@Ibringthetruth1 - it isn't just Canada with universal care, every single "first world" country on the planet, with the exception of America has universal health care or something similar. Also many second world countries as well.
@Ibringthetruth1 Actually the Canadian economy has done far better during this recession than the American economy, and we would hardly have been affected if american shit car companies hadn't gone bust.
@Ibringthetruth1 bullshit., US unemplyment? 9.2%. Canada's? 7.7%. Your debt more than doubled under bush and with recession to $14 trillion or $ 46,000 per capita. Canada? $ 561 billion or $16,000 per capita. Canadians live almost 3 years longer than americans, Canada dollar>American dollar. hmmmmm? did you say you were a superpower? cough cough.
Small sample size there. We got hit by mortgage bubble. Your stats of longer life are exagerated. We have gang warfare and more car wrecks. That will always tilt stats. Canadas Gdp is almost always lower and unemployment higher.
Your socialist HC costs less because it's 'rationed'. If we did that for medicare & medicaid then there would be protests.
Small sample size there. We got hit by mortgage bubble. Your stats of longer life are exagerated. We have gang warfare and more car wrecks. That will always tilt stats. Canadas Gdp is almost always lower and unemployment higher.
Your socialist HC costs less because it's 'rationed'. If we did that for medicare & medicaid then there would be protests.
@Ibringthetruth1 The stats are from your own CIA stats page. There is no exageration - LOL ganga deaths representy what? 0.1% of your mortality rates?The world was hit by the sub prime fiasco which started with american banks. canadian banks are doing just fine nd manasged to buy up quite a bit . thanks.
The myth that Canadians live longer is hilariously wrong. It's already been disproven. You could find websites that show why if you would have clue on using a search engine.
Canadian system = rationing. You can say it isn't but it is. The caps on docs also creates a shortage and long lines. Go ahead and deny that too. That is FACT.
@UpstairsMaid that has nothing to do with heath. that has more to do with the murder rate. people are getting killed at a far higher rate in America. so it would seem that Canadians live longer lives but realty if you exclude the premature death from car accidents ( in both countries ) americans live much longer
Small sample size there. We got hit by mortgage bubble. Your stats of longer life are exagerated. We have gang warfare and more car wrecks. That will always tilt stats. Canadas Gdp is almost always lower and unemployment higher.
Your socialist HC costs less because it's 'rationed'. If we did that for medicare & medicaid then there would be protests.
Small sample size there. We got hit by mortgage bubble. Your stats of longer life are exagerated. We have gang warfare and more car wrecks. That will always tilt stats. Canadas Gdp is almost always lower and unemployment higher.
Your socialist HC costs less because it's rationed . If we did that for medicare & medicaid then there would be protests.
@Ibringthetruth1 LOL - your debt is higher per GDP than ours is by a long shot. Rationaing isn't why we save money on HC - we save money by pooling resources and by the fact that our HC admin costs hover around 3% versus 31% for yours.
Your socialist HC costs less because it's 'rationed'. If we did that for medicare & medicaid then there would be protests. The UK , your model also cut its hc services.
@888564342432 The researchers also found differences in Health Adjusted Life Expectancy (HALE). The average Canadian can expect to live 2.7 more years in "perfect health" than his or her American counterpart.
longer lives with better health. what does the murder rate gave to do with that. plus mathematically your arguments are specious.
FIXWCB is a disgruntled workman`s comp. patient that is controlling his claim. He seems to enjoy pingeonholing the rest of the country with his insurance claim through them, which has NOTHING to do with his case. He fails to tell you that.
Canadian health care is killing people....waiting lists are huge...there are even waiting lists to get on waiting lists... ck doctors out on ratemds.com and see how many people are denied MRI diagnostic tests, NO DIAGNOSE=NO TREATMENT=POVERTY=misery=chronic neuropathic pain=crps=suicide
The truth about Canada's healthcare is that it has been raped by immigrants for the last 20 years.Our population was at 24,000 000 then,now at 30 000 000.Its a no brainer,,,our stupid Canadian government(Liberal and Conservatives)over the years have ruined it for us true Canadians.Our next generation will suffer...not immigrants tho...they are used to it coming from third world countries and all....
