For those against universal healthcare like they have in Canada, why be against it?

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

alphatarget1

Diamond Member
Dec 9, 2001
5,710
0
76
You can give me study after study and I could give you the same showing the opposite. Problem with your post is that you did not read mine. I am not saying that is takes a while to see a doctor. That is what I was told but Canadians who have to live through universal healthcare. This comes from firsthand knowledge of the situation, not my opinion on the matter. So seems like what people live are the facts, not what some study shows.

P.S. Don't you know that something like 99% of statistics are made up? :p

Wait times are definitely a concern amongst many of my Canadian friends. I don't think they are suffering by any stretch of imagination, though.
 

RbSX

Diamond Member
Jan 18, 2002
8,351
1
76
I have been to Canada many times for business at my last job. Many of these trips were to medical centers or research centers dealing with the healthcare industry. On every trip, the topic of universal healthcare came up. The consensus I got from the residents there was that the system is ok, as long as you don't get sick. If you need to be seen then plan on having to wait on a list for a long, long time sometimes months for a routine checkup. If you need a specialist or some special procedure, this could even take up to a year. Most of the people I talked to, who were professionals and could afford it, went to private providers for their healthcare. This means that they were paying for it twice. These are the reasons why I, and many, aren't fond of the idea of government run universal healthcare.

This is kind of ill informed. If you are desperately ill, you will be seen right away, but elective surgeries can take a long time.

The flipside of that is that the quality of living is increased for everyone.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
Waiting for 6 weeks to get treatment is just fine. This is kind of like wating the VA to treat you!
 

dca221

Member
Jun 21, 2008
135
0
71
Not really an about face. You have to see the sarcasm in the original statement saying it was good until you get sick, don't you? Maybe not. I was just stating that universal healthcare is not unequivocally beneficial for all parties involved. This cannot be a good thing.

Yes, really. It is an about face. You said:
I have been to Canada many times for business at my last job. Many of these trips were to medical centers or research centers dealing with the healthcare industry. On every trip, the topic of universal healthcare came up. The consensus I got from the residents there was that the system is ok, as long as you don't get sick. If you need to be seen then plan on having to wait on a list for a long, long time sometimes months for a routine checkup. If you need a specialist or some special procedure, this could even take up to a year. Most of the people I talked to, who were professionals and could afford it, went to private providers for their healthcare. This means that they were paying for it twice. These are the reasons why I, and many, aren't fond of the idea of government run universal healthcare.

Then you said:
As to your point. Of course someone with serious health problems is going to love universal health care. They are getting the full benefit of the system, whereas someone who is healthy and rarely visits the doctor gets the shaft. In our current system, care is proportional to the cost unlike universal healthcare where its only saving for the unhealthy and costly more through taxes for the healthy person.

Unfortunately for you, those two comments are still there. Would you like to pick one of your statements and tell us which one you'd like to go with? UHC is bad for sick people b/c they can't see a doctor, or UHC is good for sick people b/c they get all the care they need at cost?

Or, will you tell us your statements are not meant to be factual, kind a like Senator Kyl? you know the kind, you say something that's supposed to be factual, you turn out to be wrong, people call you on it, and you say "It wasn't intended to be a factual statement!" Perfectly fine if you want to go that way
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Because most people see how well the gov't runs Medicare and Medicaid--and now we are to put the entire system in the hands of the gov't.

Actually, the government does run Medicare and Medicaid very well. Most Medicare/Medicaid patients are very satisfied.

On what basis do you think these plans are poorly run?
 

dca221

Member
Jun 21, 2008
135
0
71
You can give me study after study and I could give you the same showing the opposite. Problem with your post is that you did not read mine. I am not saying that is takes a while to see a doctor. That is what I was told but Canadians who have to live through universal healthcare. This comes from firsthand knowledge of the situation, not my opinion on the matter. So seems like what people live are the facts, not what some study shows.

P.S. Don't you know that something like 99% of statistics are made up? :p

yes, please give us those studies. I really would like to see how bad the Canadian healthcare system is:

- how long do patients wait to see specialists? how long do they wait in the US?
- what is the cost per capita of healthcare in Canada? what is it in the US?
- what are the survival rates from cancer, MS, Lupus, and HIV/AIDS in Canada? What are they in the US?
- how many people die in a year in Canada b/c they cannot access or afford healthcare? How many die in the US?

