• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Canadians make 'good bogeyman' in U.S. health-care debate

nonothing

Well-known member
Tue Aug 11, 6:26 AM


By Alexander Panetta, The Canadian Press



GUADALAJARA, Mexico - Barack Obama downplayed Canadian frustration over his country's so-called Buy American provisions Monday, arguing that complaints about U.S. protectionism were over-the-top.


On a shared stage with Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon, the U.S. president said his country's controversial procurement rules came up at their so-called "Three Amigos" summit.


Obama said Canada and the United States will seek freer trade among provinces, states, and cities, but he dismissed the complaint frequently heard north of the border that Americans are shutting down trade.


"I want to assure you that your prime minister raises this every time we see each other," Obama told a news conference as the summit wrapped up.


"(Harper) is expressing his country's concerns ... I think it's also important to keep it in perspective: We have not seen some sweeping steps towards protectionism."


Sources say the prime minister has expressed concern so often about the danger of protectionism to Obama that when he brought it up again at Monday's meeting, Harper prefaced his remarks with a self-deprecating preamble.


"I hate to sound like a broken record," officials quoted Harper as telling the leaders. "But I feel strongly about this issue."


Obama said the Buy American provision - which limits foreign companies' access to construction projects under the US$787-billion stimulus bill - was perfectly legal.


He said he didn't like the measure but, given the need to get stimulus money flowing, didn't feel it warranted a fight that could have stalled the bill in Congress.


As for future contracts, he suggested mechanisms could be adopted under which states, provinces, and cities liberalize procurement practices "that expand the trading relationship."


"But I do think it's important to keep this in perspective," Obama added again.


"This in no way has endangered the billions of dollars of trade taking place between our two countries."


Harper said he was pleased that premiers formed a common front last week when they agreed to freer trade between provinces and states. He said the file would now be taken up by federal ministers, civil servants and the leaders themselves.


On a separate issue, Obama cracked a joke in Canada's direction.


He warned that Canada would continue to serve as a whipping boy in the highly charged U.S. debate over the future of health care, which has seen town hall meetings erupt into scuffles this summer.


Warnings about the danger of adopting "Canadian-style socialized medicine" are a ubiquitous refrain among critics of Obama's intended reforms.


"I suspect that you Canadians will continue to get dragged in by those who oppose reform - even though I've said nothing about Canadian health-care reform," Obama said.

"I don't find Canadians particularly scary, but I guess some of the opponents of reform think they make a good bogeyman."

Obama wants to extend health coverage to all Americans and allow for greater public-sector involvement alongside the current network of privately run insurance companies.

He said Americans are spending too much money on health care, with results that are too poor, and that too many families are being bankrupted by health bills because they don't have coverage.

But he quickly added that Canada's model - the single-payer public system - bears little relationship to the system he wants to create.

Obama repeated his frequent refrain that the U.S. health system evolved as a privately run entity over the decades, and there's no reason to move it in a radically different direction now.

But his legion of conservative critics argue that Obama's plan will ultimately kill the private insurance industry, increase government spending, and result in higher taxes. Just like Canada.

Harper steered clear of the debate.

When asked whether there were any elements of the Canadian system worth emulating, he merely replied: "Canadians support their own health-care system. As for the rest of this question my only answer is that this is an American debate, and the responsibility of the provinces."

Harper's obvious reluctance to sing the praises of Canada's medicare system stood in stark contrast to NDP Leader Jack Layton, who spent two days in Washington last June talking up Canadian health care with White House officials and members of Congress.

The summit - dubbed by some wags the "speed summit" for the fact it seemed over almost before it began - ended in a mutual pledge to stage a united effort on economic recovery, trade, swine flu and climate change.

The trio also discussed the political crisis in Honduras.

The leaders came out in defence of the country's ousted president, Manuel Zelaya.

Critics have argued the U.S. could do more to restore Zelaya to power, but both Harper and Obama brushed those comments aside.

Obama said those in Latin America who complain about U.S. non-involvement are the same people who complain about "Yanqui" interference when the United States does get involved.

Harper cut in, joking that the only time Americans get accused of non-interference is when they're not being accused of interference.

The leaders were also asked about Canada's decision last month to impose visas on Mexican travellers - a move that has proven highly controversial in Mexico.

A screaming front-page headline in Monday's Guadalajara Publico newspaper focused on the government's refusal to back down on the policy: "Canada, Inflexible."