I know our income tax is almost the same, but remember, the US has things that are tax deductable that have no reason to be, so they pay about an additional 5-8% less then us on avarage.
@etano1 You forgot to mention these cancelation happened during the H1N1 (Swine flu) influenza epidemic. I don't know if you remember but it was a crisis all over the world. But why mention something like that in your statement, it might just ruin your argument.
Ontario's hospitals are an average of 150 million dollars over budget: source G&M.
As far as the Canadian model goes, if I ever had a serious illness, I would travel to the US for care. Simple things, like broken bones or whatever can be taken care of here. Why? Because when I need treatment, and I'm denied that care in the form of a waiting list, I'm not getting what I'm paying for. We pay to be treated when we need it, but we don't get treated when we need it. Scary system this is.
We would have to wait 7 months for a mammogram?.... Dude, where do all these ignorant simpletons like you come from? Could you, apart from shitty health care, also have bad schooling and too much propaganda for media? Health Care even works together. If it were important and there wouldn't be a fast solution they'd treat you in another EU country's hospital. There isn't a single German that would ever dream of letting go of European Health care, except for in a nightmare. LONG LIVE HEALTH CARE!
Where is your proof that it takes that long in Spain and Germany. You dont wait that long in england and our NHS isnt as prioritised as germanys. Germany has one of the best respected health services in europe if not the world.
Actually there are countries that offer universal health care and have lower income tax rates. Furthermore Canadian income taxes are almost identical to the United States
Our Health care system is now bankrupt.... cite your source stating that Canadian health care is bankrupt. Ironic as Canada is more financially stable then the United States. Furthermore more Canadians own their own our homes, less of declare bankruptcy and our health care system is a lot more effecient
Why do you think that private care is an easier option to implement than increasing per capita funding for public care? There is a reason the government dismantled welfare state provisions. There is a reason that unemployment insurance now called employment insurance doesn't pay out to many. There is a reason corporate tax is lowered. There is a reason we went from CAP to CHST, which underfunded our health care. There is a reason surpluses were given back in tax breaks. Class warfare.
Basically, I don't think we should have private care for the same reason we shouldn't have the great lakes privatized. No matter how many jobs or tax revenue this would raise both water and health care are fundamental rights we have and we owe it to our fellow citizens to protect and provide these rights for each other regardless of ability to pay. I again think we should focus our efforts on collectively providing these rights rather than focusing on procuring individual consumer rights to care
You blatant disregard for section 7 is disturbing and your willingness to be selective about the value of human life is disgusting. Do you honestly believe wealthy Canadians dont jump the queue by going to the US?It's the poor & middle class suffering on wait list.I'm not arguing for private healthcare as an economic freedom, i'm arguing for the protection of life & security of person.
I already stated that no one would find a law justifiable if they didn't already think what it justified was justifiable. So whether you are taking about section 7 or 4 is for me besides the point. The private care would be used by more wealthy individuals. Again, I care about the less wealthy and think we should fight for a collective solution given that health care is a right for all regardless of ability to pay.
I'm arguing for the protection of life and security of person for those who cannot afford private care. The poor are not going to be able to access private care and the waitlist will not shrink with the introduction of private care. Given the name to something as Section 7, 8, or 9 does not justify anything to me unless I already considered the right under consideration justified.
Of course I do. I don't think anyone in their right mind wouldn't. I just don't see how giving poor people substandard care is going to achieve that. Seems better to agitate for better public care for the life and security of person for everyone regardless of income rather than help those who don't want to jump over to the US to get care.
You don't value human life. You openly acknowledge wait list violate a person's right to life & security to person but are willing to ignore it because of an UNFOUNDED fear that it will undermine public health. The supreme court says this isn't true. It isn't that way in Europe either.Your irrational fear is no different from Americans who resist health reform because of irrational fear of socialized medicine. Egalitarianism is not more important than a person's right to life, nothing is.
I want to shorten wait list times and advocate for an expansion of the public system. Why is this not an option? I can just as easily accuse you of violating the right to life and security for those who won't be able to afford to take advantage of private care. Again, I'd rather help everyone than just some who are already privileged.
I have never said Canada shouldn't try to improve the public so no it wouldn't be accurate to say I don't support section 7. The Supreme court agrees with me and disagrees with you. Private care wont undermine public care..you have no legitimate proof. There are 3 court cases trying to expand the Chauolli ruling so it looks like private is coming your way whether you like it or not.
