Universal Health Care Message to Americans from Canadian Doctors

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
"Everything the Soviets ever did was 100% wrong.

The Soviets ate, slept, f*cked, and took showers.

Therefore those things are indefensible."

Stellar logic here, folks.

Do you have any knowledge whatsoever of Stalin's activities toward his own people? Please, read a little about him before you defend him. And read a little about Soviet Russia before you defend it and uphold it as a shining beacon. You think Russia is the pinnacle of civilization, even now? I'm guessing you haven't been there, right? If you like it so much, move there 🙂 Just don't drag all of us along with you.
 
Do you have any knowledge whatsoever of Stalin's activities toward his own people? Please, read a little about him before you defend him. And read a little about Soviet Russia before you defend it and uphold it as a shining beacon. You think Russia is the pinnacle of civilization, even now? I'm guessing you haven't been there, right? If you like it so much, move there 🙂 Just don't drag all of us along with you.

Lol, you are not a very good troll.
 
Lol, you are not a very good troll.

I am not a troll. I'm looking at the spiral valves of Heister in my notes right now. I am a medical student discussing on medical forums, and I'm no more off topic than anybody else on here, neither am I any more inflammatory.
 
Here's a Canadian news site that's put up a healthcare information page for Americans.

Canadians have been watching and reading about your national debate over how to reform your health care system. Normally, of course, we would not attempt to intervene or influence you. But Canadians are shocked that their health-care system -- called Medicare -- has been used to frighten Americans. Some of what has been said about our Medicare system are outright falsehoods -- like the claim that we can't choose our own doctors or that government "bureaucrats" can deny us needed treatment.

We want you to know the truth so that when you make up your mind it will be on the basis of facts, not falsehoods. This page has testimonials from ordinary Canadians, from health professionals, links to websites explaining our Medicare and links to campaigns in your own country fighting for reform.

Facts about Canadian healthcare:

THE CANADIAN SYSTEM

  • THE CANADIAN SYSTEM

    Canadians pick their own doctors.
    Doctors run their own private practices; they don't work for the government.
    The government is the sole insurance agency, or the only (single) "payer" to pay doctors.
    Per capita costs for health care in Canada, according to the OECD, is 46% lower than in the U.S. (And in the U.S. lack of health insurances causes about 18,000 deaths a year.)
    Further reading:
    Single Payer FAQ
    10 myths about Canadian Health Care, Busted
    Top 5 health care lies and how to fight back
    Reality check on for profit health care facilities
 
I'm not trying to be inflammatory here, but why is it then that we see cases of Canadian patients waiting 6 months for an MRI or 12 months for a surgery? I have heard that some people try to seek out private for-profit care in Canada to speed things up, but the government is very vigilant about trying to stamp out those options.
 
It's a fair question. The Canadian health care system is exempt from NAFTA. If private health insurers were allowed to compete directly with the public system (other than to supplement it - I have supplemental private insurance), there is the concern that it would open the floodgates to American health care insurers to come in and drive up the costs for Canadians (as they already have for Americans). But they can't do that as long as basic health care stays public.

Personally, when my doctor ordered an MRI, I waited 5 weeks. But yeah; there are wait lists for things like joint replacements.
 
...there is the concern that it would open the floodgates to American health care insurers to come in and drive up the costs for Canadians (as they already have for Americans). But they can't do that as long as basic health care stays public.

Not to be rude, but isn't the concern that Canadians would turn to American health insurance companies, if the "floodgates" were opened, in some respects an admission that these private options would be perceived by consumers as superior? If the private options are more expensive (ie, you say they would drive up the price), why would a patient pay for them if the quality were not superior? Further, if no patient would want the private option, why the hysteria about allowing access to it? It sounds like the Canadian government believes its people would prefer private insurance and perceive it as better quality, which is exactly the reason why some of us in America oppose public government coverage.
 
.
 
Last edited:
Dealing with mental health issues down here is a crying shame, so I'm not sure we're any better on that one. I understand the concept of triage, of course, but I wouldn't want to be one of the people waiting a year for a hip replacement either. I have said before I honestly don't know what the solution to the American healthcare access question is. It consistently amazes me that people tend to be more interested in completely revamping the system rather than merely fine-tuning the system. There are many more things about the American healthcare system that are good than bad. It seems that the healthcare debate is dead in the water at the moment. To put it frankly, public opinion is against it. If the Democrats go ahead and move on this one against public opinion, it may be the last time they are in power for quite some time. I'm not sure how the Canadian government is with managing money, but the American government is not so great with budgeting. Medicare has habitually run over budget for decades now, and is constantly the subject of new spending cuts. I honestly don't know how the American people can trust their government to expand government coverage and manage it any better financially than they have the previous existing programs.
 
