Guy wrote:

>"Brooks Gregory" <brooks@swbtnet.com> wrote in message
>news:kXmJa.6491$mc4.2618@fe01.atl2.webusenet.com. ..
>
>
>>"Guy" <gmarenremovetette@neo.rrremovetoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:QO2Ja.222414$VP.46931627@twister.neo.rr.com ...
>>
>>
>>>>Let me ask you a question.
>>>>
>>>>Millions of illegal immigrants come to the United States from Mexico
>>>>
>>>>
>>every
>>
>>
>>>>year. They have to pay taxes here at a rate much higher than they
>>>>
>>>>
>would
>
>
>>in
>>
>>
>>>>Canada. And, several members of my family tend to their medical needs
>>>>
>>>>
>on
>
>
>>a
>>
>>
>>>>daily basis and require that some of them even pay money.
>>>>
>>>>The question is this. If things are so much better in Canada, and
>>>>
>>>>
>those
>
>
>>>>immigrants are risking their lives to come and to stay in America, why
>>>>
>>>>
>>do
>>
>>
>>>>you think they stay here under such risk, rather than go on up to
>>>>
>>>>
>>Canada?
>>
>>
>>>There can be several reasons that Mexican illegal immigrants prefer the
>>>U.S.:
>>>
>>>- May established spanish-speaking communities where they would fit in
>>>
>>>- a larger pool of employers willing to hire illegals
>>>
>>>- the existence of Canada, much less its health system, is off their
>>>
>>>
>radar
>
>
>>>>To take that a step further, why do you think us Americans just don't
>>>>
>>>>
>>all
>>
>>
>>>>move up there. You have to understand, there are tradeoffs in life.
>>>>
>>>>
>For
>
>
>>>some
>>>
>>>
>>>>reason we choose something here in America that outweighs what some
>>>>
>>>>
>>might
>>
>>
>>>>surmise a better healthcare system in Canada. Isn't that quite
>>>>
>>>>
>obvious?
>
>
>>>>The one thing I like about the American system, is that it allows me a
>>>>choice as to whether I want to pay for your healthcare or that of my
>>>>
>>>>
>>>family
>>>
>>>
>>>>as a first priority. Government controlled programs does not allow
>>>>
>>>>
>that.
>
>
>>>As
>>>
>>>
>>>>along as I have the freedom to deduct from my taxes 100% of the money
>>>>
>>>>
>I
>
>
>>>>spend on healthcare, healthcare insurance or my contributions to
>>>>
>>>>
>>charities
>>
>>
>>>>that provide healthcare to the indigent, I think I'll stick with it.
>>>>
>>>>
>So,
>
>
>>>if
>>>
>>>
>>>>the general populace wishes to strap themselves to a rocket ship price
>>>>structure headed to the high heavens, that's fine with me as long as
>>>>
>>>>
>>they
>>
>>
>>>>don't violate my constitutional right of choice.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>The thing I dislike the most about the American health system is that
>>>
>>>
>it's
>
>
>>>only affordable if you're young and healthy, wealthy, or employed at a
>>>
>>>
>>large
>>
>>
>>>firm. Try getting affordable health insurance for your family if you're
>>>
>>>
>>laid
>>
>>
>>>off and anyone in your family has a preexisting condition. In Ohio, at
>>>least, the only option would be "open enrolment". If I needed open
>>>enrollment family coverage, it would cost me $25,000 - $40,000 per year
>>>
>>>
>>just
>>
>>
>>>for the premiums. If I can't afford that, I run the risk of incurring
>>>crushing debt if an expensive medical procedure or treatment becomes
>>>necessary.
>>>
>>>Another lesser gripe I have is the waste from the extra administrative
>>>burden compared to the Canadian single-payer system, where all the bills
>>>
>>>
>>go
>>
>>
>>>to one place. Compare the size of the billing department in a typical
>>>
>>>
>U.S.
>
>
>>>health-care facility to its Canadian counterpart. And the U.S.
>>>
>>>
>>facilityies'
>>
>>
>>>uncollected bills are ultimately paid by the non-deadbeats to-boot. All
>>>
>>>
>>this
>>
>>
>>>extra expense adds *nothing* to the quality of health care.
>>>
>>>Also, the free-enterprize system of health care in the U.S. doesn't
>>>
>>>
>often
>
>
>>>work to the advantage of the ultimate consumer, i.e. the patient. Most
>>>Americans are forced to choose their doctors and hospitals from a list
>>>provided by their insurer. The insurer's primary motive isn't to provide
>>>
>>>
>>the
>>
>>
>>>best care available, but rather the least expensive. This encourages
>>>
>>>
>>health
>>
>>
>>>providers to cut costs, and usually the best way to do this is to cut
>>>
>>>
>>staff,
>>
>>
>>>particularly skilled medical staff on their payroll. The remaining staff
>>>
>>>
>>is
>>
>>
>>>hard-pressed to provide even basic care to their patients. According to
>>>
>>>
>my
>
>
>>>sister, until recently a nurse in an Ohio hospital, the VA hospital
>>>
>>>
>horror
>
>
>>>may soon become the norm for all hospitals.
>>>
>>>In the Canadian system, one is free to use any doctor, clinic or lab,
>>>
>>>
>and
>
>
>>>thus can base your choice on perceived quality, convenience, whatever...
>>>
>>>Just to clarify a misunderstanding re. the Canadian system -- in
>>>
>>>
>Ontario,
>
>
>>at
>>
>>
>>>least, Doctor's offices, clinics and labs are private businesses that
>>>
>>>
>send
>
>
>>>their bills to the provincial insurance office. All hospitals, however,
>>>
>>>
>>are
>>
>>
>>>run by the province at present. So Ontario hospitals don't have a profit
>>>motive and don't need to cater to the cost-cutting insurance companies.
>>>
>>>
>>But
>>
>>
>>>they are limited by available funds in the government budget. The
>>>
>>>
>reports
>
>
>>of
>>
>>
>>>long waits for certain tests or procedures are related to funding
>>>
>>>
>cutbacks
>
>
>>>resulting from tax-cutting by the Ontario Conservative government. But
>>>
>>>
>the
>
>
>>>resulting outcry from the public has resulted in more money and better
>>>planning to reduce these backlogs. By the way, the backlogs were
>>>
>>>
>generally
>
>
>>>for non-lifethreatening conditions. If one needs treatment immediately,
>>>there is no wait.
>>>
>>>I also understand that the Ontario government is considering allowing
>>>private hospitals to compete with the publically-owned ones. This just
>>>
>>>
>>might
>>
>>
>>>provide the best form of competition from the patient's point-of-view.
>>>
>>>
>>Given
>>
>>
>>>that the fees for the treatments and procedures are set by the
>>>
>>>
>provincial
>
>
>>>healthcare plan, the private hospital would then be force to compete for
>>>patients by providing better service.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Something tells me you do not have any idea at all how all of the things
>>leading to your complaints came about. I doubt you would take the
>>opportunity, but I suggest you go back to 1968 and search for the keywords
>>(Health Maintenence Organization and Ted Kennedy).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>You got that right. I had no idea that HMOs resulted from government
>legislation. My guess would have been that the industry itself evolved to
>that form.
>
>It's also interesting that the first Google hit is:
>http://www.forhealthfreedom.org/Publ...henAndNow.html
>which shows that even Ted Kennedy is no longer happy with his creation.
>

