Who says the system doesn't serve anyone well?

Your "free" system serves you well, no doubt. Our "state" system serves ME well. So we are quits.

The trouble with capitalism, as I have said, is that wildcat competition and profiteering leads to economic bankruptcy for the society.

So you need the state to control the system.

Hence neither government diktat nor abdication to capital is a good system. Both will crash. What is needed is a sensible mix of the two. That's what Obama is being forced to try out. Good luck to him.

If the US system of healkthcare is so great -why are so many npeople bitter about it?

"A decade of postsecondary education" — it's not quite that, actually — doesn't impress me at all; plenty of people do that. Better than a decade of manual labour, anyway.

"Training that rivals slavery" — and which, in my experience, residents tend to relish, at the end of the day.

"Massive debt" — not much more than lawyers; anyway, they make good money straight away; but I think med schools should be better subsidised.

"A career that begins at not long before middle age" — what are you talking about? A resident is already launched on his/her career. It's news to me that you should get to leap to the front of your profession right away.

There are plenty of people to pity out there before we start weeping for the rich, prestigious doctors.

I'm an ex-pat, living free, without healthcare, in the Caribbean. When we go 'home' to visit family, I can feel the compression in my chest as I cross the border. Never would I have guessed as a teenager in NovaScotia, that I would be thankful to have another, freer, place to live . With eight children and a household salary a fraction of the 'teacher's union' salary in Canada, its worth it to us to pay cash for our healthcare. Really, really worth it.

Steyb and Cosh are right about something else. The stifling atmosphere in Canadian society today is more likely to produce gov't propaganda than art. Anyone falling off the treat wagon and venturing to express ideas not currently 'in favour' has the CHRC to fear.

Oh Canada. I miss what I grew up thinking you were!

mhb23re
at gmail d0t calm

by Nishant Tharani, Jul 30, 2007
A very brief look at the answer to this question.

CostOfWar.com is a project maintained by the National Priorities Project. It analyses federal data on spending in the war in Iraq, and produces a running counter of the total amount of money spent in the war in Iraq. At the time of writing this article, the war in Iraq costs $445,817,285,000.

$445,817,285,000. That's quite a large sum of money. And with large sums of money, sometimes it's hard to put them into perspective. So let's take a look at how the money could have been used otherwise. Instead of invading Iraq, 7,726,076 public school teachers could have been hired for a year. Or, 266,956,850 children could have had health insurance for a year. Back to education, 21,612,280 students could have been provided with four-year college scholarships.

By golly, I do declare I've touched a nerve.

Good work SCF!

Still peddling this tired old myth, eh?

Good thing Steyniacs are mostly Americans. The rest of us really don't have to care.

Freedom to choose because those silly poor folks aren't clogging up the system with their silly little problems.
Serious disease, denied treatment…well, if by serious you mean painful, sure.
If be serious you mean life-threatening, no.

Back up your general statement of fact upon which you base your statement. Alow us to study and analyse said facts. I look forward to this. As a health guy, I love this kind of stuff.

"Which 21st century do you recommend; the British, where bureaucrats deprive medical procedures to deserving patients to protect the government budget? Or Canada, whose patients come to United States hospitals where they have the freedom to choose immediate treatment for serious disease, which they have been denied in their home country?"

That's an easy one.

I choose the British system, unless I'm rich.

Bufcat

A reference for you: "In most cases, a smaller stone that is not symptomatic is often given up to four weeks[14] to move or pass before consideration is given to any surgical intervention as it has been found that waiting longer tends to lead to additional complications. Immediate surgery may be required in certain situations."

The seven weeks you waited for a diagnosis put you at risk (and that also explains why your wait was just seven weeks, because your treatment was considered higher priority than most, but regardless, you waited seven weeks anyway for a diganosis that should have occurred in less than 4 weeks to protect you from severe complications such as sepsis and toxic shock).

I meant the comment above for you as well as SCF.

Enjoy!!!!!

Ah ha- you're an age-ist and a fatist! So these Steynette Canadians (whom you presume to "know") don't fit into your approved identity group politics.

Interesting because it's those unsexy stereotypes- the old/ fat Canadians amongst us- who most rely on access to quality health care. That explains a lot about "Jack Mitchell", champion of the Canadian commoner.

You may have "joy" in your life, "Jack Mitchell", but it must be seriously empty if you come back to reply to comments from 2 days ago.

I note your statement several days ago about leaving the "wankfest of hate" forum here (after courageously deleting comments- they really must have been embarrassing, hey?)

But here you are again, continuing your intellectual masturbation in public. Disgusting.

Having a private health care system does hit the poor. Costs of treatment tend to become too high for the poor.

Because healthcare is resource-intensive and hence expensive. It's like a luxury car: if it is freely available on the market, far from everyone will be able to afford it. That is how it is in the US.

So, in Canada we have a system where the rich are made to subsidise health care for everyone. I know it has to be paid for. In Canada the rich pay.

That's fair. They have more money.

The short answer is: tough.

In Canada, people do not like too much inequality. They do NOT want a society in which some people have to go without healthcare because they can't afford it. So they deviced a state-funded system that provides care for EVERYONE.

The rich pay more taxes because they have more money. Love has nothing to do with it. You pay more because you have more.

So: enjoy Canada – or leave.

Secondly, because the government regulates what insurance companies must cover, there is a floor in the cost of health insurance (which sucks for younger people who might want very minimal coverage). American taxpayers also pay more per head for medicare and medicaid than Canadians do for our public healthcare system.

Thirdly, the original poster in this sub-thread is correct about the role of private bureaucrats. Health insurance companies will try to get themselves off the hook for just about everything, using obscure provisions of your health insurance contract to get out of doing paying. I had to call them about ten times just to get it straight that I couldn't provide a notice of termination of my previous coverage, because my previous coverage was by virtue of being an Ontarian.

I probably used to be indifferent to you. However, now that I face the prospect of having to waste my substance on your health care, I'm probably looking forward to your being dead.

Apparently, they hire lobbyists in order to line up at the federal government to pick up a cheque.

Have no fear, mister comment-withdrawer. Obama's keen on eliminating that discrepancy. A good decade (or more) of postsecondary studies, training that rivals slavery, massive debt at the end of all that, a career that begins at not long before middle age does, continuing crazy hours and availability depending on field of practice, and an increasing number of patients who want to sue your allegedly rich posterior because the scar is a little crooked. But wait! There's more! We have determined that you're paid too much so we're gonna find a way to squeeze you on that in the coming years. Show me the best and brightest line up for that in the coming years. Ain't gonna happen. And presto! No sustainable number of providers, innovation has been centrally-planned outta there, and rationing kicks in.

Which is a shame. The 45th to 49th parallel has served as a very important safety valve for our own thoroughly decayed system for so long. It will be sad to see it gone.

The big difference is that in the Canadian system (or other government run systems) if you are denied a certain drug for your illness, that is it. You have no other options. In our system, if you are denied a drug (which rarely happens) you can go out and purchase that drug on your own. You have an option. In the government systems, you play the way they tell you to play or you don't play at all. And sometimes you die.

One last thing. If the Canadian system is so good, why do the Canadian politicians not have the same health care? If the proposed Obamacare system is so good, why did the House of Representatives just vote to NOT be under the same system?