The Mexican president said he understood that the visas were not intended as a slight at his country, but were being imposed because Canada's refugee system was being flooded by bogus claimants.

He said he hoped to see that refugee system reformed, so that the visa measures could be rescinded.

"It certainly gets in the way of a good relationship," Calderon said. But he added that the dispute should not be allowed to detract from other Mexico-Canada initiatives of mutual interest.
 

don

Well-known member
maybe it's like aberhart said in the thirties, 'if you haven't suffered enough it's your god-given right to suffer some more.' if americans don't want to modify their system then they can just continue on, for better or worse. the german model is closer to what americans might accept. it has more doctors and lower cost relative to gdp but there seems to be an element of the american way as developed so far is the only way.
 

Silver

Well-known member
I understand the French have a pretty good model, but I don't know all the details. Apparently it is a mix of gov't and private and works rather well. Being French though it would make for a tough sell in the US :wink:
 

Kato

Well-known member
I don't wander in here very often, but since health care reform seems to be the only thing on the news lately I though I'd check this forum.

My opinion is that if I had to choose between having my health care options dictated by a for profit corporation over which I have no control, or a democratically elected government under which I have democratic rights, I think I'll take the government thank you.

I'll say it. I like our system. There you go.

I'm having trouble thinking of the right word to describe the thought that people can lose their coverage if they lose their jobs, or that they can lose their homes due to medical bills. The words I came up with would just start a big fight here, so I won't say them. :wink:

Our system is not perfect, but what system is? I don't know a single person who has lost anything due to illness. I don't know anyone who's been denied treatment for anything their doctor said they needed. There are waiting lists, sure, but the longest lists are for elective or non life threatening things. BTW, a lot of the waiting lists are also a result of doctor shortages due to, guess what? Doctors going to the U.S. because they make more money there. :roll: What does that tell you?

In our province at least, if you've got something serious going on, you will get treatment, and you will get it in a timely manner. Your doctor is the one who decides what you do or do not need, and I've personally never seen an instance where anyone farther up the line has decided otherwise. I worked for doctors for a couple of years, and they never once got directions from anyone higher up the chain of command in the health care system about what their patients could or could not receive in the way of treatment.

It will be interesting to see how this gets thrashed out, and since you guys have a democracy you will decide for yourselves. If there's one thing that can be said about President Obama, it is that between the election, and this issue, he has gotten more people actively involved in the process of running the country than anyone in many many years.
 

Northern Rancher

Well-known member
Well after my cancer deal this spring i wouldn't be any more alive in the U'S but I'd be alot more poor-I have absolutely no complaints about the standard or quality of care I received.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Thank You Kato and Northern Rancher-- you just backed up what Mrs. Greg was saying until she was hailed upon by the mob- and a couple of ex-American- now Canadian posters that demanded they knew more than she did- even tho she is involved in the Canadian health care profession...

And its the exact same thing I have heard from many of my Canadian neighbors.....
 

Silver

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Thank You Kato and Northern Rancher-- you just backed up what Mrs. Greg was saying until she was hailed upon by the mob- and a couple of ex-American- now Canadian posters that demanded they knew more than she did- even tho she is involved in the Canadian health care profession...

And its the exact same thing I have heard from many of my Canadian neighbors.....

Yes, she summed up pretty well how most everyone I know thinks. I think the major hurdles we face here are as Kato says, a doctor drainage to the US, and a funding problem.
My FIL went to emergency this spring with chest pains, and in a few days had multiple bypass surgery and is now recovered quite well. No waits, no delays, they kept him at the hospital under observation until the operation.
Anyway, it is nice to know that we have acccess to good health care without worrying about losing the place, or without having a family member hold down a job just for that security.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Northern Rancher said:
Well after my cancer deal this spring i wouldn't be any more alive in the U'S but I'd be alot more poor-I have absolutely no complaints about the standard or quality of care I received.

Glad you were one of the fortunate! Especially since Canada has a worse Cancer survival rate than the U.S.

Besides maybe you would not have been poorer, maybe you would have been one of the majority in the U.S. that had health insurance and maybe you would have more money because you would not pay as much in taxes as you do in Canada!