Since you promised you can show study after study, I"d really like to see ONE. Perhaps I am mistaken and the UHC is really bad, and you can enlighten me

And I am trying really hard to ignore your truly stupid comment: I talked to a few people on business trips, so I will accept what these few people told me as the truth, and I will ignore "what some study shows". I dont' even know why I bother to post for someone who can make such ridiculous comments

By the way, have you seen the messages from Canadians in this thread who have been arguing, very kindly I must add, that their system is really pretty good, and you just have absolutely no idea what you are talking about? Not that your ignorance will stop you from freely sharing your OPINION as the truth ...
 

RocksteadyDotNet

Diamond Member
Jul 29, 2008
3,152
1
0
UHC sucks.

But it's 100 times better than your shitty system.

The American healthcare system is like a roflcopter crashing into a field of lmao's.
 

dca221

Member
Jun 21, 2008
135
0
71
As to your point. Of course someone with serious health problems is going to love universal health care. They are getting the full benefit of the system, whereas someone who is healthy and rarely visits the doctor gets the shaft. In our current system, care is proportional to the cost unlike universal healthcare where its only saving for the unhealthy and costly more through taxes for the healthy person.

Last post and I am just going to get out of this stupid thread. Let me just provide a perspective that is not completely selfish and myopic that it can consider beyond "me" and "now".

Before moving to the US 20+ years ago, I lived in a country with UHC. I experienced its good and bad first hand. With that perspective and having lived in the US (with great employer based insurance), I am perfectly fine with the UHC and its cost.

With UHC in place, I never have to worry about losing my job and consequently losing my insurance. I never have to worry about my extended family going without insurance. I never have to worry about not receiving the care I need (in an emergency, I know I would be cared for). I never have to worry about going bankrupt to pay my bills.

Even if I don't get sick and need the care now, I don't have to worry about "can I retire when I am 58 if I don't have medical coverage?" I don't have to worry about my own personal healthcare when I am 72.

And if I die at 52 in a car accident and never benefit from the UHC, it is still OK. It was a great insurance, and I just didn't need it. But beyond that, I shared a common purpose and burden with my countrymen; we helped each other. Patriotism is not an abstract concept, about loving your flag and country, and kicking other countries' ass in a basketball game or a war; it is about sharing a life with your countrymen. I pay my share to help my country. It is not about "me me me" or "now now now"

I am not paranoid enough to constantly suspect that my government exists to screw me. My government exists to serve me and my countrymen. UHC is just fine with me. You just hope you don't get laid off from your job and lose your insurance
 
Nov 29, 2006
15,822
4,354
136
Last post and I am just going to get out of this stupid thread. Let me just provide a perspective that is not completely selfish and myopic that it can consider beyond "me" and "now".

Before moving to the US 20+ years ago, I lived in a country with UHC. I experienced its good and bad first hand. With that perspective and having lived in the US (with great employer based insurance), I am perfectly fine with the UHC and its cost.

With UHC in place, I never have to worry about losing my job and consequently losing my insurance. I never have to worry about my extended family going without insurance. I never have to worry about not receiving the care I need (in an emergency, I know I would be cared for). I never have to worry about going bankrupt to pay my bills.

Even if I don't get sick and need the care now, I don't have to worry about "can I retire when I am 58 if I don't have medical coverage?" I don't have to worry about my own personal healthcare when I am 72.

And if I die at 52 in a car accident and never benefit from the UHC, it is still OK. It was a great insurance, and I just didn't need it. But beyond that, I shared a common purpose and burden with my countrymen; we helped each other. Patriotism is not an abstract concept, about loving your flag and country, and kicking other countries' ass in a basketball game or a war; it is about sharing a life with your countrymen. I pay my share to help my country. It is not about "me me me" or "now now now"

I am not paranoid enough to constantly suspect that my government exists to screw me. My government exists to serve me and my countrymen. UHC is just fine with me. You just hope you don't get laid off from your job and lose your insurance

Great post. Thanks for sharing your first hand experiences.
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
I pay my share to help my country.