Not to be rude, but isn't the concern that Canadians would turn to American health insurance companies, if the "floodgates" were opened, in some respects an admission that these private options would be perceived by consumers as superior?

I have heard that the idea behind disallowing redundant private coverage is to avoid the preferential treatment of the rich that you get in other single payer systems (Britain) that allow redundant coverage. So if you're a relatively wealthy Canadian, you want more of the healthcare resources for yourself, but this can come at the expense of those who cannot afford to buy supplemental. Canada is actually unique in this regard, IIRC. Some countries deal with this problem and others via price fixing (Japan).

I'm also not sure if it really makes sense to rely upon the judgement of healthcare consumers. Healthcare is something they really don't understand a lot of the time. It's not like most services/goods. This would be particularly problematic in America, where they are misled by DTC. They may see a drug effectively promoted on television and demand it be covered, even though its health benefits are actually dubious. Thus the free market can be used to drive up costs without benefits in health.

It consistently amazes me that people tend to be more interested in completely revamping the system rather than merely fine-tuning the system.

That seems to be what Congress is trying to do, even though one of the major underlying problems is for-profit health insurance. Profit is not conducive to promoting health because insurance companies are engines of profit rather than health. I think the proposed regulations will mitigate some of the effects of profits but not others. Where they will help is in administrative overhead. When rescission and screening is outlawed, the companies will be forced to spend less money trying to deny care, and more money finding other ways to profit. But profit normally is a driver of innovation. In health insurance, it benefits the few to the detriment of the many.

To put it frankly, public opinion is against it. If the Democrats go ahead and move on this one against public opinion, it may be the last time they are in power for quite some time.

I've seen figures ranging from 2/3 to 3/4 in support of the public option. In terms of the overall reform, it seems ambiguous to me because I've seen polls with slight majority support and the opposite, depending upon whether you use Gallup, Rasmussen, or one of the more biased ones.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/122822/americans-sharply-divided-healthcare-reform.aspx

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=5ba17aa2-f1b9-4445-a6b8-62b9d1ba8693

Though to put it frankly I don't care what people think, because they're idiots overall.

I'm not sure how the Canadian government is with managing money, but the American government is not so great with budgeting. Medicare has habitually run over budget for decades now, and is constantly the subject of new spending cuts. I honestly don't know how the American people can trust their government to expand government coverage and manage it any better financially than they have the previous existing programs.

Why not give everybody basic insurance via government but allow supplemental, including redundant coverage? That would certainly be better in all ways. It would need to represent a rise in taxes, but this would be offset by not having to subsidize insurance companies for basic care (on all levels, from individual to employer to government). The problem with single-payer systems is they expect the government to cover everything for everybody when that is impossible. But allowing access to basic for everybody would be more fair.
 
Hah, so, what, we're practicing democracy and equality forced upon the people now?

Outside of the scope of this thread, but I do not believe democracy or anything resembling it is the best possible system of government for minimizing harms and maximizing benefits. While it is true that for most of history representative democracy could be seen as a least harm route via tyranny of the majority instead of oligarchy, we tend to get a mixture of both in America due to an especially flawed system of government.
 
Last edited:
Outside of the scope of this thread, but I do not believe democracy or anything resembling it is the best possible system of government for minimizing harms and maximizing benefits. While it is true that for most of history representative democracy could be seen as a least harm route via tyranny of the majority instead of oligarchy, we tend to get a mixture of both in America due to an especially flawed system of government.

Political history should tell you that the American people tend to react relatively strongly against the type of coercion you're advocating and the Dems are trying to practice. They should know better frankly. We'll see what the American people have to say the next time the polling booths are open.
 
Political history should tell you that the American people tend to react relatively strongly against the type of coercion you're advocating and the Dems are trying to practice. They should know better frankly. We'll see what the American people have to say the next time the polling booths are open.

Well maybe someday people will realize appeal to majority is a fallacy, not an ideal basis for government. Kind of doubt it would happen in America first as we also cling to another fallacy: Tradition. It's rather amusing though that you believe it is only the dems that are into coercion. The're simply ****** of different special interests. And so what when the polling booths open? They'll have a choice between one kind of crap and another, largely owing to our political system with power elite from the ranks of high-profile lawyers and businessmen who have a great understanding of law and making money but a poor understanding of society, and an even poorer understanding of healthcare.
 
