well maybe you'd like to explain how not a single country has voted universal health out once they have it. Not one. As an Australian, I know that under your sytem my chronically ill daughter would either have died or bankrupted our family. Instead whether i've been in work or out she has recieved the best care immediately and the most I have paid is 1.5% of my gross income. You people are fools because it appears driven my a horrible idea that you dont want people to benefit more than you do and to meet that anti equity idea you are prepared to pay more than any other country in the western world just so that you can sleep snug in your bed knowing the uninsured kid with a bad infected tooth could potentialy die.

Yep yoyo, I really don't not care about your kid or yo! Maybe if I knew you a bit more I might care a touch more. Still in the end it is my money, my life and I want to keep it. There will be certain things I care about but in the grand scheme I do not like being forced to do what I do not want to do. Yep I am an asshole.

Yoyo -

Let's make something perfectly clear here.

Socialized medicine only works when the difficult cases are left to die. Like in Canada and England which have lower cancer survival rates than the US by large margins.

Socialized medicine works great in the early going. Then when the bill finally comes in, there's not enough GDP to cover the costs of medical care once people get used to the idea that it's "free" and they are entitled to it.

Tragedy of the commons.

As David M. posted on the previous entry:

"The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." --Margaret Thatcher

congressman Rogers is lying.

No member of the house or senete will ever say that to a familly memeber baecause no member of the house or senete will be on the public health plan

yoyo, no country has voted away socialized plans because once you go there there is no going back. Programs of this size cannot be dismantled. And if we had a feel for our government being able to properly manage this program we might be more inclined to support it. But our government knows social security i going broke, medicare is going broke, and all entitlements are underfunded. Instead of tackling these issues, they wish to force down another one that we cannot pay for even if taxes were tripled. Bad ideas at the worst fucking time, and yet that asshole in the white house declares a health care emergency and tells us we need to do this right away. Oh, and john q public doesn't need to read the bill. Sorry folks, these folks are pansified nazis looking for total control.

Yoyo,

Most of those "free" treatments and drugs your daughter receives either come from or were initial developed by America. Not only that, but those price caps that universal healthcare countries impose, the cost difference are paid by Americans.

Odd, how the Canadians stay with national health insurance. It is a well-informed, well-educated democracy, excellent newspapers and bloggers. Much like Germany, Great Britian, Denmark, Sweden etc.
And here in the US, we have so many smart pundits telling them they their system is a failure. They don't listen to us!
If only they would learn from our pundits!

and if "douchebaggier-than-thou" paid attention to current events, he'd know that Canada has proposals to add a private care system on top of their socialized system because it fucking sucks donkey balls.

The socialist systems are dismantling themselves all around the world because they have no other options available to them.

> Odd, how the Canadians stay with
> national health insurance.

Even odder, how governments don't readily surrender control of resources (or their populations' lives).

What country did you say you were from?

And what's the deal with this "thou" thing?

And BTW, have you met this guy "Whatever"? His nickname is goofy and teenage-offputting, too! I can imagine you two getting along really nicely.

Do Crud and Lyin' Brian hump each other? They post right next one another all the time, and both are inclined to invective and expletive. Aree they lovers/ Do they deny it?
Stay tuned!!!!

That's hilarious. Insinuating brian and Crid are lovers....on a healthcare piece. Pay attention dude!

Son, you can't fix stupid.

Ahem.

Brian sez: "Like in Canada and England which have lower cancer survival rates than the US by large margins."

I sez: Not so much. The CONCORD study last year showed actually extremely small margins. Extremely small. And, my initial look suggests that in Canada, you don't have to be white to survive - unlike the US system where "Cancer survival in black men and women was systematically and substantially lower than in white men and women in all 16 states and six metropolitan areas included. Relative survival for all ethnicities combined was 2-4% lower in states covered by NPCR than in areas covered by the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program. Age-standardised relative survival by use of the appropriate race-specific and state-specific life tables was up to 2% lower for breast cancer and up to 5% lower for prostate cancer than with the census-derived national life tables used by the SEER Program. These differences in population coverage and analytical method have both contributed to the survival deficit noted between Europe and the USA, from which only SEER data have been available until now.

To adapt Amy's charmingly overwrought (and incorrect) statement, "wanna get rid of minorities? Treat 'em in America".

Brian also sez: "Canada has proposals to add a private care system on top of their socialized system because it fucking sucks donkey balls."

It's sad when you can't present a case without resorting to misrepresentation and/or absurd statements.

There are, indeed, sometimes proposals bandied around to add a "payer-use" type system. It rarely achieves a toehold (and a tiny toehold, at that) because the vast majority of people are quite delighted with their health care.

My father was diagnosed with Non-Hodgkin lymphoma 3 years ago. Treatment started virtually immediately. He got all the bells and whistles required, and today is - thankfully - in splendid, cancer-free health. Did I mention that he's retired and has no private insurance? No, because *it didn't matter*.

Okay, rather than continue to gripe, I'll just finish with one thing: I'm not going to tell you Americans whether or not you should move to a socialized medicine system. That's for you folks to decide.

But for fuck's sake, stop lying about and slagging my country's system. Because it's pretty fucking great, thanks. For every "I knew a guy who bla bla bla" story you hear, there are probably ten thousand that are more like my father. Excellent, timely, life-saving care by first-rate practitioners.

We have world-class innovation, doctors, researchers, and results. And it suits the vast majority of us. If you can find *anything* *anywhere* with 100% acceptance by millions of people across a wide variety of income levels, races, classes, and backgrounds, please let me know. Until then, just suck it up and accept that the massive majority of Canadians wouldn't change what we have for anything, and the ones who "propose" user-pay options represent a tiny fraction of the population.

