decided to move a plant from Tennessee to Canada, because the health care costs are so much lower for employers over there.

:thumbs:

Toyota brings inequality between the rich and poor us.:(
Their policy on economy are blamed in Japan because they just make confusion of economy.

Do people in Japan complain about Toyota sending jobs to North America?

Do people in Japan complain about Toyota sending jobs to North America?

No.
Tax system, illegal immigrants, and misusing labors with lower wages are their matters.

No.
Tax system, illegal immigrants, and misusing labors with lower wages are their matters.

I guess the Japanese and Americans complain about 3 out of 4 of the same things.

Obviously not. The primary reason Toyota said they came was the education of the labor force.

Negative. The primary reason that they openly stated was the cost of health care.


.