Well maybe someday people will realize appeal to majority is a fallacy, not an ideal basis for government. Kind of doubt it would happen in America first as we also cling to another fallacy: Tradition. It's rather amusing though that you believe it is only the dems that are into coercion. The're simply ****** of different special interests. And so what when the polling booths open? They'll have a choice between one kind of crap and another, largely owing to our political system with power elite from the ranks of high-profile lawyers and businessmen who have a great understanding of law and making money but a poor understanding of society, and an even poorer understanding of healthcare.

I never said Dems were the only ones who used coercion. The whole reason the Dems are in power right now is because of a public back-lash against Republicans for the perceived ineptness during their period of control. I'm just saying the same thing is about to happen to Dems, only sooner. I pity the Dems in 2010, and I pity Obama in 2012 - unless something starts to change quick. Yes, voters are faced with two forms of crap, but they will tend to choose the crap that isn't in power to get rid of the crap that is. As far as the political establishment, it's really impossible to become involved in politics without becoming immersed in the system. As far as appealing to the majority, I don't believe history has illustrated a better way to govern. Perhaps there are more effective ways, yes, but not more desirable.
 
Hello,

I read your comment,and also have a look of the video that you have provided.We all have to look after that and must pay attention for such things happen in the world.Please keep sharing these matters at such community.thank you for sharing the comment..
 
Is there any difference between the Canadian system which disallows all private competition and that of Joseph Stalin's USSR or current day Cuba?

Seriously, aside from marginally better pay with respect to mean wages, I don't see a difference.

What defense of such a system exists?!

Lunacy.

ha ha, your knowledge of the canadian health care system is so incredibly naive and shallow I find it quite amusing. Private medical clinics are popping up all over the country (whether they are good or bad is debatable, but you should at least get your facts straight before writing stuff).

Here is an example of one.
http://www.timelymedical.ca/

And here is a discussion that the Canadian medical association has in regards to private clinics.
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/178/8/986.pdf
 
Last edited:
Bill Clinton was up here last week to receive an honorary degree from McGill, and waded into the topic:
He noted that the U.S. spends more on health care than any other country, yet remains the only major developed nation that lacks universal health coverage.

Where Canadians spend about 10.5 per cent of their income on health care, he said, Americans spend a whopping 17 per cent.

"If you add it up, it amounts to a $900-billion handicap we take into the global economy," he said.

In typical Clintonesque fashion, he punctuated his speech by rattling off a series of statistics indicating that the Swiss spent 11.5 per cent, and other major countries countries spent between nine and 10 per cent of their incomes on health care.

While he called it "immoral" that many Americans don't have health insurance and that others who do have it risk losing it, he said the issue is really one of waste.

"Suppose you don't care anything about those people. Forget about them. The heck with your neighbours," he said.

"You're spotting the competition $900 billion for nothing."

I was thinking, considering the virulent opposition Obama has been facing, he may as well have gone for single-payer instead of these half-measures that may not reduce costs, and may place an unfair burden on the middle class by taxing their insurance plans to pay for the currently uninsured.
 
Bill Clinton was up here last week to receive an honorary degree from McGill, and waded into the topic:


I was thinking, considering the virulent opposition Obama has been facing, he may as well have gone for single-payer instead of these half-measures that may not reduce costs, and may place an unfair burden on the middle class by taxing their insurance plans to pay for the currently uninsured.
That only makes sense if you believe that the [US] government is trying to really reform (i.e. make better) the healthcare system. What we are seeing in the works is simply a power grab (by whom depends upon what flovor of the bill actually passes.)
 
The biggest industry in Canada is marijuana cultivation. They can't even crack down on it because their economy depends on the income. Why would any rational person want to model the US after them?
 
Thank you for bumping my thread, GH253 🙂

While I'm here, may as well post something. This is from the Physicians for National Health Care Plan newsletter. It's from a few years ago, but it holds up well, I think:
Canadians are remarkably masochistic. Year after year, the United Nations reports that Canada is the most livable country in the world; yet we seem to discuss nothing but how to dismember the elements that makes it so. Canada has one of the world's most successful health care systems. Yet we cannot shake the belief that, despite all evidence, the grass is greener south of the border. Although our system is fundamentally sound, we dwell on its problems and insist on looking for magical fixes from the Americans, whose health care system is generally recognized as being among the least satisfactory in the developed world.