"Wanna die of cancer? Move to Canada.". Puh-lease. That's one hysterical and idiotic statement, and Amy, frankly, it's beneath you.

In most major industrialized economies, you have a situation where the state has taken control of most of the more difficult responsibilities in life or things that have traditionally been considered more noble pursuits, i.e. health, education, child care, the elderly, assistance to the poor, even funding the arts.

When the government takes responsibility for the more difficult problems of life, the private citizen is left with no other purpose than to make their money and spend it on whatever pleases them in order to keep the economy going and generate the revenue for the government to take care of all the other stuff.

This outsourcing of responsibility to the government ultimately must have a corrosive impact on society, families and communities. In particular, it tends to make people more selfish, insular and detached from others. After all, if there are social problems or other people are in need who cares? It's not my problem. It is up to the government to sort all this out. Go find the relevant bureaucracy and they just might help you. Eventually. I paid my taxes, and so my civic duty has been discharged.

The funny thing is that welfare state measures are usually justified on the grounds that they will create a more compassionate and decent society. This is dark humor at its best. In reality, such measures usually have the opposite effect of making people more self-absorbed and detached. If you go to many countries, including parts of the United Kingdom, you can see first hand the corrosive effects of such policies.

> That's one hysterical and idiotic
> statement

Know what I heard about Canada? Rich 'n powerful people cut in line.

Imagine!

(If I'm wrong, go ahead and say so. If'n.)

As a Canadian I WISH I could buy private insurance...

Hi, Crid,

I'm not sure how you choose to define "cut in line", but the answer is "not really".

If Barry Wealthy is hit by a bus in Toronto, he'll be taken to Sunnybrook, triaged, admitted, and treated in the exact same way Murry Poor is.

The difference is in certain non-emergency things... sometimes, sort of.

If my knee goes "ping!" and I go to my doctor, she might schedule me for, say, an MRI. That could be in an hour, or it could be in a week.

If Marty Maple Leaf ruptures something in his knee during a game, he will almost certainly get an MRI same-day - sort of. Some insurance companies for some circumstances (and yes, most Canadians do also have some private insurance) have agreements with hospitals to pay to use facilities *after hours*. (interestingly, some hospitals have agreement with *veterinary* hospitals to use equipment after hours... and the money paid for those privileges goes back into the hospital.)

Is that cutting in line? Personally, I don't think so. They're not making someone else late, which would be my definition of "cutting". Your opinion may differ.

Anyhow, that doesn't change the fact that "ZOMG practically everyone with cancer in Canada dies!!!1!!" is a stupid and deeply wrong statement.

Bzzzt. Everyone with cancer in Canada dies: This I know.

And now I'll have to look up the cutting in line thing....

The New York Times wouldn't lie to us about this, would it?

Har har, yes, pedantry is fun.

And I have no doubt you'll find some anecdotal evidence that somewhere, at some time, a rich dude whose buddy is a hospital administrator got squeezed in before his turn.

But you (generic "you", not you personally, Crid) seem to believe that finding a handful of flaws suddenly makes our system AWFUL. Your current system, too, has flaws. I don't consider it awful, it's just not the one I'd choose, knowing what I do about our system.

I'll tell you right here right now: If you could find a thousand rock-solid cases of wealthy Canadians getting treatment with faster turnaround than the average schmoe, you STILL wouldn't change my opinion. Because - in my opinion - that doesn't particularly matter. I'm not all het up about the "principle" of it. So long as I know that my father, friends, self, and millions of strangers, can get care and treatment regardless of ability to pay, the eeeensy percentage of zillionaires who sneak in ahead of the curve frankly doesn't bother me much.

For what it's worth, I'm not a raging socialist. I like having money. I disapprove of a large variety of "socialist" policy. I'd be MUCH more discriminating with welfare disbursement and policy, for example. I just happen to consider it reprehensible that a family or individual can be reduced to a lifetime of poverty because their spouse/parent/child happened to linger a few extra days before dying. (If you guys are allowed to spew rhetoric about us, then you gotta give me license to spew some, too). I DO believe that our health care is excellent, and I would have no interest in changing it significantly. (ie, there are individual *aspects* that need work, but grand-scheme, I give it a thumbs-up).

As I said, Crid, I'm not going to claim perfection. And I assume you're not going to claim the US system is flawless.

You'll note that many of the issues in the NYT article are "... compared to 15 years ago", and the like. (and taking reports by certain groups with a grain of salt, as they're as trustworthy as Winston-Salem saying smoking saves lives or something)

Anyhow, re the "15 years ago" aspect...

I, personally, think that's related to our excessive acceptance of unskilled immigrants and their families. There ARE many cases of people coming to live here, hauling their whole family over for "family unification" as soon as they can, getting surgery, etc, for the whole fam' damily, then going back to the homeland. A few million dollars spent, on people who've barely even paid taxes.

Yeah, I disapprove of that. I like immigration in general, but think we need to be a lot more fussy about who we take.

But again, just because you can find flaws, doesn't make the system terrible. I'm never going to claim perfection... can you claim perfection about your system? I'll suspect not.

BTW - you're using some individual woman saying "If my husband was a politician, we wouldn't have to wait" as some sort of proof that there's vast quantities of queue-jumping by the rich? Really?

And, the anecdote in that article (which is actually 6 years old, by the way) from the woman who had to wait 2 months from ultrasound to biopsy? Tell you what. Last year I had a mammogram. It showed something odd. I had a second mammogram, an ultrasound, and biopsies in roughly 10 days.