Well that is unfortunate as it will not help poorer people. I hope that private care won't undermine the public care but given that we live in a class society and there are class interests that want to undermine public care and the idea that you should care about whether a fellow citizen gets care I am doubtful.
I actually like the private option as I'll be able to afford it.
However you're not being 100% honest when you say it won't undermine the public system, it will.
Call a urologist for a vasectomy, a week maybe, then call for a consult on another problem. 1-2months. Priority is to the money maker.
Now make a cardio specialist free enterprise. guaranteed 5 appointments a day available for premium clients. That undermines a public system. You can't stop it.
Why do European countries that allow private insurance/care have shorter wait list than Canada then? Many of their UHC systems ranked higher than Canadas in the Euro-Canada Consumer index, especially in the patient wait times & also the patient rights category. European countries also get more bang for their buck when it comes to healthcare. The Supreme Court disagrees with your assessment of what would happen if private insurance was made legal. Banning private insurance is unconstitutional.
All i said, is it would undermine public health. I made no comment on it's effectiveness. Like I said I agree with you on adding a private component. I want it.
It will undermine the public system in some way. People with more money will get preferential treatment. That undermines the public system.
I shouldn't quote the Supreme Court of Canada even though judicial precedent supports my claims and contradicts yours? Im not trying to sell the private option to you. Just pointing out that the highest court in the land disagrees with your opinion that it would undermine the public system.
If you want biased statistics, the Fraser Institute is good at that, like Lewin Group, as I say. At leats the Fraser Institute isn't owned by a heath insurance company like Lewin Group is, but that's about the only difference. Their conclusions are as biased as Lewin Group's.
hey take it easy I'm no fan of the Fraser Institute but I'd rather take an honest approach to this analysis. Not every study they put out is outright fraud. Some of it is I agree.
Look at the mess that inurance-run health care is in the US. 41% overhead, and 59% paid out for health care costs. Who would be that stupid to pay for insurance to get 59 cents of health care back for every dollar you spend on private insurance.
US insurance-run health care is rationed to enhance the bottom line. Insurance company bureaucrats stand between physicians and patients in the US. The insurance company bureaucrat dictates to your physician what if any treatment the insurance company will allow you to have, and it's always the cheapest treatment, not the best treatment. Do you really want that? US style insurance-run health care?
Where in the Candian Charter does it say I have the right to gov't run healthcare and I dont have the right to purchase private insurance if I want to? The canadian gov't can't violate sec 7
What I;m saying that bif you bought private insurance that you would get what they have in the US (and I lived there for 7 years). For every dollar you spendon health insurance you'd get 59 cents back in health care. You'd have what they have in the US, an insurance company bureaucrat between you & your physician rationing your care for profit. It would be the insurance company bureaucart who would decide what treatment you get, not your physician. 99% of Canadians would reject that concept.
It doesn't matter what you think would happen if insurance companies were allowed. According to the supreme court the absolute ban on private insurance ins't necessary for maintaining a quality public health care system.
If you don't want private insurance then dont buy, but from a constitutional standpoint, the Canadian govt has no right to ban private insurance
Basically no one would buy it. I experienced it in the US and you, who haven't had to live in that inferior system, don't know when you're well off. If you want private insurance, you're asking for inferior health care to what you have now,
Are you telling me if you or a loved one had a brain cyst and was going blind because of it you would have no problem waiting months for treatment? Being able to see isn't that important anyway?
Just because you have an irrational fear of private healthcare doesn't mean canada gets to deprive her citizen's of their sec 7 rights. Most of Europe allows private care and their UHC systems are ranked better than Canada's. Europe gets more bang for their buck too.
Shona Holmes, she a non life threatening benign cyst, which she had removed at the Mayo clinic for $97,000 in exactly the same amount of time she would have had surgery in Hamilton. She admitted under oath in court that she had been told 6 weeks while she said 6 months on the fraudulant commercial. 6 weeks in the US for $97,000.. 6 weeks in Canada for no out of pocket cost . To answer your question, I would never go to the US for anything..
