Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Magnetic Poles, Jul 13, 2009.
Get the reality, not the spin HERE.
Nice opinion piece.
It debunks nothing at all.
"Most patients who come from Canada to the U.S. for health care are those whose costs are covered by the Canadian governments. If a Canadian goes outside of the country to get services that are deemed medically necessary, not experimental, and are not available at home for whatever reason (e.g., shortage or absence of high tech medical equipment; a longer wait for service than is medically prudent; or lack of physician expertise), the provincial government where you live fully funds your care. "
So once the U.S. health care system mirrors Canada's... where will we go when we have a shortage or absence of high tech medical equipment, a longer wait for service than is medically prudent or a lack of physician expertise?
And aren't a shortage or absence of high tech medical equipment, a longer wait for service than is medically prudent or a lack of physician expertise the very features of nationalized medicine that critics are warning against?
It is hard to spin real life.
Perhaps someone can find another article debunking UK health care myths.
Here is an article about a UK hospital that turns sheets over on the beds between patients instead of washing them in order to cut laundry costs.
Maybe we can incorporate cost saving ideas like that into our coming national health care plan. :thumbs:
The Manhattan Institute? William Casey's conservative outfit. Now there's an unbiased source for you. :tongue3:
Perhaps you could respond to my point in post 3 which was taken from the article which you site in the OP.
Like you or the op is unbiased. Bias does not mean inferior. Sorry
Bumped for Magnetic Poles
Any system has flaws. Abuse of a system also creates problems.
All I can say is that with four strokes requiring instant medical care, I have not waited once, received treatment deemed absolutely needed in first three hours and I don't owe a cent and still have my properties, thanks to the Canadian medical system!
You can say all you please, but 75% of USA personal bankruptcies are owing to medical costs. There may be other underlying causes, but that is the cause cited by financial institutions. 80% of my drug costs are covered by a private program and the balance is covered under my Old Age Security.
It costs me $300.00 per day to just cross the border and visit the USA. Canada only covers US medical costs up to the value of our medical coverage. Without a private policy, one could be tousands of dollars in debt.
You didn't continue to the last sentence of the section you quoted:
Funny how so many folks here are experts on the supposed flaws in Canada's health care system. :laugh:
I didn't include it because it is a subjective opinion on the part of the author.
The other issues cited are not subjective - services that are deemed medically necessary, not experimental, and are not available at home for whatever reason (e.g., shortage or absence of high tech medical equipment; a longer wait for service than is medically prudent; or lack of physician expertise.
Do you find these shortages to be an acceptable price to pay for a national health care system?
I find you little laughing smiley face to be an ironic touch considering that the points that you are laughing at are made by the author of the article that you cited - not by me. It is your expert that is pointing out the flaws in Canada's health care system.
I happend to catch an insurance agent talking on the radio yesterday. He was telling a story about a group of Canadian doctors from Windsor, Canada wanting to obtain a group health policy for themselves and their families so that they could cross the bridge into Detroit whenever they need health care services. That says a lot to me about the Canadian system.