My husband had to go to the ER recently with severe abdominal pain. He was triaged, seen, treated, given results, counselled for followup, and sent home in a matter of hours.

The last (and first, actually) time I went to ER, you'd have thought I was royalty. I cannot come up with *anything* to complain about from the process. And I'm not rich or famous. I'm not beautiful. I wasn't well-dressed or made up (it was 2am. I looked particularly awful). Literally, there was *nothing* they could have done better.

Again... perhaps the system as a whole isn't perfect, but there ain't one that is.

>>Like in Canada and England which have lower cancer survival rates than the US by large margins.

Brian,
Others have queried this assertion. I do too. Cites, please.

(You tend to be a numbers guy. So where are you getting the ones that show "large margins" for these comparative survival rates?)

Do Crud and Lyin' Brian hump each other? They post right next one another all the time, and both are inclined to invective and expletive. Aree they lovers/ Do they deny it?
Stay tuned!!!!

Well, at least I know I couldn't possibly occupy the top slot of Brian's and Crid's hatelist.

Is it just me or is Lauren replying to herself now?

In using Canada as an example of socialized health care (good or bad) we need to take into account the fact that the population of Canada is only 10% of the population of the United States:

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

For fuck sake France has a larger population than Canada! A smaller, rural population and Canada's general location give it certain advantages. Fewer people mean fewer problems in a socialized system. Take each of those problems and multiply them 10 fold, that is what you would suffer in the United States.

Plus, there is an entire industry in Canada for medical tourism to the United States. If a Canadian cannot get medical care in time, he/she always has the option to come here. Where would everyone go to get good free market medical care if the US goes socialist?

Canada also doesn't have the illegal immigrant issue that we have. Illegal immigrants are taking down the few governmentally sponsored social programs we have (medicaid as an example) It is estimated by some that we have 22 million illegal immigrants in this country. Those are people who at best are earning minimum wage. They come here and get free medical care, food stamps, schooling for their children, etc, but their taxes don't cover their cost. http://immigrationcounters.com/ Those social services cost us about 30 billion dollars per year.

Socialized medicine might work when you have a relatively small population of people that doesn't have much of a wage disparity. Each person pays in taxes what they would have paid in medical care. (Although I still find it morally reprehensible to steal money from someone who earned it and give it to someone who hasn't). However our country is already serving as the social safety net of Latin America. We are the military might of Europe. We are the peace keepers of the middle east. We are also the bank for every starving third world country.

Our economy that everyone in the world has reaped benefits from is teetering on the brink. We've given more than we should have and we cannot afford this extra cost. Even if this wasn't morally wrong, we don't have the money to pay for this, and no one is going to bale us out when the economy really tanks.

-Julie

Well, at least I know I couldn't possibly occupy the top slot of Brian's and Crid's hatelist.

I suspect that takes me off as well.

-Julie

We are the military might of Europe. We are the peace keepers of the middle east. We are also the bank for every starving third world country

Interesting points. I read elsewhere (Sullivan, perhaps) that it's American lives and American dollars that are paving the way for the Chinese century while they stand by and ride on the coattails if the security we provide.

Hi, Julie,

I was unimpressed at having 3 posts in a row, myself. Crid posted while I was typing one, so I answered it... and then had an afterthought. Sorry.

And your points are very interesting. However, none of them back up the allegation that Canada's health care is some sort of massive disaster that everyone hates and which kills people at terrifying rates (obviously, this is rhetoric).

I don't care one way or another what your country decides to do with its health care. I'm not trying to push an agenda on your population. All I'm really saying is that I'd really like the outright lies about OUR health care to stop. Canadian cancer patients have *extremely* comparable survival rates to the US. So the Amy's petty "wanna die of cancer? Go to Canada" is just so much bullshit. (BTW, Canadians just made a massive metastatic breast cancer research breakthrough. It's another step towards saving millions of people around the world. And not just white people who can afford it.)

By all means, debate universal health care for the US. And yeah, that includes the fact there are significant differences in US and Canadian populations. But don't try to make yourself feel better by lying about us being terrible.

Universal health care might or might not be a ghastly idea for the US. Not my call to make. But *our* universal health care is one of the things the vast majority of Canadians cherish and would fight hard to protect.

Is that so hard for some folks to wrap their heads around? It might not be perfect, but no system is, and most of us think it's pretty darn good.

And not just white people who can afford it.

You keep making this comment, but pretty much all Canada has is white people! How do you know how minorities and illegal immigrants would work under your system? You don't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada#Ethnicity

Also, most poor people in the US have a governmentally sponsored health care option called Medicaid. Also, most children can enroll in Chips. This is in addition to legislation requiring all hospitals to provide emergency medical care to anyone who enters the door. And that doesn't even take into account that most hospitals are non-profit and provide care for people whether they can pay or not.

My point (that you missed) is that Canada cannot be used to assess how socialist health care would work in the United States. It is too small and too white.

However, none of them back up the allegation that Canada's health care is some sort of massive disaster that everyone hates and which kills people at terrifying rates

I didn't make this allegation. However you cannot deny that the only way to save money in a socialist medical system is through rationing and that an entire industry exists in Canada to get people who cannot get timely care in there to the United States where care is much more timely.

I don't care one way or another what your country decides to do with its health care.

That is why you are spending your time here arguing how wonderful it is, right? You sound as bad as new parents who try to convince all of their friends how wonderful it is getting no sleep and changing toxic waste dump diapers. You are stuck with the situation and you are trying to put on a happy face about it.