Shona Holmes' vision was always reversible. You buy into all her lies I guess. You must not read Canadian newspapers, because every major newspaper in Canada has debunked all her lies. The whole commercial is a lie from start to finish. She lied for insurance lobby money. We're trying to force her out of Canada, to have her move to the US for good.
BTW for health care in the industrialized world, Canada ranks #6 and the US ranks #19 and dead last.
Check out the Ontario gov't waitlist website and look up the wait time for brain cancer surgery. From the time brain cancer surgery is ordered & when one gets surgery is 84 days(90th percentile).
Look up the Canada-euro consumer index. Canada got ranked 23rd and dead last for most bang for their buck.
US healthcare is irrelevant because I am not arguing for US healthcare. I am arguing for European style healthcare & for laws that dont violate sec 7.
I really don't care about Ontario. Ontario is still suffering from Mike Harris hatchet job. There are 9 other provinces that have better health care than Ontario.
Who cares about the lives of the most populous province of all of Canada?
According to StatCan 60% of cardiac and cancer patients wait over a month for surgery. I could go on about longer than clinically reasonable wait lists but im sure you will come up with another excuse why Canadian's lives aren't important.
My mother had her bypass in 2 days here and all 15 other people in the Coronary Care Unit with her had theirs within 3 days too. I've had four surgeries in Canada, in 4 days, 6 days, 10 days, and 16 days. Maybe they wait in Ontraio (which I doubt very much) but it doesn't happen here (and the surgery I had in 10 days was for a lesion)
Why would the Ontario gov't and StatCan make up statistics about wait list? If they were going to fudge the numbers wouldn't it be in their interest to make it seem like waitlists are clinically reasonable and short?
A few personal accounts do not invalidate StatCan and Ontario gov't wait list stats. People do wait in Canada and sometimes they wait longer than is clinically reasonable which is absolutely unacceptable.
People in the other 9 provinces that have better health care than Ontario really don't care what Ontario does. Ontario elected Mike Harris to slash the health care system, that explains it all. Ontario got what voted for. he MIke Harris effect is still being felt in Ontario, that's why Ontario has low quailty health care like the US has.
The statcan figure was for all of Canada, not just Ontario. I know if I had a cancer, I would not want to wait over a month for surgery or for radiation. That is longer than clinically reasonable and violation of my sec 7 rights.
It took me 10 days to have the lesion removed. It was 10 days, not two weeks, not three weeks, not four weeks. 10 DAYS from GP to specialist to surgery to have a potentially cancerous lesion removed and that's the normal time here..
I don't think your anecdote is invalid and it illustrates that 'stats' is not an accurate view of the actual wait times.
Funny thing is there are stats and the wait times are being reduced. Canada is going in the right direction. No US style for profit health insurance here. We'll keep our single payer.
Ask any stat prof if a sample size of one can be used to disprove statcan data and they will laugh in your face. It is ridiculous that you think the federal gov't is so utterly incompetent they can't collect reliable stats. Isn't Statcan supposed one of the best stat agencies in the world?
A two-tier system like Europe doesn't mean Canada is going to abandon public health care. American style healthcare isn't a contagious disease.
Whoa you've made some absurd assumptions about my stance on health care and statistics. I'm not sure I should even engage as you're hell bent on making stuff up. Why don't you just debate yourself. and the other thin that ends with ck....
I am unCanadian because I believe in the Canadian Charter, agree with the Canadian Suprem court, and I am unhappy my Dad has been waiting month for an ulcer surgery in Ontario?
Please act your age. You give Canadians a bad name.
Do you know how many years he'd be waiting in the US with insurance-run health care if he couldn't afford a thousand dollars a month or more for health inusrance? If he's not 56 then he'd have wait until he was 65 to be able to have treatment at all.
1. American healthcare has nothing to do with my dad's sec 7 rights
2.The average cost for an employee for job-based family coverage is $3745 per year. The average cost of individual market family coverage insurance is $5,800 annually. So no, my Dad would likely not be paying a $1,000 or more a month for private insurance. My cell phone bill cost more than my insurance premiums.
3. The US & Germany have the shortest nonemergency wait times. I'm sure his wait would be shorter in the US
That's the average. Having a chronic illness like ulcers, he would pay four times as much as average, if he could get insurance at all with a pre-existing condition. It also raises the question why he didn't have treatment for the helicobacter pylori that caused the ulcer before it formed. Should he be fortunate enough to have insurance in the US, there is a wait time of up to three months.....for the insurance company bureaucrat between him and his physician to approve the procedure.
