Canadians? Britians?

Now you have me confused.

Is your debate with yourself over?

In another thread, it appears to be.

 

Ever wonder why we have so many foreign-born doctors in America?

It's because the best doctors in the world want to come here and get paid what they're worth.

With Socialized Medicine, you do not get that.

My doctor is from Canada and he says the reason he came here is because he was not making any money for the time and effort he was putting in up there...and that was back in the '70s.

Contrary to what many people would like to think, we have better medical care here than any other place on earth.

The only field we are not leading in, among industrialized nations, is prenatal/pediatrics.

For me, since I don't currently have insurance, it sometimes seems like a great idea, but I know in the long run it simply will not work. Malpractice insurance is a good chunk of the reason for high medical costs currently.

 

Do you mean Mexicans in Mexico, or Mexicans here? Do they do that in Mexico as well?

 

It gets tiresome. Garbage in; garbage out...If you think your medical system is so great ask some people working in that system..ask my daughter in Florida what she thinks, and whether people get full service as fast as you say they do.

A lot of hogwash.

Cheers,

Jim

My suggestion is to stay there and leave us alone in the best country in the world. Stop complaining about us. We are quite pleased.

 

For the last 50 years Canada could spend a minimum % of GDP on defense because they knew the US would never let Canada be invaded. Canada put the money they didn't spend on defense into medical/social programs and still every national election is about inadequacy of the health system.

 

Bill, that is a lot of baloney too. I am getting tired of this American rhetoric. W epaid our fair share on defence. Who the devil do you think provided the defence in the North?

This is just more of the trash you handed to us about who won the war in Europe, when Americans didn't show up when we Brits were getting the hell bombed out of us...like daily bombing in London and other main production centers for a full year.

Canada is a nation of 20 million now and a hang of a lot less during the war. Yet, we managed to send a mighty military force over to Europe in 1939!

I would like you to ask the 101st US Airborne who managed to rescue them in Korea when they mistakenly had a drop right in the middle of the enemy and in a rice paddy....We earned a Presidential Citation, the highest honour a president can give to a foreign army...as we went in and rescued them....ask about the 2nd Battalion PPCLI...they will remember.

So, let's get off this superiority claptrap and start making sense.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Gallipoli . . . ?

 

Not quite sure why this is here, but at Gallipoli troops from Australia, New Zealand, the UK, France, India, and Newfoundland (now part of Canada) were involved in the fighting and all suffered casualties .. percentage wise NZ suffered the greatest losses. It is the key military campagn for Australia and New Zealand, a rememberance of the loss of so many young men in a sensless campagn. A lot of Turkish young men also died.

Regards
Bob

 

Sorry I'm a little late in dropping in on this thread, but here's my answer from a UK perspective:-

1. It's a myth that a publicly-funded Health Service destroys patient autonomy; in addition to the publicly-funded National Health Service, we have the usual plethora of private health companies funded by insurance (BUPA etc) which are available in addition to the NHS if people want to pay for them. So it's not an either/ or - if you don't like the NHS, you can go private if you're prepared to pay.

2. Waiting times. True in a lot of cases in the NHS, but

(a) High waiting times tends to be for just non-urgent cases in the main

(b) In an emergency, you get taken to the local Accident and Emergency Dept (equivalent of the ER) and get seen straight away - and you don't have to worry about taking your check-book with you!

(c) You can always go private and get seen straight away for non-urgent cases if you're fed up with (a)

For instance, I need an operation on my nose to stop me snoring. The NHS waiting time for that surgery is approx 6 months; if I paid £2000 (I don't have insurance) then I could have it done now. But I don't want to spend £2000 and provided my wife doesn't kill me in the meantime, I'm OK to wait 6 months.

3. The NHS is cheaper per capita (as is largely the case in the rest of Europe with their partly- or wholly-publicly funded healthcare programs) than healthcare is in the US

4. That said the NHS is far from perfect - there tends to be too many resources IMO squandered on management and not enough on front-line care (too many chiefs, too few Indians), the waiting times can be a drag etc.

5. But it is free (by and large) for all at the point of delivery and provides a vital health care service to those who can't afford insurance, and I don't mind helping to pay for it in my taxes - just the thought that a dad like myself can take my toddler to the doctor or A&E without having to worry about how much his treatment is going to cost (even his prescriptions are free; I have to pay £6.65 for mine!) is a massive blessing AFAIC

 

That is a ridiculous statement. Any thread that starts an argument with one of the best allies we as Americans have left needs to be closed. Now, I have never been to a doctor in Canada, but have no problems with our VA system here.

As far as the differences between the two systems, maybe private is better, maybe it isnt. I know that in our country the prices are inflated by malpratice law suits and outrageous profits of pharmacy and other type of medical companies.

Back to the comment about the "greatest nation on earth" and "you would lose." Lets put things in crystal clear perspective Mr Ps 104, if not for the Grace of God, we could be like the Sudan at the snap of a finger. This nation of ours has a majority of self centered, worldly, soft, whining citizens. The fact of abortion is enough alone to bring the wrath of God. Dont even brag about this nation, like it is something we did. It is a gift of God, ripe for being taken back. Go wave your flag somewhere else.

 

The way to "fix" the US health care system is to re-introduce the consumer to the market. The consumer is already insulated too much by gov't action and the employer based system. We already have rationing because the employer or gov't is already between the consumer and the supply.

Whatever the solution is, it must involve the consumer understanding and believing that it is their own money that they are spending.

One very direct and effective method for doing this would be to start allowing cooperative insurance buying groups that have nothing to do with employers and that could make reasonable healthcare demands of their members, ie. height/weight standards, non-smoking, routine drug screening, alcohol use standards, etc or at least base premiums on controllable risks. All info given would be voluntary but required for membership. This would provide a direct economic incentive to live a healthy lifestyle and reduce demands on the healthcare system.

At this point, you would have to resist a strong political "urge" to bail out those not willing to take personal responsibility for the cost of their own healthcare coverage.

Yes, there is some pain involved but responsibility is a necessary part of freedom or else it isn't freedom at all. The "free" market is the best way to achieve maximum value in healthcare.

 

The whole argument over WW2 is silly. The Brits and Canadians gave blood and life proportionately much more than the US did. The US gave much more in wealth and resources.

During the Cold War, it absolutely WAS the cover of American military might that allowed the other western democracies to spend money on socialized medicine and their welfare states. Our military spending was higher than any of the allies and indirectly subsidized their social programs- not to mention that the US was a main financier of Western Europe's post-war reconstruction.

 

Has anyone examined the new health care system in Massachusetts that was the result of bipartisanship in that state? If so, what do you think about it?

 

Scott, you have some very good ideas. National health care is not the answer. The government cannot manage anything very well. I would add that maybe something needs to be done about the malpractice suits. If the government wants to get involved, here is an area they can reform. Also, something needs to be done about pharmacy company excessive profits.

 

While that may be true, of all people, on this board, it is obvious that this nation is strong, wealthy, and free due to the grace of God, not because of anything we have done. To brag is not a good thing. It could change in the twinkling of an eye.