But don't try to make yourself feel better by lying about us being terrible

You cannot argue that fatality rates aren't higher in Canada:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjhmOGU0MDdhM2Y5YmEyMzVmNjZhZWZiMTA3ZTQyOTA=

If you "don't care" and the Canadian system is "so great" then why are you down here screaming from the mountain tops and calling Brian and Crid ass ramming butt-fuckers?

-Julie

First off, Julie, I most certainly did not call Brian and/or Crid ass ramming butt-fuckers. That was absolutely not me. I consider that kind of behavior pointless and ignorant.

Actually, I just re-read the post I assume you're referring to, so I should probably use totally waffle-free phrasing: That was not me. It was not anyone I know. I had no involvement with it whatsoever. Clear?

Second, I "don't care" and think we're "so great" because that's what I believe. The "ur just jellus" and/or "ur putting on a happy face" bullshit is, indeed, bullshit. I'll say it as clearly as I can: If given the chance to move to the best part of the US (whatever that may be) and have a good job, good neighbors, and good prospects *I would not do it*. I know you think America is the greatest place on earth, and maybe can't imagine that there are people who think the same thing about their own country, and who DON'T envy you. But it's true. I don't envy Americans. (Don't take that wrong - I also don't "dislike" Americans or anything like that. I'm NOT disparaging you. You see, it IS possible to not want something without having to slag it.)

By the way, that was an interesting, and shrill, little screed about parenting. Any chance I know/knew you from ASCF? I'm a baby-hater myself. Oh yeah, I said it. ;)

So, if I may politely request it, Julie, could you back up a step and try to consider that Americans shouting "Canada sucks! They kill off patients to save money! They're all jealous and desperate to sprint down here to take our CAT scans!" is *offensive*?

Americans are known for, shall we say, defending to the death their beliefs? That if a non-American dares criticize them, the tendency is to lash our with fervent pride/anger? If I, a Canadian, started spouting that "you Americans" were against universal health care because you're a bunch of heartless fucks who'd love to see the underclass die off, and lousy healthcare and minority-heavy military are how the government achieves that... (PS, I don't believe that) do you suppose you'd react with a smidge of passion and defend your country? I'd expect you to.

I've managed to not slag the US (okay, the minority thing was a little kick at the cat, but surely you recognize that percentages and actual numbers aren't the same, right? I live in Toronto, where I am VERY frequently the "visible minority". The prairies and coasts might be snow-white, but the big cities are *extremely* multicultural).

By the way the National Review stats are inadequate for me to judge. I would require more detail. "5 year survival rate" can mean a whole lot of things. It is known (okay, widely held among people I know who have had relatives in the US and Canada with cancer) that Americans are much more inclined to draw out life, regardless of quality. We don't tend (where "tend" is an important word) to keep treating people who are *dying* of cancer and are on life-support. I have US relatives who have experienced just that. Sure, they "lived" an extra little while, but they weren't *alive*.

You know what? I think maybe both of us are getting kind of overwrought. Probably because we both like our countries the way they are, for the most part, actually.

I'm willing to agree to disagree. I'm willing to say that it's perfectly possible that there is some disparity in survival rates, and possibly even due, in some cases, to failings of the system; are you willing to say that it's perfectly possible that some of that disparity is likely due to hard-to-quantify reasons like end-of-life philosophy, and not *exclusively* some failing on the part of social medicine?

And it'd be kinda nice if someone other than me recognized that "Wanna die of cancer? Move to Canada" is both offensive and incorrect?

Anyhow, I'm out. I'm hoping that a person or two understands that we don't feel like your poor hick cousin who hasta go to a barber for bleedin' when we're sick. And we might even resent the fact that too many of you fine folk seem unaware of that. That's all.

I genuinely, honestly, hope the US can find a policy that works for as close to everyone as possible. Whether that's socialized or not.

From Lauren's post:

"(and yes, most Canadians do also have some private insurance) have agreements with hospitals to pay to use facilities *after hours*. (interestingly, some hospitals have agreement with *veterinary* hospitals to use equipment after hours... and the money paid for those privileges goes back into the hospital.)"

Lauren, nothing personal here, I am sure you're a nice gal and all ...but I'd rather put a cigarette out in my eye than have the Canadian system here in the US.

Feebie, that's cool. I totally respect your opinion. It's probably *partially* based on misinformation, but I also recognize there are philosophical differences between the US and Canada, and you and I. As the wise theme song for Diff'rent Strokes said, "what might be right for you, might not be right for some". ;)

Yeah, let's all be Canada.

First off, Julie, I most certainly did not call Brian and/or Crid ass ramming butt-fuckers.

I rolled back and that wasn't you. I apologize for the accusation.

But it's true. I don't envy Americans.

I don't expect you to envy Americans. That however doesn't mean that you wouldn't rather the evil you are familiar with versus the evil you don't know. You know the system you have now and don't want to change to something different. That doesn't mean that your system is better or that an appropriate association can be made to what would be possible in the US.

"Canada sucks! They kill off patients to save money! They're all jealous and desperate to sprint down here to take our CAT scans!" is *offensive*

I frankly don't care if it is offensive, only if it is (at its nugget) true. You have fewer pieces of large diagnostic equipment per 1,000 people than the US. You have waiting lines for medical treatments, including treatment of cancer. There are often long wait times for surgeries and there is an entire industry catering to people who come to the United States because either they don't want to wait in the line or they don't feel that they can afford to.