Again, your opinion of American healthcare doesn't justify his sec 7 rights being violated.
Also most americans get their insurance through their employer. The sick employees pay the same rate as the healthy employees so no, my dad would not be paying 1k a month.Plus there are gov't limits & laws that protect americans with job based insurance and place limits on insurance companies.
Just because your father can't jump ahead in the line and come before people who have far more serious conditons is not a violation of rights. Had he taken antibiotics for the helicobacter pylori, he would not have an ulcer in the first place.
That's wrong. The right to life and security of person in the Canadian Charter is a negative right, not a positive right. Preventing my father from getting medical treatment that would significantly improve the quality of his life IS a violation of sec 7. The Chaoulli ruling supports this.
Americans have a right to life as well, yet 45,000 Americans die each year because they are denied access to a physician and treatment because of insurance-run health care.
If vyopu want to bring US insurance companues into Canada you'll have to accept the deaths associated with US medical insurance companies. People with private insurance will not have access to public hospitals. They would have to go to a private hospital and there would be very few, if any of those.
Many provinces already have medical access insurance(private insurance that kicks in if you are on a wait list for more than 45 days) and guess what?Wait lists are still going down despite some private insurance being allowed.Private insurance isn't going to take over canada despite your irrational fear that it will. For $70 a month a 50 yr could get private insurance that will cover all cost of treatment, including travel. There are no copays/deductibles & pre existing conditions are covered
Now really what is so horrible about medical access insurance? Sounds a hell of alot better than more insurance plans in the US. People are still covered by the public healthcare system but if they want to spend the extra $50-100 a month they can get insurance for medically necessary procedures. They may never need to use their medical access insurance but why should people be denied the right to buy it & invest in their well ebing? Wait lists are still going down in provinces that have it.
If someone jumps ahead of me because they have money and insurance then that patient and the hospital will be sued. That's the US insurance-run health care that I transferred back to Canada to avoid.
Look up what a negative right is. The right to life is a negative right in the Canadian Charter, not a positive right. Also look up the current legal precedent regarding the absolute ban on private insurance (chaoulli v quebec).
No your rights would not be violated. Again I suggest you look up the difference between negative and positive rights.
And also look at european countries with UHC systems that also allow private care. They have shorter waits and get more bang for their buck. The Canadian Supreme agrees that the absolute ban on private insurance is not necessary for maintaining a quality public healthcare system.
If I'm made to wait when I would have had surgery sooner because people with money jumped in line ahead of me then my rights are violated as much as your father's were.
Wrong again. Look up what a negative right is. By preventing my father from improving the quality of his life the gov't is violating his negative right to life. The gov't is not violating your negative right to life however. You wrongly believe that you have a positive right to life but you don't. Look up section 7. It is negative, not positive.
Making me wait while the rich and insured jump in front of me is preventing me for getting treatment and preventing me from improving my quality of life. Therefore my section 7 rights are violated.
Section 7 does not convey positive rights nor does it impose any positive obligations upon the government. Your rights wouldn't be violated. Where in the Charter does it say all Canadians have the right to a publically funded healthcare system? It doesn't.
Just because you don't understand the Canadian charter or what a negative right is doesn't mean your rights would be violated by allowing private healthcare. The supreme court agrees.
Just wait until your father needs an urgent bypass and a bunch of people with more money and better insurance buy their way in front of him and he dies fo a heart attack because he had to wait because those people bought their way in front of him in line.
That always has been the strength of the Canadian system, everyone is treated equally and that the more seriouls ill are looked after first. There are no second class citizens. Private insurance makes most Canadians second class citizens when it comes to treatment.
If you want to be Americans with American style private insurance then you have to use you American style private, for profit hospitals, wherever those would be, but you would be denied access to the public hospitals the rest of us Canadians use.
1.Most of europe has private healthcare & UHC and they don't face the problems America face. No one is arguing to make Canada like America.
2. Private care and insurance who greatly benefit public hospitals and bring in more money in the public system, Why send people to the US when they could be treated for 1/2 of the cost in a Canadian hospital benefiting the canadian economy?