The truth is, there is no shortage of good news about the Canadian health care system; why we hear this so rarely is a matter that should concern us.

For example, Canadians are healthy. On average, we are among the healthiest people in the world, and we are becoming healthier. Wide variations exist by region and social group, and we rightly hear much about these. However, Canadians' general health is high and rising. In particular, on the standard measures of life expectancy and infant mortality, we outperform the United States, which records eight infant deaths per thousand live births, placing it in the same league as the Czech Republic and Greece; the Canadian rate is six per thousand. Canadians also live longer, and our advantage is growing. From 1990 to 1995, the gap in life expectancy between Canadian and American males grew from 2 to 2.8 years; for women, it went from 1.6 to 1.9 years.

The widening gap in life expectancy, with Canada pulling ahead, is true not only for the entire population but also for the elderly. Even the one group of Americans with access to Medicare, those 65 years and older, find their health improving more slowly than do the elderly of any other major country. Elderly people living in the United States only gained three years of life expectancy between 1960 and 1996 (going from 14.3 to 17.3 years), whereas the median gain for the elderly in countries that belong to the Organisation for Economic Development and Cooperation was 3.4 years. Canadian elderly also experienced a 3.4 year increase in life expectancy over this period (going from 14.9 years to 18.3 years).

Different health care systems are not the whole, or even the principal, explanation for Canadians' better health. The American social environment is more brutal for the less successful. In simple economic terms, for example, everyone knows that Americans enjoy higher incomes, on average, than do Canadians. Little known, and rarely reported in either country, is the fact that in the United States a much larger-and growing-proportion of total income goes to those at the very top of the income distribution. Thus, although the rich in America are much richer, the poor are much poorer than their Canadian counterparts. In 1995, although the top 20 percent of U.S. families were substantially better off than their Canadian counterparts, most of the rest-roughly half of all families-were absolutely worse off than the corresponding socioeconomic groups in Canada. The difference is largely attributable to Canada's structure of tax-financed social programs.

BTW, GH253, what country do you suppose is the best customer for our famed BC bud?

Exactly.
 
Pharmavixen, your own article even says, "Different health care systems are not the whole, or even the principal, explanation for Canadians' better health." So what was your point in posting it again?
 
Pharmavixen, your own article even says, "Different health care systems are not the whole, or even the principal, explanation for Canadians' better health." So what was your point in posting it again?

What do you mean "again," Rod; that was the 1st time I posted it.

Basically, I started this thread to debunk, and there's assertions being made elsewhere on this board that Americans are healthier than Canadians due to massive healthcare expenditures. I posted this article because it's reasonable, acknowledging larger issues than healthcare, and it's an indirect rebuttal to the previous poster who attempted to derail the thread.
 
Thank you for bumping my thread, GH253

BTW, GH253, what country do you suppose is the best customer for our famed BC bud?

Exactly.

You miss the point. I could care less who grows pot or consumes it. Canada's reliance on drug money underscores the country's own set of economic problems. It is not an economy to emulate.
 
What do you mean "again," Rod; that was the 1st time I posted it.

Basically, I started this thread to debunk, and there's assertions being made elsewhere on this board that Americans are healthier than Canadians due to massive healthcare expenditures. I posted this article because it's reasonable, acknowledging larger issues than healthcare, and it's an indirect rebuttal to the previous poster who attempted to derail the thread.
I used the word "again," because I thought I made it pretty obvious that I missed your point in posting that article, so I was asking you to explain AGAIN your point. The only winning move in the grammar-nazi game is not to play.....
 
God forbid countries who have universal healthcare actually like their system. We can't have people happy with their government.
 
God forbid countries who have universal healthcare actually like their system. We can't have people happy with their government.

I haven't heard all this happiness with universal healthcare systems. They have their disadvantages too. There is no perfect system.
 
I haven't heard all this happiness with universal healthcare systems. They have their disadvantages too. There is no perfect system.

There isn't. It's telling that people who have universal health care do not want anything to do with a system like ours.
 
There isn't. It's telling that people who have universal health care do not want anything to do with a system like ours.

That's not true either. There are many examples of Canadians coming to America for treatment that they otherwise would not have been able to receive or were unwilling to wait for in their system. They are, in fact, doing more than pay lip service (which is quite easy) -- they are casting a dissenting vote with their hard earned cash.
 