In the United States, even in rural areas (I grew up in the sticks), wait times to get treatment is rare (and generally caused by wanting to go to a specific doctor or hospital, therefore people choose to wait). These are considerations that need to be evaluated by our population. If Canadians are abandoning their 'free' system in order to pay US prices to get medical care in a timely manner in large enough numbers that every two-bit news program can find another Canadian that says, "Don't do it!" that should give us pause.

We don't tend (where "tend" is an important word) to keep treating people who are *dying* of cancer and are on life-support.

But do you see that in the US we allow the person to make that decision. Because it is a service that the consumer is paying for, he/she is allowed to decide (or their next of kin should the person be unable to make those decisions) how long they want treatment. In your case, because the government is paying for it (with your money) the government rations care by purchasing fewer diagnostic pieces of equipment, delaying treatment of items it deems 'not-critical' and ending care for people that it decides are dying. We find that abhorrent, mostly because in the US we want control of our own money and our own choices, even if those choices lead to bad consequences.

I'm hoping that a person or two understands that we don't feel like your poor hick cousin who hasta go to a barber for bleedin' when we're sick.

And I hope that you understand that we don't care how you feel on the subject. It isn't your medical establishment that is talking about a monumental change that is against the very philosophy of your founding fathers. We are attempting to shovel through the bullshit and show that 'free heath care' doesn't exist. It is just a matter of who you rob to get it and who decides whether you are allowed that next treatment.

-Julie

I'm a little late to this "discussion", but, what is it about people from socialized countries putting in their two cents on something that is really none of their business? Should I go to some of your home country blogs and give you un-solicited advice on your problems. Unless you have a dog in this fight stfu.

"I'm a little late to this "discussion", but, what is it about people from socialized countries putting in their two cents on something that is really none of their business?"

For you, it's never too late. Jump in the water's warm!!!

I don't get it either...ho-hum. Their type of thinking is the exact opposite of what I call freedom; the exact antithesis of the American Way.

Their type of thinking is the exact opposite of what I call freedom; the exact antithesis of the American Way.

That was my thought. Anytime someone tries that hard to convince me that something is great, I smell a rat named 'justification'.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

-Julie

Julie: That however doesn't mean that you wouldn't rather the evil you are familiar with versus the evil you don't know. You know the system you have now and don't want to change to something different. That doesn't mean that your system is better or that an appropriate association can be made to what would be possible in the US.

Me: Well... yeah. I've never said our system is better. And shit, half my POINT is that "an appropriate association (can't) be made as to what would be possible in the US". That also works in reverse, incidentally.

I've said that we (as a whole, with exceptions) LIKE our system. Some LOVE it and would fight to the death to preserve it (and no, not the lazy gits who want to drink welfare like water). And it' *doesn't* suck. It isn't perfect, but neither is the US system, or any other system - health care or other.

Julie: ... entire industry catering to people who come to the United States because either they don't want to wait in the line or they don't feel that they can afford to.

Me: There's an entire industry catering to people who come to the US because they can't get or afford their medications. So? Does that mean your pharmaceutical industry is a failure? No, it means that there are always some people willing and/or eager to work around The System (whatever it may be) to what they believe to be their best advantage.

Julie: But do you see that in the US we allow the person to make that decision. Because it is a service that the consumer is paying for, he/she is allowed to decide...

Me: Yeah. Us, too. My theoretical cousin who's hit by a car and is a vegetable can be kept plugged in as long as we want. But Canadians *tend* to think that's not a life, and that death should be allowed. Again, many individual exceptions apply. We are more likely to CHOOSE not to prolong life when it really isn't one.

Julie: the government rations care by ... ending care for people that it decides are dying.

Me: No. Someone's been feeding you bullshit. If a patient's family wants that guy on life support, he'll be there a good long time.

A co-worker was the victim of a vicious attack a couple of years ago. He was essentially butchered by some bad folk. He was largely dead from the get-go. Even if, by some miracle, he'd lived, he would have been what some like to call "a burden on the state" forever. And yet he got every possible bit of effort thrown at him. Round the clock, nonstop, no holds barred, they fought to save him. For days. His wife finally *asked* them to stop and to have him removed from life support, and they declined to do it until she'd thought it over a little longer.

So no, there's no government administrator walking around deciding a patient isn't worth the effort.

Julie: It isn't your medical establishment that is talking about a monumental change that is against the very philosophy of your founding fathers.

Me: I know. I don't care what you guys decide to do. I'm not trying to tell you to follow our lead. *ALL* I'm asking is for the antis to stop lying about our system. We KNOW there's no "free health care". Jesus, we're not retarded y'know. Anyone who calls it "free" is either one of those scammy immigrants I referenced earlier, or is using it as a shortform.

And Crid? Colby Cosh? Yeah. Good plan there. Because everyone knows that if a blogger posts an opinion, or calls something a "fact" with enough emphasis, it must be totally the truth across the board. Now I'm going to sprint on over and read some Jerry Falwell and assume everything he says is totally true about America. Whoa! Did you know that pagans and gays made 9/11 happen? Someone said it, so it must be true!

Er, no. Thanks, though.

Okay, I'm definitely leaving now. The lack of reading comprehension here is WAY too aggravating to deal with.

JKsisco, I haven't tried to tell you guys what you should do. I've just said we like our system fine. Duh. The US can, and will, do what it wants and thinks best.

Julie said: That was my thought. Anytime someone tries that hard to convince me that something is great, I smell a rat named 'justification'.

Me: Anytime someone from "there" tries to tell me that the system I live in sucks, I smell a rat named "jingoism".

Look, I totally respect your right to have and want a fully private system. I'm not telling you you're wrong to want to keep it. I'm just saying it ain't the only good one out there.