3. One can have public healthcare & private insurance like they do in the UK
Also people in the US wait up to three months for the insurance company bureaucrat standing between a patient and his physician to approve (or more often deny) the procedure. Many companies do not provide insurance for their employees and they have to buy it on the open market. Regulations on isurance companies in the US are few and they can chgarge what they want and can deny for any reason.
Sure very few. Wait times are not easily digested or created. It can depend on the type of surgery, your location, your availability. Just to make it clear if you have to have surgery you get it fast. This notion that people are dying in line for care is nonsense.
If you want private insurance in Canada, you get US insurance companies and US inferior health care, and good luck using your insurance anywhere in Canada.
There are more than two options for a healthcare system. Just because you allow private healthcare doesnt mean canada is going to turn into the US. That fear is completely irrational.
Who do you think is pushing privitization in Canada? It's the US insurance lobby who's financing Canadian privatization, with an eye on 33,000,000 new victims. Health insurance in Canada would be sold by US insurance companies, so it would be exactly like the US because it's the same companies.
The gov't that got rid of UHC in Canada would immediately get a vote of no confidence and the new gov't would immediately bring it back. Canada isn't going to abandon UHC. That is compltely ridiculous that they would. Most of Europe allows for private healthcare and they haven't gotten rid of the UHC system. Their systems are even better than Canada's.
No political party would commit poilitical suicde by changing from the health care system we have and have had for 44 years. Even Stephen Harper wouldn't risk losing his political career by proposing to change Canadian health care.,
That is my point exactly! No one would ever do that and Canadian healthcare will never turn into American Healthcare. Even if the Chaoulli Case is expanded Canada still wont become like the US.
I mean the few of you who would buy insurance would have inferior, rationed health care. There's doubt I would continue to have the better health care as it is now than you would with insurance. I'm just telling you if you bought insurance in Canada, you would get second class health care compared to what you would have have in Canada now.
If you feel that way about private health insurance then dont buy it. I'm sure most Canadians wouldn't be interested in private insurance anyways. But for people that would like to have Canadian healthcare and private insurance there is no constitutional reason why they shouldn't be able to.
Private insurance would not be accepted by physicians and public hospitals in Canada. You would have to go to a private hospital or clinic or to the US to use your private insurance. The travel cost would be prohibitive to get 59 cents of health care for each dollar you spend.
If you want the private insurance like Americans have, with it comes the probablility of going backrupt from medical bills as happens with 1,000,000 Americans a year. This has not existed in Canada, but private insurance will being that to the handful who would buy private insurance... bankruptcy and inferior health care to what you have now is the private insurance legacy..
Again, your argument has absolutely so legal merit. If you were standing before the supreme court, arguing in defense of the ban on private insurance what would you say? Pathos and your personal opinion are all fluff and don't matter. The canadian charter does.
While private care and fixing the public system aren't mutually exclusive why would we want to focus energy on allowing private care instead of fixing the public system? Who does that benefit? Well to answer my own question it benefits those that can afford private care. I side firmly with those who cannot afford private care and deserve the best possible care regardless of ability to pay. This means focusing on fixing public care rather than trying to implement private care.
Expanding private care would create jobs and increase revenue(to help fund the public system. I can't believe you acknowledge that sect 7 is being violating in Canada but dont' care. You have no proof private care would destroy public care hence why the supreme court ruled the ban was unjustified.
We have a doctor shortage. This might simply further understaff the public system.
Again, I don't care about the wealthy who can afford private care. I care about those that cannot. I think we should focus on improving their care (and all of our care) rather than the care of those who are more well off.
Only 70% of Canadians have private insurance so there is inequality in the current system anyways.Since the govt already covers medically necessary services insurance premiums would be much less than there are in the US.The govt doesnt have to give tax breaks to those w private insurance & even if they did it would offset by the tax insurance companies pay,additional revenue created by new jobs & medical tourism,& also less lost productivy & less medical expenses that occur becuase of wait list.
New jobs can be created in the public system, which will lessen any productivity losses and wait list expenses. I understand the argument for private care I just choose to focus on those who cannot afford private care before worrying about those who are relatively more wealthy and can. My concern again is that private care might harm our culture of solidarity in which health care is seen as a right and will take doctors and possibly funding from public care.