If I had Cancer as you had I would not be any poorer than you are, because I have insurance. I also wonder how much of the technology used to treat you was invented or built in the U.S.?
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Silver said:
Oldtimer said:
Thank You Kato and Northern Rancher-- you just backed up what Mrs. Greg was saying until she was hailed upon by the mob- and a couple of ex-American- now Canadian posters that demanded they knew more than she did- even tho she is involved in the Canadian health care profession...

And its the exact same thing I have heard from many of my Canadian neighbors.....

Yes, she summed up pretty well how most everyone I know thinks. I think the major hurdles we face here are as Kato says, a doctor drainage to the US, and a funding problem.
My FIL went to emergency this spring with chest pains, and in a few days had multiple bypass surgery and is now recovered quite well. No waits, no delays, they kept him at the hospital under observation until the operation.
Anyway, it is nice to know that we have acccess to good health care without worrying about losing the place, or without having a family member hold down a job just for that security.

You guys crack me up, you think your health care came from the tooth fairy or Santa. If you directed them same funds that you pay in taxes towards an Insurance policy in the U.S. you would not have to worry about losing the place! :roll:

Just keep your fingers crossed that the next time you our your family needs care you will not find a waiting list or rationing!

I know for a fact I will not, because I have health Insurance in a country that has enough MRI's to handle my needs and God forbidden my wife has a multiple birth I will not need to fly to another country to get it taken care of, I can chose ANY of the 7 hospitals within a 50 mile radius to take care of it!

Sure some Canadians will not have a complaint, some are at the front of the line on that given day, it is those that are at the back of the line that do not share your enthusiasm!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
aplusmnt said:
Silver said:
Oldtimer said:
Thank You Kato and Northern Rancher-- you just backed up what Mrs. Greg was saying until she was hailed upon by the mob- and a couple of ex-American- now Canadian posters that demanded they knew more than she did- even tho she is involved in the Canadian health care profession...

And its the exact same thing I have heard from many of my Canadian neighbors.....

Yes, she summed up pretty well how most everyone I know thinks. I think the major hurdles we face here are as Kato says, a doctor drainage to the US, and a funding problem.
My FIL went to emergency this spring with chest pains, and in a few days had multiple bypass surgery and is now recovered quite well. No waits, no delays, they kept him at the hospital under observation until the operation.
Anyway, it is nice to know that we have acccess to good health care without worrying about losing the place, or without having a family member hold down a job just for that security.

You guys crack me up, you think your health care came from the tooth fairy or Santa. If you directed them same funds that you pay in taxes towards an Insurance policy in the U.S. you would not have to worry about losing the place! :roll:

Just keep your fingers crossed that the next time you our your family needs care you will not find a waiting list or rationing!

I know for a fact I will not, because I have health Insurance in a country that has enough MRI's to handle my needs and God forbidden my wife has a multiple birth I will not need to fly to another country to get it taken care of, I can chose ANY of the 7 hospitals within a 50 mile radius to take care of it!

Sure some Canadians will not have a complaint, some are at the front of the line on that given day, it is those that are at the back of the line that do not share your enthusiasm!

Why does this not surprise me- that you would be the first of the mob to claim you know better what is happening in and what people want in another country than those that live there and partake of the services.... Or even those that talk with many from that country on a regular basis that say the same thing... :???: :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Unless Rush or one of the other paid handlers told you- you wouldn't believe the sun rose in the east.... :( :(
 

Kato

Well-known member
aplusmnt, we do not think health care comes from the tooth fairy, but we are all aware that our taxes fund it. The reason we don't complain is because we never know when we're going to be the ones in the emergency room. We all either have been benefited, or we have had friends and family that have, from our health care system.

And even if it's a guy living in a cardboard box under a bridge, if he needs a heart bypass, he will get it. And afterward he will be helped back onto his feet as well as back to health. It's just the way it works here.

The other part of our system that you probably never hear about is the preventative part. Since it's public funds that are paying for things, then in the interest of using those funds well, preventative measures are a big thing here. Since we know we will not be charged, we tend to go to the doctor for problems before they become big problems. Almost everyone, no matter what their financial situation, has an annual checkup, and this includes all the monitoring tests needed to catch things like diabetes and cholesterol and blood pressure that are easy to put off. This can save a lot of lives and money in the long run. I know a few people who've had cancer found before they ever had a symptom, and they are probably healthy now mainly because of that annual checkup. If they'd waited until they thought something was wrong they would faced a lot tougher road.