Keep in mind that the Institute for Health Freedom is overwhelmingly
funded by Scaife charitable foundations. See:
http://www.mediatransparency.org/sea...cipientID=1365

Furthermore, Richard Mellon Scaife funds a large number of
organizations, all of which have a particular sort of axe to grind. See:
http://www.cjr.org/year/81/4/scaife.asp

Now, none of the above reflects on the accuracy of the Institute for
Health Freedom's observations about Ted Kennedy. I'm quite sure they're
accurate when they report that Kennedy introduced some of the original
bills that brought HMOs into being. That was thirty years ago. Let's
also consider what the Institute does NOT point out in their page about
Kennedy. 1) HMOs for many years were in the forefront of cutting
medical expenses WITHOUT sacrificing quality of care. I myself belong
to an HMO today because it has a decent reputation and is the cheapest
alternative offered by my employer. There are many outstanding HMOs.
Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. 2) Denial of
treatment is not something unique to HMOs. There have been a number of
traditional insurance plans that have been guilty of this, or of
cancelling the policies of people who have become too expensive. 3)
The overwhelming complaints about this sort of thing have been a
relatively recent phenomena, largely driven by executive greed.

>
>Perhaps this explains why so many Americans are leery of government plans
>:-).
>
>Anyways, I personally disagree with the title of this thread -- Socialized
>medicine, at least the limited type practiced in Canada, can and does work
>adequately if given a reasonable chance to succeed.
>

People may want to browse through the Fraser Institute's web page to get
a feel for how Canadians really feel about their health care system:
http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/health/index.asp?snav=he
After all, if we want a real assessment of the Canadian system, we might
want to ask a think tank that has some expertise on the matter rather
than Rush Limbaugh or some right-wing financed Washington think tank.
Note that Fraser is quite critical of the Canadian system, but for
reasons quite different than what you would hear from those other
sources. Fraser complains that, in comparison with other countries that
have universal access (ie, NOT including the U.S., which does not have
universal access), Canada is number 1 in per capita spending but number
1 in no other category. In other words, all these other countries
(e.g., Sweden) that have vital statistics much better than ours, spend
even less per capita than Canada, which spends half what we do.

>
>As for the U.S., the American people will first need to decide that the
>present system is too broken to fix
>

I would say that if we're spending more than twice what Sweden and most
other countries providing universal access spend, and our vital
statistics are not as good as those countries, then yes, the present
system is too broken to fix.

>and then, as others suggest, there needs
>to be an honest debate re. the alternative(s) for replacement. A key issue
>is deciding whether health care is a basic right, like police protection and
>primary and secondary school education. Or is it a "privilege" like driving,
>available only to those who can afford a car and the mandated liability
>insurance, and who can drive in a safe manner to avoid excessive citations.
>
>
>
>
>
>>--
>>"To Compel a man to furnish funds for the
>>propagation of ideas he disbelieves and
>>abhors is sinful and tyrannical"
>>Thomas Jefferson
>>
>>Brooks Gregory
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

--
William J. Rood
Rochester, MN