• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Sicko, yeah, thats a good description of Canada's Healthcare system.

imported_Shivetya

Platinum Member
Ms. Allen figures the lawsuit has a fighting chance: In 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that "access to wait lists is not access to health care," striking down key Quebec laws that prohibited private medicine and private health insurance.

Consider, for instance, Mr. Moore's claim that ERs don't overcrowd in Canada. A Canadian government study recently found that only about half of patients are treated in a timely manner, as defined by local medical and hospital associations. "The research merely confirms anecdotal reports of interminable waits," reported a national newspaper. While people in rural areas seem to fare better, Toronto patients receive care in four hours on average; one in 10 patients waits more than a dozen hours.


As with anything highlighted, once it happens the dirt comes out. If anything Michael Moore may do more to damage government provided health care than help it. Once people realize the waiting times for things they take for granted.
 
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>one in 10 patients waits more than a dozen hours.</end quote></div>Sounds like an Emergency Waiting Room here in the States.

CNN
The difference being the ED in Canada won't let you die in the waiting room.
 
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Red Dawn
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>one in 10 patients waits more than a dozen hours.</end quote></div>Sounds like an Emergency Waiting Room here in the States.</end quote></div>

CNN
The difference being the ED in Canada won't let you die in the waiting room.

the key you miss is, this is a government administered hospital that failed its community. No privately run one could get away with half of what these jokers were doing.

and still people here would want the government to control all of healthcare. amazing
 
Originally posted by: Shivetya
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Red Dawn
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>one in 10 patients waits more than a dozen hours.</end quote></div>Sounds like an Emergency Waiting Room here in the States.</end quote></div>

CNN
The difference being the ED in Canada won't let you die in the waiting room.</end quote></div>

the key you miss is, this is a government administered hospital that failed its community. No privately run one could get away with half of what these jokers were doing.

and still people here would want the government to control all of healthcare. amazing
I don't know about that but I do know that when profit is put above peoples health that's pretty fscked up.

 
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Red Dawn
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>one in 10 patients waits more than a dozen hours.</end quote></div>Sounds like an Emergency Waiting Room here in the States.</end quote></div>

CNN
The difference being the ED in Canada won't let you die in the waiting room.

King-Harbor is a government-owned hospital.
 
Originally posted by: Shivetya

the key you miss is, this is a government administered hospital that failed its community. No privately run one could get away with half of what these jokers were doing.

and still people here would want the government to control all of healthcare. amazing

Anecdotal evidence and isolated incidents do not contradict large scale scientific studies and clear fiscal accounting reports that show massive, overwhelming benefits for socialized medicine on a nationwide scale across dozens of countries worldwide over a period of more then 50 years.

I also seriously doubt that you would want to get into a health care horror story contest that would pit the United States' system against any other first world nation.
 
Originally posted by: eskimospy
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Shivetya

the key you miss is, this is a government administered hospital that failed its community. No privately run one could get away with half of what these jokers were doing.

and still people here would want the government to control all of healthcare. amazing</end quote></div>

Anecdotal evidence and isolated incidents do not contradict large scale scientific studies and clear fiscal accounting reports that show massive, overwhelming benefits for socialized medicine on a nationwide scale across dozens of countries worldwide over a period of more then 50 years.

I also seriously doubt that you would want to get into a health care horror story contest that would pit the United States' system against any other first world nation.

You realize that it was BBD who brought up this particular isolated anecdote as an argument in favor of UHC, right? And apparently you've never heard the horror stories from those dozens of countries as many of them spent decades getting their health care systems to work. Those from Britain in the '60s are particularly horrific, which is why they fully revamped and partially privatized their system back in the 80s.

Here's your sign again.
 
Our (Canada) system would be better if we allowed a parallel private system. I actually consider it unconstitutional (and at least one province's Supreme Court agrees with me) that it's actually illegal to seek out private care in this country for my ailments. So to me it seems like a mix of the two is the best way to go.

I'm not really caught up on the state of American healthcare, but it does amuse me to think that a number of Americans think that the solution to lowering costs and finding efficiencies in heathcare is handing that responsibility over to the government. They're just so good at efficiency and cost-effectiveness...
 