When the health care system runs for profit, what is the incentive for the medical system to try and save money by preventing illnesses? Why would anyone in the system care? (other than the patient) There's a lot more money to be made on a bypass than on a checkup and a prescription for cholesterol medication. You can't buy a BMW by writing Crestor prescriptions nearly as easily as you can spending time in the OR.

If insurance is the way to go, then could you explain to me how the insurance companies can charge a premium that is high enough to cover the costs from hospitals that have built in a profit for themselves, the costs of drugs that have built in a profit for themselves, the profit that the insurance company requires, and still deliver health care that costs less than what it does here? It doesn't add up.

Our government gets a bill from the hospital here that covers costs, and leaves no profit for the hospital. They also negotiate large scale deals with big Pharma for drugs at reasonable cost. And they set the amounts that doctors can bill for services.

I would think that when all the dust has settled, and the bills for the recent bailout come back, our two countries will have a very similar tax structure anyway. The difference being that ours has been spent on health care and yours has been spent on repairing Wall Street.
 

badaxemoo

Well-known member
Kato said:
aplusmnt, we do not think health care comes from the tooth fairy, but we are all aware that our taxes fund it. The reason we don't complain is because we never know when we're going to be the ones in the emergency room. We all either have been benefited, or we have had friends and family that have, from our health care system.

And even if it's a guy living in a cardboard box under a bridge, if he needs a heart bypass, he will get it. And afterward he will be helped back onto his feet as well as back to health. It's just the way it works here.

The other part of our system that you probably never hear about is the preventative part. Since it's public funds that are paying for things, then in the interest of using those funds well, preventative measures are a big thing here. Since we know we will not be charged, we tend to go to the doctor for problems before they become big problems. Almost everyone, no matter what their financial situation, has an annual checkup, and this includes all the monitoring tests needed to catch things like diabetes and cholesterol and blood pressure that are easy to put off. This can save a lot of lives and money in the long run. I know a few people who've had cancer found before they ever had a symptom, and they are probably healthy now mainly because of that annual checkup. If they'd waited until they thought something was wrong they would faced a lot tougher road.

When the health care system runs for profit, what is the incentive for the medical system to try and save money by preventing illnesses? Why would anyone in the system care? (other than the patient) There's a lot more money to be made on a bypass than on a checkup and a prescription for cholesterol medication. You can't buy a BMW by writing Crestor prescriptions nearly as easily as you can spending time in the OR.

If insurance is the way to go, then could you explain to me how the insurance companies can charge a premium that is high enough to cover the costs from hospitals that have built in a profit for themselves, the costs of drugs that have built in a profit for themselves, the profit that the insurance company requires, and still deliver health care that costs less than what it does here? It doesn't add up.

Our government gets a bill from the hospital here that covers costs, and leaves no profit for the hospital. They also negotiate large scale deals with big Pharma for drugs at reasonable cost. And they set the amounts that doctors can bill for services.

I would think that when all the dust has settled, and the bills for the recent bailout come back, our two countries will have a very similar tax structure anyway. The difference being that ours has been spent on health care and yours has been spent on repairing Wall Street.

Take your socialist rhetoric back to your totalitarian hellhole and stop trying to poison the minds of us freedom-lovers. :wink:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
aplusmnt said:
Silver said:
Yes, she summed up pretty well how most everyone I know thinks. I think the major hurdles we face here are as Kato says, a doctor drainage to the US, and a funding problem.
My FIL went to emergency this spring with chest pains, and in a few days had multiple bypass surgery and is now recovered quite well. No waits, no delays, they kept him at the hospital under observation until the operation.
Anyway, it is nice to know that we have acccess to good health care without worrying about losing the place, or without having a family member hold down a job just for that security.

You guys crack me up, you think your health care came from the tooth fairy or Santa. If you directed them same funds that you pay in taxes towards an Insurance policy in the U.S. you would not have to worry about losing the place! :roll:

Just keep your fingers crossed that the next time you our your family needs care you will not find a waiting list or rationing!

I know for a fact I will not, because I have health Insurance in a country that has enough MRI's to handle my needs and God forbidden my wife has a multiple birth I will not need to fly to another country to get it taken care of, I can chose ANY of the 7 hospitals within a 50 mile radius to take care of it!

Sure some Canadians will not have a complaint, some are at the front of the line on that given day, it is those that are at the back of the line that do not share your enthusiasm!