PS: We Canadians are quite content not to live "The American Way". So the smugness about us not living it is kinda misplaced - we're not missing out!

Now, y'all can continue to totally misread, misrepresent, and mistake what I've said for your own purposes. After all, why stop now?

Lauren:

We unfortunately have two dogs (off the top of my head) of government run healthcare here in the US, and it is foisted upon arguably the most deserving of our American fellows; 1) Veterans, 2) American Indians. (For #2, there is a saying on the NDN reservations "Don't get sick after June" - because that's when their funding runs dry until the new year rolls in).

They both are inadequate and quite frankly, an absolute embarrassment. No free citizen under our watch should be subjected to those two systems - least of all to some of the people that have sacrificed the most for *our* country.

Still not convinced? www.facesofgovernmenthealthcare.com

I don't care what you guys decide to do.

Then why do you keep posting responses?

There's an entire industry catering to people who come to the US because they can't get or afford their medications. So? Does that mean your pharmaceutical industry is a failure?

It means that we believe in free enterprise in all things. It is also a symptom of the fact that Canada restricts the cost of medication and the US doesn't, so big Pharma has to make it's profits somewhere. Again, we are supplementing your 'free' health care.

The fact that someone would forgo 'free' care in favor of care that they had to mortgage their home for is very telling whether you acknowledge that or not.

Again, the fact that you continue to respond means that you are attempting to justify the decisions of your nation. If you prefer the care you receive, then you are in the right place. If I think the entire process is immoral, asinine, and likely to cause a degradation of medical care in this country tough shit for you.

-Julie

I can understand what Lauren is saying. I am with her in that we don't care what system you choose, but, it is indeed rhetoric when you hear in your media that places like Canada, Australia, Sweden, the UK etc. are all examples of failures of medical systems that need to be avoided. That's plain horse shit. No elephant shit. That's all she was trying to say.

And one other thing, just to rub it in, I also wouldn't move to the hypothetical best place in the US for any reason, even for a superb health care system and fabulous wealth. That's because I couldn't stand to be surrounded by such a large bunch of religious freaks.

Give me Canada, Austraila, Sweden, the UK, Denmark, the Netherlands, France etc. anyday. Even with all the cool stuff going on in the US, I'd puke every time some idiot on TV says God bless America.

> That's because I couldn't stand to
> be surrounded by such a large bunch
> of religious freaks

Most religious freedom of any nation on the globe, and proud of it.

Meanwhile all the nations you list, with the POSSIBLE exceptions of UK and Aus, live (or were rebuilt) under the shelter of the American military umbrella... The States kept Ivan at pay as they dreamt their little socialist dreams.

The United States is where the action is, and the world knows it. Thanks for your attention to these matters, Ian, and best wishes for your indigestion.

Me: Anytime someone from "there" tries to tell me that the system I live in sucks, I smell a rat named "jingoism".

Wow, someone got a thesaurus for Christmas! Lauren, et al, you are the ones personalizing this debate. You hear us discuss that we do not want your system and you get your panties in a bunch. Why? If you care so little of our opinion and detest the 'American Way' why does it matter so much to you?

Am I attempting to convince you that our way is better? Not really, I'm only attempting to convince you that you sound like an orthodox Jew talking about the best place to get pork ribs. You don't understand our culture and you obviously feel superior. Good for you, but you aren't going to change my belief in minimal government.

Look, I totally respect your right to have and want a fully private system. I'm not telling you you're wrong to want to keep it. I'm just saying it ain't the only good one out there.

You continually attempt to convince us that your system of medicine is better than ours. The numbers disagree, your own citizens disagree, and your hypersensitivity disagrees. In addition, every country that currently has socialized medicine is running out of money to pay for it! Many (hopefully most) of the people in this country recognize it for the Robin Hood Ponzi scheme that it is. Eventually there aren't enough people left to rob and the whole system goes belly up. Only by that point there isn't a free market system left. I don't want to be around when that happens.

...hear in your media that places like Canada, Australia, Sweden, the UK etc. are all examples of failures of medical systems that need to be avoided. That's plain horse shit. No elephant shit.

Then why are our survival rates better? Why are even the poorest able to get emergency care? Why is our tax rate so much lower? Why are there more rich and affluent people in our country? This isn't just an issue of medical care, this is an issue of our economy, which even in its current state is more affluent than any other country in the world. The more a country fucks around with a free market system, the more screwed up it becomes and the more difficult it is to extricate those in power. You haven't mastered the idea that socialized medicine won't work here and doesn't work on the long term any place else. Eventually the government runs out of people to rob and the money runs out. That is over and above the rationing issues and the fact that our government sucks at doing the things that the average citizen should be doing.

Meanwhile all the nations you list, with the POSSIBLE exceptions of UK and Aus, live (or were rebuilt) under the shelter of the American military umbrella... The States kept Ivan at pay as they dreamt their little socialist dreams.

I never thought I would say this, but I agree with Crid. The US fights the worlds battles for them and protects all of the socialist medicine around the world. That is the only reason why it hasn't run it's true course yet...and eventually it will.

-Julie

Then why are our survival rates better? Why are even the poorest able to get emergency care? Why is our tax rate so much lower? Why are there more rich and affluent people in our country? This isn't just an issue of medical care, this is an issue of our economy, which even in its current state is more affluent than any other country in the world.

Because you got rich on the backs of the world's poorer nations. Most countries (today that is) find it offensive to start a war so that you can maintain your oil addiction. And enough, please, about your military industrial complex driven economy. The US has never been voted as a great place to live, and your longevity, I'm afraid to say is NOT the longest.