Most people think they do, but I doubt it. For example, check this study:

http://www.urban.org/publications/1001553.html

Among other findings, it states:

Our recent analyses of lifetime contributions and expected benefits in Medicare show that, over a wide range of scenarios, beneficiaries retiring at age 65 in 2011 can expect to receive dramatically more in total benefits than they have paid in dedicated taxes. For example, single beneficiaries and dual-earner couples who had earned the average wage throughout their working careers can expect to receive about $3 in Medicare benefits for every $1 paid in Medicare payroll taxes. If only one member of the couple had worked, we calculate a six-fold difference between contributions and benefits since both spouses are eligible for Medicare yet only one has paid taxes. Higher earning workers will have paid somewhat higher Medicare taxes, but their expected lifetime benefits still far outpace their lifetime contributions.

This is why most large, mature democracies perpetually run deficits - the citizens assume the entitlement mentality, and figure that because they paid in a dime, they can demand a dollar. This can't be sustained, long-term.

Regarding UHC, I'm not against it - I'd love to see every person in the country given comprehensive healthcare treatment! I just doubt we can afford it.
 

Broheim

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2011
4,587
3
81
- what are the survival rates from cancer, MS, Lupus, and HIV/AIDS in Canada? What are they in the US?

1540a13e-28f9-471b-9df4-57fb6948951d.jpg
 

JockoJohnson

Golden Member
May 20, 2009
1,417
60
91
Actually, the government does run Medicare and Medicaid very well. Most Medicare/Medicaid patients are very satisfied.

On what basis do you think these plans are poorly run?

Again, not the quality but the cost. I am not even saying that they may be running it inefficiently. Although, odds are it is not very efficient.

I will however retract my statement as I have looked into the numbers and think they are affordable. I saw about a total of $600 billion for combined Medicaid and Medicare--and this is covering almost 1/3 of the US. I know if all were covered it could be extrapolated to 1.8T. Not so bad if it cuts out the middle man (insurance companies, HMOs, whatever).

One of my main concerns after that is how do we pay for it. Is it a direct out-of-pocket expense or a tax? What do businesses do with the money now that they don't pay for our healthcare? Do they pay into the gov't plan, pocket the extra money or, crazy idea, adjust employee salaries upward?
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
22,048
6,330
136
I see a lot of people fretting and worrying about the idea of a universal healthcare system, such as what they have up in Canada.

I ask to you - why is this so bad?

I think it's a great idea, as long as it isn't run by the government.
 

Whiskey16

Golden Member
Jul 11, 2011
1,338
5
76
Here's a great final test - let's see if a single Canadian comes in and corroborates what you're saying. Is there anyone on this board who pays to see a family doctor? Who's waited a year to see a specialist? Who's waited months for a doctor's appointment? Who wants a full private system over what we have today?
:thumbsup: I concur with all that you have said.

I've never waited more than 45 minutes for a drop-in visit to my GP. The past year's MRI, 8 visits to a vascular surgeon, 3 day surgery procedures in hospital admission, did not cost me a cent out of pocket, resolved the debilitating condition in my leg, and the timely treatment did not result in a cost to the health of my life nor employment.

Similarly for a friend who was diagnosed a year ago with lymphoma and over the past year endured chemo sessions into a current batch of radiation treatment.

Throughout all of my friends and colleagues (I am 39, and therefore such anecdotal experience may not be flippantly dismissed, unlike an unpopular Yank here who wished to way in with selected negative comments of a couple of Canadians he briefly met) there have been similarly successful experiences. Not all treatment nor visitations are immediate. Though all I know appreciate a triaged order for conditions and they lack the selfishness that they must come first at all times. Successful treatments or at least caring are what are to be fairly judged. All without extra costs to the end user. Each province has its indivual system. Taken to federal lump total equates to proportional budgets that are consistently less than in the USA with its extreme inefficiencies and lack of universal coverage. Canadians expend less on health care and get more in return. Damn us, eh?

Sorry, Yanks, but the hard truth is that in every metric, you fail in effective and adequate health care for your population. We may not be perfect here, but we offer a better economic and effective system that few if any would trade-away.