There isn't. It's telling that people who have universal health care do not want anything to do with a system like ours.

Well, that's a two way street and a circular argument bud, because there are many of us who don't want anything to do with a system like theirs either.
 
That's not true either. There are many examples of Canadians coming to America for treatment that they otherwise would not have been able to receive or were unwilling to wait for in their system. They are, in fact, doing more than pay lip service (which is quite easy) -- they are casting a dissenting vote with their hard earned cash.

Well, that's a two way street and a circular argument bud, because there are many of us who don't want anything to do with a system like theirs either.

86% of Canadians want to keep public healthcare. And while many do want to keep our system, that number is nowhere near 86%, and the public option routinely places somewhere in the 60s.
 
It's going to be interesting to see peoples' responses when it's time to pay for the public option. Or, when they find out they will no longer be seeing their current physicians because they don't accept the public option. We'll see if 60% support it then. Americans aren't used to paying tax rates as high as Canadians', American physicians aren't used to salaries as low as Canadian physicians, Americans aren't used to 12 month wait lists like Canadians are, and American physicians continue to have private reimbursement options that allow them to opt out that Canadian docs don't have. My guess is there will be plenty of buyer's remorse to go around because of many of these factors.
 
I would wager that >98% of Canadians -- and Americans -- cannot carry out an intelligent and informed discussion on the relative merits and deficiencies of competing systems. They choose to take the myopic view of the immediate effect on household discretionary income; choosing to either ignore, deny, or remain ignorant of the effects of any change (or doing nothing at all). Contrary to popular belief, public opinion polling is not an effective way to build a sustainable sociopolitical structure.
 
I would wager that >98% of Canadians -- and Americans -- cannot carry out an intelligent and informed discussion on the relative merits and deficiencies of competing systems. They choose to take the myopic view of the immediate effect on household discretionary income; choosing to either ignore, deny, or remain ignorant of the effects of any change (or doing nothing at all). Contrary to popular belief, public opinion polling is not an effective way to build a sustainable sociopolitical structure.

While in theory it may be true, the fact is that they still spend about half of what we do per person on healthcare and are happy doing it. Which option do you think is more sustainable? The percent of GDP that we're spending, or what they are spending?
 
While in theory it may be true, the fact is that they still spend about half of what we do per person on healthcare and are happy doing it. Which option do you think is more sustainable? The percent of GDP that we're spending, or what they are spending?

% of GDP is not the best metric by which anything should be measured; health care expenditures do not occur in an economic vacuum, thus there are many variables including discretionary income that are mitigating factors. A more important measure would be the trends -- delta GDP decade over decade (or something along those lines). I believe that, if you do this, you will find that all countries, regardless of system, are facing similar economic and demographic pressures. As the demographics change, expenditures change as well. With the wave of boomers hitting their "rusty" years, escalations in health care expenditures are not only to be predicted, they are to be expected -- unless they act in true boomer fashion and change the rules once again to benefit themselves at the expense of others.

Said simpler, looking at a snapshot of healthcare expenditures as % of GDP speaks to a fundamental lack of understanding of the issues at hand -- or represents the selective use of statistics to further an agenda.
 
Last edited:
Do you have any data backing up the contention that the US is spending less or increasing spending at a lesser rate than other countries facing similar demographical changes? There are societies (developed) with worse demographic outlook than the US - much worse (e.g, older population, less replacement).
 
The burden of evidence typically falls upon the challenging position, but since you apparently lack the initiative to self educate, I will spoon feed you.


Exhibit 3
Average Annual Growth Rates in Total Health Expenditures Per Capita,
U.S. and Selected Countries, 1980 to 2003; 1990 to 2003
Ex-3_2.gif


healthiness_3584_image001.gif


Even this does not adequately address the binomial nature of the matter at hand. There is no reason to believe that healthcare expenditures are, or, for that matter, should be neither directly nor indirectly related or influenced by GDP.
 
Last edited:
Notice Japan below us? Worse aging population (and UHS). So the question is, if the health care costs are growing at a rate of 4.4%, why are insurance rates going up at a much, much higher rate?
 
Notice Japan below us? Worse aging population (and UHS). So the question is, if the health care costs are growing at a rate of 4.4%, why are insurance rates going up at a much, much higher rate?

Because insurance companies are increasing their profit margins. Looks like they'll get to do that even more when we give them an even greater monopoly over the healthcare industry.
 
Theres a group that made a video campaign about the health care bill but the biggest tv stations didn't aired it
 
Top