Why does this not surprise me- that you would be the first of the mob to claim you know better what is happening in and what people want in another country than those that live there and partake of the services.... Or even those that talk with many from that country on a regular basis that say the same thing... :???: :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Unless Rush or one of the other paid handlers told you- you wouldn't believe the sun rose in the east.... :( :(

Gee was there a big surprise that Oldtimer would be the first to make a snide remark about those that do live in Canada and know what it is like to partake in the waiting lists and have had loved ones living in pain because of those endless waiting list. I glad NR got treatment and I'm glad Kato can say what she said BUT I have waited and have had to watch a loved one wait for back surgery. But because I'm a ex-American- now Canadian posters I just could not possibably be telling the truth now could I. :roll:

Kato just wondering should Back Surgery be considered elective and subject to being bumped when the person is in his early thirties and is being prescribed Morphine to control the pain? As I happen to know this happened in Manitoba. :?

BTW, a lot of the waiting lists are also a result of doctor shortages due to, guess what? Doctors going to the U.S. because they make more money there. What does that tell you?

You are right our doctors are going to the US to be paid what they feel they are worth. This is nothing any working person wouldn't do. What does that tell me is that our government can't afford to keep the doctors we need to provide us with something that we have paid for though our taxes which is reliable health care for ALL.
:wink:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
Oldtimer said:
aplusmnt said:
You guys crack me up, you think your health care came from the tooth fairy or Santa. If you directed them same funds that you pay in taxes towards an Insurance policy in the U.S. you would not have to worry about losing the place! :roll:

Just keep your fingers crossed that the next time you our your family needs care you will not find a waiting list or rationing!

I know for a fact I will not, because I have health Insurance in a country that has enough MRI's to handle my needs and God forbidden my wife has a multiple birth I will not need to fly to another country to get it taken care of, I can chose ANY of the 7 hospitals within a 50 mile radius to take care of it!

Sure some Canadians will not have a complaint, some are at the front of the line on that given day, it is those that are at the back of the line that do not share your enthusiasm!

Why does this not surprise me- that you would be the first of the mob to claim you know better what is happening in and what people want in another country than those that live there and partake of the services.... Or even those that talk with many from that country on a regular basis that say the same thing... :???: :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Unless Rush or one of the other paid handlers told you- you wouldn't believe the sun rose in the east.... :( :(

Gee was there a big surprise that Oldtimer would be the first to make a snide remark about those that do live in Canada and know what it is like to partake in the waiting lists and have had loved ones living in pain because of those endless waiting list. I glad NR got treatment and I'm glad Kato can say what she said BUT I have waited and have had to watch a loved one wait for back surgery. But because I'm a ex-American- now Canadian posters I just could not possibably be telling the truth now could I. :roll:

Kato just wondering should Back Surgery be considered elective and subject to being bumped when the person is in his early thirties and is being prescribed Morphine to control the pain? As I happen to know this happened in Manitoba. :?

BTW, a lot of the waiting lists are also a result of doctor shortages due to, guess what? Doctors going to the U.S. because they make more money there. What does that tell you?

You are right our doctors are going to the US to be paid what they feel they are worth. This is nothing any working person wouldn't do. What does that tell me is that our government can't afford to keep the doctors we need to provide us with something that we have paid for though our taxes which is reliable health care for ALL.
:wink:

Well Tam- we already know you wouldn't be happy unless you had a Doctor living in your front yard and available 24/7.... :roll: :p

And with your hatred of government it doesn't surprise me that nothing involved with any government could/would ever make you happy- and there not be something you'd beech about...

I thought it was interesting that the thoughts of Mrs.Greg (who works in healthcare) and many of the other Canadians posting was identical to the Canadian neighbors I speak to frequently and the Canadians I come in contact with- which includes Doctors and health care professionals- who to the T almost all said- the Canadian system was not perfect, but definitely preferable to the costs/risks the US public faces ...

But this doesn't surprise me- as historically your's and Big Muddy's beliefs about the greatness of SSGA, CCA, and your opposition to M-COOL has been opposite to many of those Canadian neighbors and Canadian ranchers I talked with who thought that it was important for both countries to get- because they could recognize the dangers coming from beef/meat imports from S.A. and other countries- and without it just gave the packers more control over producers...