Originally posted by: yllus
Our (Canada) system would be better if we allowed a parallel private system. I actually consider it unconstitutional (and at least one province's Supreme Court agrees with me) that it's actually illegal to seek out private care in this country for my ailments. So to me it seems like a mix of the two is the best way to go.

I'm not really caught up on the state of American healthcare, but it does amuse me to think that a number of Americans think that the solution to lowering costs and finding efficiencies in heathcare is handing that responsibility over to the government. They're just so good at efficiency and cost-effectiveness...

If it was run by the IRS it would be, they are great at efficiently collecting our money.
 
Originally posted by: Vic
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: eskimospy
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Shivetya

the key you miss is, this is a government administered hospital that failed its community. No privately run one could get away with half of what these jokers were doing.

and still people here would want the government to control all of healthcare. amazing</end quote></div>

Anecdotal evidence and isolated incidents do not contradict large scale scientific studies and clear fiscal accounting reports that show massive, overwhelming benefits for socialized medicine on a nationwide scale across dozens of countries worldwide over a period of more then 50 years.

I also seriously doubt that you would want to get into a health care horror story contest that would pit the United States' system against any other first world nation.</end quote></div>

You realize that it was BBD who brought up this particular isolated anecdote as an argument in favor of UHC, right? And apparently you've never heard the horror stories from those dozens of countries as many of them spent decades getting their health care systems to work. Those from Britain in the '60s are particularly horrific, which is why they fully revamped and partially privatized their system back in the 80s.

Here's your sign again.

There you go assuming what I know again. Tell me more about my travel habits to Canada.

I don't care who brings up isolated anecdotes, Shivetya was trying to use it to make a larger point against socialized medicine, and they are not valid for doing so in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary. Dance and try to distract from the main point all you want, but socialized medicine simply works better and your crap has already been called out.
 
Originally posted by: eskimospy
There you go assuming what I know again. Tell me more about my travel habits to Canada.

I don't care who brings up isolated anecdotes, Shivetya was trying to use it to make a larger point against socialized medicine, and they are not valid for doing so in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary. Dance and try to distract from the main point all you want, but socialized medicine simply works better and your crap has already been called out.

Are you REALLY this clueless? I'm assumed nothing. BBD brought up an anecdote, which Shivetya shot down down, which you then shot down Shivetya for being an anecdote. You really truly are not smart person.



edit: Oh yeah, and my "crap" was "called out" when I was talking about the Flint NRA meeting and shadow9d9 kept going back over and over again to the Denver/post-Columbine meeting NRA. Right... only to a fsckin' moron. :roll:
I guess that explains your trolling and his to a T now doesn't it? Oh yeah, I'm really evading when I'm talking about one thing and you and he keep pretending (intentionally?) that I'm talking about something else.
 
Originally posted by: Vic

Are you REALLY this clueless? I'm assumed nothing. BBD brought up an anecdote, which Shivetya shot down down, which you then shot down Shivetya for being an anecdote. You really truly are not smart person.

Sorry, too easy. Free advice, if you're going to call someone dumb you should probably proofread your post to make sure you don't sound like Tarzan before you do it.

Ugh, I'll spell it out for you though. Shivetya used the anecdote supplied by someone else in an attempt to discredit government run health care by saying that in a private system such a thing could not occur and therefore in effect government run health care was a bad idea. While it was not his anecdote, he was still using isolated incidents which he attempted to relate to larger issues for which better information is available. This is not a valid source of argumentative authority in the face of other established evidence, and I said so. This holds true for argument by anecdote in support of UHC as well.

Why is this so hard?


 
Here's the synopsis:

1) People NEED health care. They only reason we need health insurance is the sheer expense of health care in America.

2) Health care is expensive for a variety of reasons; several of which are self-reinforcing . . . contrary to popular belief medmal/lawsuits isn't even in the top 5.