But yes, it's a nice place to visit, and I have many times, but damned if I'd ever want to live there. As for religious freedom, those other countries I named also have religious freedom, just not religious freaks.

> Because you got rich on the backs
> of the world's poorer nations

Ever notice how zero-sum thinking is indistinguishable from infantilism? As PJ once noted, even the Bible forbids the narcissistic presumption that all the world's wealth is to be shared without remuneration.

> The US has never been voted as a
> great place to live

Tell it to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, Buttercup.

> Most countries (today that is)
> find it offensive to start a war
> so that you can maintain your oil
> addiction.

Europe gets about 80-85% of its oil from the Middle East. The United States gets about 15%-20% of its oil from the Middle East. If the rest of the world wanted to conduct itself with proper responsibility to its own citizenry, we wouldn't have to do all the dirty work.

> those other countries I named
> also have religious freedom, just
> not religious freaks.

How long has it been since you tried to slip into a chador in Paris?

Time to grow up, lil' fella.

This grows tiresome. Canada's health system is not perfect, neither is any other. There are waiting list problems here, but not for serious cases. The issue is that the system can be clogged up by patients with the common cold, as well as an inefficient government management system. And it's easy to see places that it can be improved.

But in most cases, it works well enough - with great analogies to education (see below).

You will find that middle income Canadians will not give up the system, even though they are able to afford private health care. And I myself have used private clinics in Canada for medical tests. I found very nice, well appointed offices and waiting areas, with near zero wait time. Very pleasant nurses taking my blood etc. In addition, things like dental care and optometrists and elective surgery are private in Canada. So it's not as if we have no idea what it's like to pay for health care.

But it boils down to the issue: is any civilized country going to toss patients out if they can't pay?

Personally, I don't mind waiting if it is not a serious ailment. Just like we have to wait at the DMV, or passport office, or immigration, or airports. It's not a big deal. Bring a book. But if you are seriously ill and can't wait.. just dial 911 in Canada. You will be whisked into the emergency room.

If it's about cancer or some other serious illness which needs to be dealt with swiftly, but that is not immediately physically painful, most people here DO have their own doctors who will get them seen to by specialists quickly. Those who don't have doctors (eg. people who have moved to a new city, or have just entered the country) unfortunately have to deal with the hospital system or walk-in clincs until they get a family doctor. And the time to get a doctor depends on what part of the country you live in. In the big cities.. no problem. There are doctors advertising for taking on new patients! In more rural areas, or even the suburbs, there aren't many doctors and it takes a long time to get your very own.

There are many other socialized systems that we pay into and that also have a private counterpart. Both in Canada and the US. For example, elementary and high-school education can be free or you can pay if you like. We pay taxes for common systems like water distribution and roads.

Unfortunately medicine cannot fall into this type of model without debate. Unlike education, you can't say to people, well basic health care is free, but if you need your kidney removed, you need to pay - or can you? So any medical system that has a private component needs to be two tiered. One (the free one) perhaps being worse than the other. Is this acceptable? Maybe. Depends on your local opinion.

And by the way, if there is another comparison - Canada's public education system beats the US public system as well. But yes, even Canada's public education system needs work.

There is no easy answer. Any system will suck for some portion of the population. It's all about whether your country's better of are willing to subsidize the health of your country's poor. In many countries, the answer is yes.

As for wearing chadors in Paris.. those are imported fundies. The US and Muslimistan have home-grown zealots by the ton. Come to Canada if you want to see the difference that a liberal attitude and fairly good education system makes. We're just across the border (I'd show you on a map but.... )

Oh, and we don't kill each other as much either.

Sorry.. I missed a sentence above.
..After "We pay taxes for common systems like water distribution and roads."

I meant to write:

We pay taxes for common systems like water distribution and roads. But we pay privately to pave our driveways, install water softners and conditioners and special water filters. You can have public transportion, or drive your Ferrari.

Unfortunately medicine cannot... etc.

> This grows tiresome.

Ignominious rhetorical defeat usually does.

> is any civilized country going to
> toss patients out if they can't pay?

In the United States of America, it's against the law to do that. You get sick, you go to the hospital, they take you.

> Canada's public education system
> beats the US public system as
> well.

To what effect? Tell you what... When brain-thirsty, entrepreneurial Americans start sneaking up over the border to take a hit off the Canadian school system, you'll have a point.

Just last night, I was talking to someone on the phone about Tuzo Wilson's game-changing insights, and how remarkable it is that they came within my own lifetime— I was six when he published.

But now I'm fifty. And no other Canadian innovator of that magnitude comes to mind. No one in medicine, nobody in the PC business, nuthin'. I liked Shatner, though. And that one Michael J. Fox movie....

> As for wearing chadors in Paris..
> those are imported fundies.

So your touted religious "freedom" doesn't apply to immigrants? Or is it just inapplicable when the religious people are "fundies"? Do you see how it's harder to be impressed?

> Oh, and we don't kill each other
> as much either.

No, but you fuckers sure like to steal each others cars, eh?

What you're saying is true. The United States of America is the most aggressively self-reliant culture on the surface of this globe. You really, really want to watch your boundaries when you're dealing with Americans.
_______________________

Thanks for stopping by, Ian. Be sure and say hi to commenters Robert W and Martin on your way out the blog today. These compatriots of yours will explain the importance of clearly identifying yourself as a foreigner when you return to the blog to comment on the minutiae of United States culture in the times ahead.... (Apparently a near-obsessive pastime up there.)

> I think of Martin and Robert W. as
> the clear-eyed Canadians

Yes; and they are looking to the south.