We should work to improve the position of those without good care instead of increasing inequality.
I don't know about the economics of giving tax breaks to people who then spend that money thus generating the amount lost. I think that was called trickle down economics...though it has a more technical name, which at the moment escapes me. It didn't work out when Reagan tried it I don't see why it would now. However given that they will spend the money in this scenario the only problem would be
I didn't bring up trickle down economics. Insurance companies have to pay taxes on the premiums they collect. If people are paying more in premiums because they have insurance for medically necessary insurance then that means insurance companies are paying more in taxes. Medical tourism could bring in billions annually, which could subsidized public health for Canadians. The jobs created by private health would also generate revenue which can help fund UHC.
Medical tourism would bring in billions? Really? The problem is not funding per se but allocation of funding. The government can bring in extra cash but there still needs to be pressure to get it to allocate it. By taking the relatively wealthy out you alleviate that pressure. We should work collectively to fund properly the public system so we can all receive great care.
Feeding the well off so they can provide tax revenue for the poor is trickle down economics. The jobs from private health would be poached from public. We have a doctor shortage.
Giving tax breaks to big business is considered trickle down. Where did I mention tax breaks for insurance companies? Germany allows people to opt out for American style insurance and they have more doctors per capita than Canada. Canada needs to focus spending on drs otherwise you will keep losing them to the US. Everything you irrationly fear can easily be avoided with regulation.
The tax breaks go to well off individuals or companies in this "theory". We need to increase the amount of doctors we educate and fast track those who come here from other countries. The situation is ridiculous. I have a friend that had to go to the States to train to be a doctor and now he has a huge debt. Of course he will have to pay that off in private US care before coming back here.
If Canada were to open up public covered procedures for private care then there would be a shortage of doctors because people would leave the public system to make more cash in private care. We don't train enough doctors. That is the problem. Unless you want to open up private colleges to train doctors the public system will continue to have a shortage unless it pays higher fees to doctors. I don't think that doctors are underpaid and if we pay them more this will raise expenses further.
And given that we already have difficulty getting the government to properly fund health care this doesn't seem like a good idea.
I don't think my fear is unfounded. It is no secret that the part of the business class has been clamoring to dismantle our health care. This is being done through the back door (P3s like I said and private care as an additional option). Why do you think it is easier to implement private care than extend public care? Again, class warfare. I side with the poor on this
There are two major reasons why Canada has a dr shortage. One,many Canadian doctors(1 in 9) go to the US. The other reason is because the gov't reduced med school enrollment spots in a calculated effort to cut cost by rationing drs & therefore rationing care. Canada already has to compete w private to keep their drs.More healthcare spending doesn't mean shorter wait list. When provinces focuses on drs, then wait list actually do decrease.
Yes so we shouldn't create more private care as this will further exacerbate the doctor shortage in the public system. What should be done is that there should be an increase in the amount of doctors trained. This is not done because it would mean the government would have to raise taxes. Most likely this would be income tax, which is progressive and thus taxes the wealthy at a higher rate. They could just get private care for themselves cheaper and forget about the poor.
yeah the guy's argument is like we're not TAKING MORE FROM young people but rather GIVING IT to the elderly.
concussedcarneous 2 months ago
Ibringthetruth=Ibringliesandmyths
MadHabber93 8 months ago
Communism is the best!
Ibringthetruth1 1 year ago
@Ibringthetruth1 - it isn't just Canada with universal care, every single "first world" country on the planet, with the exception of America has universal health care or something similar. Also many second world countries as well.
I guess the whole world is communists then, lol
888564342432 11 months ago
@888564342432
Every 3rd world country too.
Canada and other socialists don't have good economies and their populations leave for the USA.
FACT.
Ibringthetruth1 11 months ago
@Ibringthetruth1 Actually the Canadian economy has done far better during this recession than the American economy, and we would hardly have been affected if american shit car companies hadn't gone bust.
Americans are dumb as mud.
FACT.
Keinlicht 11 months ago
@Keinlicht
yeah, thats why you tards are running down here.
Ibringthetruth1 11 months ago
@Ibringthetruth1 I wasnt aware America had a northern immigration problem.. oh wait! IT DOESNT
Keinlicht 11 months ago
@Keinlicht
Ha, too many canadians moving down here.