3) Sure Canada, Britain, and any other nation with a version of universal health CARE has problems. But the TWO that they rarely face are a dearth of effective preventive health care and management of chronic disease aka primary and secondary prevention. The lack of emphasis on both issues explains much of the current expense of the US system and the reason why its going to implode in the not-to-distant future.
kids
diabetes

4) Insurance companies divert health care resources to shareholders that's their one and only goal . . . profit. They increase administrative costs. They do not provide more efficient care. In fact, they operate largely as a means of siphoning health care dollars from payers (government (state/federal), corporations, individuals) before those resources can be applied to the care of people.

5) If you study the history of facilities such as King-Harbor you would realize the problem isn't that 'government' currently owns/runs the facility. The primary problem is a dysfunctional health care system on multiple levels.

6) The failure in that anecdote was of MEDICAL care. The triage nurse failed that woman. The ED supervisor failed that woman. But if King-Harbor didn't exist, many of those people wouldn't even get the opportunity to NOT get appropriate care. That's a failure of our health care system. A type of failure that does NOT exist in any industrialized nation or even in quite a few developing nations.

7) If King-Drew REFUSED to provide care to people without the means to pay for it, the facility would then be in a position to hire elite staffing, purchase state-of-the-art equipment, and STILL profit. Naturally, they would be taking the same (if not more healthcare) dollars and providing actual care to a smaller number of people.

8) Addressing the fundamental dysfunction in the financing of health care is a great place to start in reforming the system to provide more care, better care, and more efficient use of limited resources. Medicare (at several hundred billion dollars a year) is unsustainable b/c it largely funds interventional care. Total spending on SCHIP is scarcely $10B (state/federal) yet tools don't want to expand it. In part because it's PROOF that government 'insured' health care can work VERY well. In fact, prudent use of Medicaid (poor kids only) and SCHIP (low to low-middle income) households for kids is one of the BEST uses of health care funds. Every industrialized country has demonstrated this truth. But the demagogues will invariably trot out their socialized medicine bogeyman. Curiously, it's OK at the VA and they usually tone down the Medicare rhetoric around election time . . .
 
Originally posted by: eskimospy
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Vic

Are you REALLY this clueless? I'm assumed nothing. BBD brought up an anecdote, which Shivetya shot down down, which you then shot down Shivetya for being an anecdote. You really truly are not smart person.</end quote></div>

Sorry, too easy. Free advice, if you're going to call someone dumb you should probably proofread your post to make sure you don't sound like Tarzan before you do it.

Ugh, I'll spell it out for you though. Shivetya used the anecdote supplied by someone else in an attempt to discredit government run health care by saying that in a private system such a thing could not occur and therefore in effect government run health care was a bad idea. While it was not his anecdote, he was still using isolated incidents which he attempted to relate to larger issues for which better information is available. This is not a valid source of argumentative authority in the face of other established evidence, and I said so. This holds true for argument by anecdote in support of UHC as well.

Why is this so hard?

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

This is textbook laughable irony.

Why don't you go pimp some religion? Become a Christian missionary or something like that? It wouldn't be any different that what you are now. "Believe! Believe! Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain! Believe!"
Your arguments are always and entirely a complete denial, not just of reality, but of the clear and documented written chain of events in these forum threads. No one is going to buy your BS when they just scroll up and read. One would think you could figure that out...
 

QUOTE:
"Sicko, yeah, thats a good description of Canada's Healthcare system.
Your dog can get a hip replacement faster than you."

Good point.

Now tell me how many american DON"T get a hip replacement because they can't afford it. I would venture a guess in the thousand.
 
BBD, I am not and have never argued that our existing health care system is not flawed. Of course it is, and badly. Much needs to be done to solve this complex issue touching the lives of every single American.
However, when your solution is the same as the idiotic arrogant kneejerkers who claim to hate government power in one post and then claim it's the only necessary solution in another, you're gonna have a really tough sell (no matter how well you sell it).
Then there's the issue that you yourself have a self-confessed financial conflict of interest on this issue and well... I just appreciate the fact that you, unlike many others here, can at least make sure to address the points of others and argue your points intelligently and rationally.
 
Originally posted by: Vic

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

This is textbook laughable irony.