You're right Tuzo Wilson was probably the only famous Canadian. I can't think of any others. I'm surprised you don't claim him as American,.. eh?

Oh hey, what about that Pamela Anderson eh? wah haa..

As for aggressively self-reliant culture.. oh, I think the world knows that you are out for yourselves. But you use the term 'culture' quite loosely. And I think you meant self-centered, not self reliant.

As for the other stuff, the Europen intolerance is a backlash to external Muslim influx taking advantage of the very tolerant European system. But I'm sure chadors would be accepted with open arms in the deep South of the USA. Oh wait, you elected a black pres named Obama. Yep, all better now.

Ya, I'm going to go now as winter is coming and I need to gather pine nuts and seal meat to get me through the cold days ahead.

Oh.. almost forgot.. here you go, info on education: Performance in Math and Science

Tavvauvusi.

By the way Amy, I don't really trust or rely on governments. I consider myself socially liberal and politically libertarian. And I for one have no issues paying for medical care.

My argument is with statements made with a wide brush stroke in the US news media (and I use the term 'news' lightly). I think that is what Lauren was trying to say as well.

It's not one or the other. It's not us or them. And Crid is not right.

> I don't really trust or rely on
> governments.

The Hell you don't. You count on the United States to defend your borders, a chore and expense it gladly accepts for the certainty that the job's being done correctly on our own continent. That you might not believe your own government to be up to the task makes reasonable sense... The sometimes seem to be asleep at the office.

> It's not us or them.

Depends on who "us" is, don't it?

Besides, I think you're upset that Wilson got his Doctorate at Princeton. Try not to be touchy, OK?

No we didn't just jump right in to Afghanistan, but after thinking about it a bit before a decision, not just because someone tells us, we went. Notice we didn't follow blindly into Iraq. But in 2002 we were in there, with the first 4 casualties caused by friendly fire.

Canada at 10% of the population of the US, went into Afghanistan while the large majority of you were ... er..where was it again?

We're still in Afghanistan. Thanks for coming back from your raid in Iraq.

In 2006 May it was a total of 296 US soldiers killed in Afghanistan and 17,869 in Iraq. There were 44 Canadians killed in Afghanistan by that year. That's 14% of the US casualty rate. Close enough to the 10% population ratio, wouldn't you say? As of today there are 131 Canadians killed there. Wikipedia says 130 Canadians and 800 Americans. That's 16% Canadians compared to the 10% population ratio. As a check, the population of Canada is half that of the UK, and Wikipedia shows 220 UK soldiers killed. And 130/220 = 60% So, whatever troops have died there, seems to be at first sight, proportional to the respective populations.

So I don't want to hear that we're not doing our bit, in spite of being severely underfunded.

And yes, you're right that we didn't spend to build up our military. It would have to have been done earlier. Many Canadians, liberal and conservative alike, have been on the backs of the government to do that. Especially when it came out that tanks had to have metal welded on etc. I do think it is in dire need of serious money to be thrown at it. The troops that we sent in there were seriously ill equipped.

And no, I don't rely on governments. Even though I feel you've come to know me so well in this little exchange.

Looks like this discussion thread got really diverted. But it's interesting. And for your information, I also am over 50 yrs old. I have many immediate family in the US and because electromagnetic waves do not respect borders, we get all your crappy television shows as well. So US 'culture' is NOT foreign to us. I love the many friendly people I know and have met there, including one girlfriend. And I admire your collective tenacity.

But you guys have such a holier-than-thou attitude. But most of the time, you don't know what you're talking about. I'm guessing most of you haven't even been to Canada or know anything about it other than what you read and hear in your "news" media.

As for the Arctic issue. We're in agreement there. Canada has not been focused there. Only a bunch of icebreakers and a couple of northerly station. But until now, it's been freaking freezing up there.

Anyhow, I'm done with this thread. I have real work to do.

> I also am over 50 yrs old.

Old enough to know better....

> So US 'culture' is NOT foreign to us

I forget, who won the 2008 Junos?

> But you guys have such a holier-
> than-thou attitude

Your weaknesses make it very easy for us.

> you haven't even been to Canada
> or know anything about it other
> than what you read and hear in
> your "news" media

People using the internet, an American innovation, to cluck about America while sheltered under the American military and thermonuclear umbrellas ought not be promiscuous in their use of quotation marks.

> Anyhow, I'm done with this thread.

No! Come back!

Well, you are good at ad hominem attacks. But I see you have nothing to say. Very American of you.

.. or did you have trouble with the math?

OK, now I'm done. Don't bother replying, much as I appreciate it, I have to go out into the real world now.

Bye Crid. Thanks for protecting us. We appreciate it.

No prob, Kitten. We're grateful for Lala, too. Just keep the sniggering under control, OK? My oft-deployed analogy: For Canado/Europeans to whine about American boorishness is like a teenager with his feet up on the coffeetable as Dad walks in the door, complaining that he needs a new video game console. If Canada wanted to run a healthcare system WITHOUT recourse to our free markets (an hour's drive for two-thirds of your population), that would be OK with me.

He's right, it's a terrible habit... But it's just SO MUCH FUN....

Complaints about ad hominem are the coin of the realm on the internet. Snot artists who know nothing of argument or logic will nonetheless complain about AH: It's their favorite Latin.

These exchanges are essentially courtesies. Remember that quote from a ">a couple weeks ago? I think Ian's argument is frogwash from top to bottom, and his sanction to present it is entirely vacuous. He's just being a mischievous little Canadian... We wouldn't want him to turn off his computer without feeling he'd been heard.

Sorry for bungled link, here's the quote. (The guy was not related to L. Ron.)