Did you ever think it could be you that is out of step- and that your wish to remain in the thinking of the 20th century is being left behind :???:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Dr. Arthur Porter is the CEO of the McGill University Health Centre (MUHC) in Montreal. Bernard Lord is a former premier of New Brunswick and currently with the Montreal office of McCarthy Tetrault. They recently founded the MUHC Institute of Strategic Analysis and Innovation as a vehicle for promoting debate about health care policy.
Private health care in Canada is a reality. For-profit health care in Canada is a reality. Two-tier health care in Canada is a reality.

Until a few years ago, most Canadians would have met such statements with angry denials. Public health care has, since the days of Tommy Douglas, become ingrained in the national psyche and emerged as one of the few sacred cows of the Canadian identity. But as we held to the ideal of a comprehensive, accessible and affordable health care system – contained within the public sphere – the realities on the ground were beginning to tell us something quite different.

Today, a critical mass of personal experiences, court cases and media attention has graduated the health care debate to a new level of interest and, more importantly, awareness. We are no longer able to ignore the long waiting times for surgery. We are beginning to understand what the rising costs of drugs and the availability of new medical technology will mean. We see the pressure that an aging population will soon place on the health care system.

Together, through committees and commissions, in hospitals and in legislatures, we have begun to demonstrate the leadership necessary to meet these challenges. At the same time, we are coming to accept that the private sector has for years played an important role.

There are many examples. Canadians have long been able to buy private health insurance for things not covered by medicare, such as drug prescriptions, physiotherapy or private hospital rooms. We can visit doctors who have exercised their right to opt out of the public plan. If we are in need of a particular medical test, it is becoming more and more possible to bypass the public sector and its waiting lists and pay to have the test done by a private clinic. We have increasing access to private family doctors through a form of clinic membership. In order to address backlogs, some of our public hospitals are now contracting out publically funded surgeries to private clinics.

The way we think about health care, and its future, is also undergoing an important shift. In short, we are moving beyond ideological debates that pit left-leaning Canadians against right-leaning Canadians. Health care is a universal issue not because of ideological conviction but rather because we all want to be in good health, and we all want the same for our children, our parents and our neighbours. We want to be well, to feel well, to live as fully as possible. Health care might just be the most practical of human pursuits.

As such, we as Canadians will always seek ways of improving our health. Efforts to gain access to a life-saving drug or new treatment, or travel to another province or country to have surgery today rather than in several months are the everyday stories of Canadians who want nothing more than a better life. We may prefer to seek this better life in the public system, but we know that the choice between risking our health, or the health of a loved one, on a waiting list or taking control of our health and pursuing a different solution is often really no choice at all.

In the 2005 decision Chaoulli v. Quebec, a majority of the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that, as a matter of human rights, Quebeckers may not be prohibited from taking out their own insurance to obtain in the private sector services that are in law – but not in practice – available under Quebec’s public health care plan. Lawyers for the federal government had argued that the court should not interfere with the health-care system, considered “one of Canada's finest achievements and a powerful symbol of the national identity”. The judges preferred to focus on the right to life and to personal inviolability. They acknowledged that alongside the very public debate around health care lies a very personal one, and that the necessity for action trumps any desire to preserve symbols or ideals of national identity.

The myth of a wholly public Canadian health care system has been exposed. Our ‘public’ sacred cow is not so public and may become less so in the coming years. We should neither rejoice nor shed tears. Our only obligation is to move forward in the best interests of the health of Canadians and continue to ensure that good health care for all remains a priority.

I guess I'm the only one that is dis-satified Oldtimer. :wink: :lol:
WARNING as You going down the road to Universal Health Care please watch out for the cars that are in reverse backing out of it Canada. :wink:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
Dr. Arthur Porter is the CEO of the McGill University Health Centre (MUHC) in Montreal. Bernard Lord is a former premier of New Brunswick and currently with the Montreal office of McCarthy Tetrault. They recently founded the MUHC Institute of Strategic Analysis and Innovation as a vehicle for promoting debate about health care policy.
Private health care in Canada is a reality. For-profit health care in Canada is a reality. Two-tier health care in Canada is a reality.

Until a few years ago, most Canadians would have met such statements with angry denials. Public health care has, since the days of Tommy Douglas, become ingrained in the national psyche and emerged as one of the few sacred cows of the Canadian identity. But as we held to the ideal of a comprehensive, accessible and affordable health care system – contained within the public sphere – the realities on the ground were beginning to tell us something quite different.