Why don't you go pimp some religion? Become a Christian missionary or something like that? It wouldn't be any different that what you are now. "Believe! Believe! Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain! Believe!"
Your arguments are always and entirely a complete denial, not just of reality, but of the clear and documented written chain of events in these forum threads. No one is going to buy your BS when they just scroll up and read. One would think you could figure that out...

Nope. Just because it's not originally your anecdote doesn't mean that you can't be using it in your argument. Jesus.

You're getting mad now though, this is funny.
 
Why do conservatives hate America? They are always saying that America can't do health care better than Canada or France? I was under the impression from distinguished conservatives that Canada and France are terrible countries.
 
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Topic Title: Sicko, yeah, thats a good description of Canada's Healthcare system.
Topic Summary: Your dog can get a hip replacement faster than you.

Awwwwwww look how the OP is jealous of Canada.

You're free to move there.
 
Why are people who have no intention of ever seeing the movie commenting on it WITHOUT EVER SEEING THE MOVIE... the internet is such a great place for people who want to stay ignorant.. they just go to websites that tlel them what to think about something without having to actually see/hear/read it themselves!
 
Originally posted by: eskimospy
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Shivetya

the key you miss is, this is a government administered hospital that failed its community. No privately run one could get away with half of what these jokers were doing.

and still people here would want the government to control all of healthcare. amazing</end quote></div>

Anecdotal evidence and isolated incidents do not contradict large scale scientific studies and clear fiscal accounting reports that show massive, overwhelming benefits for socialized medicine on a nationwide scale across dozens of countries worldwide over a period of more then 50 years.

I also seriously doubt that you would want to get into a health care horror story contest that would pit the United States' system against any other first world nation.

All this evidence you claim and not one real link to back it up, why should I expect more?

Of course that is probably why many of those countries with socialized medicine are opening their rules to support more privatization.

I also seriously doubt that you would want to get into a health care horror story contest that would pit the United States' system against any other first world nation.

you don't want to , in most cases the US would come out looking better. The biggest problems in health care in the US are at government run hospitals (think VA, think this little example in LA). The fact is that you can get care when you need it here. You can get surgery to improve the quality of life when you need it, instead of waiting months for it.

I have friends who live in Canada. Their number one complaint about coming home to Canada? Waiting and being rejected in their medical needs. When it takes less time to drive to Washington state to get knee surgery than it takes to get an examination for the same problem there is a real issue. Of course we can go to Great Britian, friends there loved to tell stories how there are two classes of medically covered people (similar in other areas of Europe too). If you have private insurance you get better treatment than if you don't. You can get a private room as well, something the government insured don't get if there are private payers (or government employees) waiting on a room. Oh, yeah, did you catch that last part. Politicians get special care under government systems you can't get... because of their "duties" and as such its "requirement".
 
Originally posted by: Shivetya

I also seriously doubt that you would want to get into a health care horror story contest that would pit the United States' system against any other first world nation.</end quote></div>

All this evidence you claim and not one real link to back it up, why should I expect more?

The horror here is millions that have no access to health care in this so called "first world nation".

The evidence says it is no longer a "first world nation".

Sad that you still spew nonsense.
 
scientific evidence to the contrary. Dance and try to distract from the main point all you want, but socialized medicine simply works better and your crap has already been called out.
If we are going to talk numbers, let's talk waits to see specialists or have expensive procedures like MRIs. Wait in Canada to see a specialist in most cases and get an MRI can be measured in months or fractions of a year (like 1/2 of a year!). In the US, you're talking days or a couple of weeks.

This overwhelming scientific evidence you speak of does not exist. If we forget the lower class in the US who do not have health care (I am not one of them, so frankly don't care much about them at this point, since most of them do not care about their health enough to exercise/eat properly anyway, so they musn't look to me for sympathy on health coverage), those with private in the US (vast majority) make a mockery of Canadian health times, and please don't bring up any points such as life expectancy, as if it's entirely driven by one's access to health care (which of course it's not).

In Canada can a person who's not literally in two pieces on an operating table get an MRI today? Get an echocardiogram tomorrow? Consult with an orthopoeadic surgeon next week? Nope, enjoy your wait 🙂
 
Back
Top