....of note. Your school systems down there must be in a rather sorry affair if so many of you cannot relate proportion when it comes to regional funding. Canada does have a smaller population. You have a larger one. Tax bases for funding are equally proportionate. It's your choice if you wish to be an example of modern and effective state where adequate regulations against corruption and redundancy are present while taxes respond with the revenue that governments require for legislated expenses. A less individually minded, though more responsible and adequately educated and informed public are also requirements.
 
Last edited:

Whiskey16

Golden Member
Jul 11, 2011
1,338
5
76
Is sarcasm really missing from the liberal mindset? That was a joke, I gave a statistic saying that 99% of statistics are made up. Think about it..nevermind, I just asked you to think.
A society gets the government and legislation it deserves.
 

Juddog

Diamond Member
Dec 11, 2006
7,851
6
81
A lot of good answers in this thread; at this point I'm honestly pondering moving to Canada. It seems the main person with counterpoints xBiffx is only making up things for the most part. After his thread where he stated the average person in poverty lives in a $200k house, drives an escalade and wears designer jeans, I'm inclined to believe the actual canadians posting in the thread.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
at this point I'm honestly pondering moving to Canada.

You're going to base a huge move on what random people say on a political forum say? Canada's going to catch the same illness that the US and European countries have if they haven't already. There's no systemic reason to think Canada can be prosperous while the rest of the developed world suffers.
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
A lot of good answers in this thread; at this point I'm honestly pondering moving to Canada. It seems the main person with counterpoints xBiffx is only making up things for the most part. After his thread where he stated the average person in poverty lives in a $200k house, drives an escalade and wears designer jeans, I'm inclined to believe the actual canadians posting in the thread.

Don't believe the Canadians, like dinosaur bones they were put here on this planet by Satan to trick us.
 

Cr0nJ0b

Golden Member
Apr 13, 2004
1,141
29
91
meettomy.site
All government health care has done so far is cause medical insurance to increase in cost!

I hear the rhetoric about increased costs, but I haven't seen the evidence. The Heritage foundation uses a PWC study that says Healthcare increased by 7.5% in 2010 and will increase by 8.5% in 2011, but my math has 7.5% less inflation = 5.86%, which is just .36% more than 2009. The average for last decade (inflation adjusted) is like 5.5% and PWC study for 2011 has us at 8.5% less 2.91% is 5.58% or .08% more than the 10 year average.

I would tend to agree that this is not what I signed up for...I expected that costs and premiums would start to go down, but if you look at the PWC study, you see that the contributing factors don't talk about the healthcare plan, here what they say increased the costs.

• Cost shifting from Medicare to private payers and employers is seen as the number one impetus for higher medical costs in 2011. Medicare, which is the single largest payer for hospitals, will reduce payment rates to hospitals in 2011 for the first time after seven years of increases that nearly matched or exceeded inflation increases. Some hospitals that benefited from higher payments in 2008 and 2009 might be able to manage this type of cut by tapping their reserves, but many are likely to shift more costs to commercial payers during their negotiations. (For more on Medicare cost shifting, see the SHRM Online article "Report: Best, Worst U.S. Cities for Hospital Value").

• Provider consolidation is increasing, giving providers greater bargaining power. More physicians are getting out of private practice and joining forces with local hospitals or larger physician groups. The number of physicians involved in mergers or acquisitions in 2009 was nearly twice that of 2008, and there has been record consolidation activity in 2010 as well—a trend that PwC expects to accelerate further in 2011. With less negotiating power, payers expect to face higher prices in the short term, although the benefits of consolidation should create efficiencies that moderate rate increases in the future.

• Hospitals will spend billions of dollars on electronic health record (EHR) systems, spurred by stimulus funding that begins in 2011 and Medicare penalties that begin in 2015. While many hospital systems were planning to implement EHRs in the near future, the government’s new regulations condensed dramatically the timelines to invest in technology, IT staff, training and process redesign. Health care executives surveyed by PwC said they will make their largest investments to meet the new EHR regulations in 2011. In the long term, EHRs are expected to help control costs.
 

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,987
2
81
Wait times are definitely a concern amongst many of my Canadian friends. I don't think they are suffering by any stretch of imagination, though.
Yep. I'm Canadian and wait times are definitely a concern. "Important" things like heart surgery happen right away, but "cosmetic" things like hip replacements might take a year. Hopefully you didn't plan on having a job or fun in the next 12 months.