Today, a critical mass of personal experiences, court cases and media attention has graduated the health care debate to a new level of interest and, more importantly, awareness. We are no longer able to ignore the long waiting times for surgery. We are beginning to understand what the rising costs of drugs and the availability of new medical technology will mean. We see the pressure that an aging population will soon place on the health care system.

Together, through committees and commissions, in hospitals and in legislatures, we have begun to demonstrate the leadership necessary to meet these challenges. At the same time, we are coming to accept that the private sector has for years played an important role.

There are many examples. Canadians have long been able to buy private health insurance for things not covered by medicare, such as drug prescriptions, physiotherapy or private hospital rooms. We can visit doctors who have exercised their right to opt out of the public plan. If we are in need of a particular medical test, it is becoming more and more possible to bypass the public sector and its waiting lists and pay to have the test done by a private clinic. We have increasing access to private family doctors through a form of clinic membership. In order to address backlogs, some of our public hospitals are now contracting out publically funded surgeries to private clinics.

The way we think about health care, and its future, is also undergoing an important shift. In short, we are moving beyond ideological debates that pit left-leaning Canadians against right-leaning Canadians. Health care is a universal issue not because of ideological conviction but rather because we all want to be in good health, and we all want the same for our children, our parents and our neighbours. We want to be well, to feel well, to live as fully as possible. Health care might just be the most practical of human pursuits.

As such, we as Canadians will always seek ways of improving our health. Efforts to gain access to a life-saving drug or new treatment, or travel to another province or country to have surgery today rather than in several months are the everyday stories of Canadians who want nothing more than a better life. We may prefer to seek this better life in the public system, but we know that the choice between risking our health, or the health of a loved one, on a waiting list or taking control of our health and pursuing a different solution is often really no choice at all.

In the 2005 decision Chaoulli v. Quebec, a majority of the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that, as a matter of human rights, Quebeckers may not be prohibited from taking out their own insurance to obtain in the private sector services that are in law – but not in practice – available under Quebec’s public health care plan. Lawyers for the federal government had argued that the court should not interfere with the health-care system, considered “one of Canada's finest achievements and a powerful symbol of the national identity”. The judges preferred to focus on the right to life and to personal inviolability. They acknowledged that alongside the very public debate around health care lies a very personal one, and that the necessity for action trumps any desire to preserve symbols or ideals of national identity.

The myth of a wholly public Canadian health care system has been exposed. Our ‘public’ sacred cow is not so public and may become less so in the coming years. We should neither rejoice nor shed tears. Our only obligation is to move forward in the best interests of the health of Canadians and continue to ensure that good health care for all remains a priority.

I guess I'm the only one that is dis-satified Oldtimer. :wink: :lol:
WARNING as You going down the road to Universal Health Care please watch out for the cars that are in reverse backing out of it Canada. :wink:

The US- then Canada- where are you going now to seek your perfect world, Tam...

You'll have a tough time finding any civilized nation in the world that doesn't have some form of government or government subsidized health care tho....
 

Kato

Well-known member
It's too bad that your friend had back surgery bumped, but these things do happen. I've been there, and had a back that needed demerol for a while, but guess what, it got better without surgery. My doctor told me my CT scan looked pretty good for a 70 year old, and I was not yet 40, so go figure. He gave me alternatives to surgery, which I followed, and I'm glad I did. How did your friend do? Did they eventually get the surgery?

But what is worse? What happened to your friend? Or this scenario that I've been hearing on the news. A man gets sick, then loses his job because of it, then can't get insurance, then can't afford treatment. It's all downhill from there. :shock: :shock: :shock:

Give me a waiting list anyday.

I will now take my socialist rhetoric back to my totalitarian hellhole and stop trying to poison the minds of you freedom-lovers. :D :D :D :D :wink:
 

nonothing

Well-known member
Kato some advice.....These people here seem happy with the care they get.....I am not sure how they will feel the day big companies decide to save money and stop offering medical plans.....Tam keeps bringing up numbers and political stories.....She will never post a story about the millions helped with out losing thier homes......So just understand our system is not without flaws and will always be a work in progrss....but just try taking it away from Canadians and see how Tams polls are for that being openly accepted by the majority of Canadians......Also if it sucked so bad here,why would she bother waiting for any medical help,when all she has to do is move back home.......
 
Top