Enoying that dogsledding?
Ibringthetruth1 11 months ago
@Ibringthetruth1 This is your argument?
Keinlicht 11 months ago
@Keinlicht
hows this - YOU"RE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM SUCKS. OUR PRISONS HAVE BETTER HC!
Ibringthetruth1 11 months ago
@Ibringthetruth1 I'm not even gonna waste any more time on you
Keinlicht 11 months ago
@Keinlicht
We don't want marxist HC. Singapore is better for us. We need open pricing and people to shop more instead using insurance.
Ibringthetruth1 11 months ago
@Ibringthetruth1 bullshit., US unemplyment? 9.2%. Canada's? 7.7%. Your debt more than doubled under bush and with recession to $14 trillion or $ 46,000 per capita. Canada? $ 561 billion or $16,000 per capita. Canadians live almost 3 years longer than americans, Canada dollar>American dollar. hmmmmm? did you say you were a superpower? cough cough.
UpstairsMaid 9 months ago
@UpstairsMaid
Small sample size there. We got hit by mortgage bubble. Your stats of longer life are exagerated. We have gang warfare and more car wrecks. That will always tilt stats. Canadas Gdp is almost always lower and unemployment higher.
Your socialist HC costs less because it's 'rationed'. If we did that for medicare & medicaid then there would be protests.
Ibringthetruth1 9 months ago
@UpstairsMaid
Small sample size there. We got hit by mortgage bubble. Your stats of longer life are exagerated. We have gang warfare and more car wrecks. That will always tilt stats. Canadas Gdp is almost always lower and unemployment higher.
Your socialist HC costs less because it's 'rationed'. If we did that for medicare & medicaid then there would be protests.
Ibringthetruth1 9 months ago
@Ibringthetruth1 The stats are from your own CIA stats page. There is no exageration - LOL ganga deaths representy what? 0.1% of your mortality rates?The world was hit by the sub prime fiasco which started with american banks. canadian banks are doing just fine nd manasged to buy up quite a bit . thanks.
UpstairsMaid 9 months ago
@UpstairsMaid
The myth that Canadians live longer is hilariously wrong. It's already been disproven. You could find websites that show why if you would have clue on using a search engine.
Canadian system = rationing. You can say it isn't but it is. The caps on docs also creates a shortage and long lines. Go ahead and deny that too. That is FACT.
Ibringthetruth1 9 months ago
@Ibringthetruth1 you post your shit without reading anyone else's post. blocvked and all future correspondance deleted unread.
UpstairsMaid 9 months ago
@UpstairsMaid
You can't handle facts.
Ibringthetruth1 9 months ago
@UpstairsMaid that has nothing to do with heath. that has more to do with the murder rate. people are getting killed at a far higher rate in America. so it would seem that Canadians live longer lives but realty if you exclude the premature death from car accidents ( in both countries ) americans live much longer
mrfwest 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@UpstairsMaid
Small sample size there. We got hit by mortgage bubble. Your stats of longer life are exagerated. We have gang warfare and more car wrecks. That will always tilt stats. Canadas Gdp is almost always lower and unemployment higher.
Your socialist HC costs less because it's 'rationed'. If we did that for medicare & medicaid then there would be protests.
Ibringthetruth1 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@UpstairsMaid
Small sample size there. We got hit by mortgage bubble. Your stats of longer life are exagerated. We have gang warfare and more car wrecks. That will always tilt stats. Canadas Gdp is almost always lower and unemployment higher.
Your socialist HC costs less because it's rationed . If we did that for medicare & medicaid then there would be protests.
Ibringthetruth1 9 months ago
@UpstairsMaid
Small sample size there. We got hit by mortgage bubble.
Ibringthetruth1 9 months ago
@UpstairsMaid
@UpstairsMaid We have gang warfare and more car wrecks. That will always tilt stats. Canadas Gdp is almost always lower and unemployment higher.
Your socialist HC costs less because it's 'rationed'. If we did that for medicare & medicaid then there would be protests.
Ibringthetruth1 9 months ago
@Ibringthetruth1 LOL - your debt is higher per GDP than ours is by a long shot. Rationaing isn't why we save money on HC - we save money by pooling resources and by the fact that our HC admin costs hover around 3% versus 31% for yours.
UpstairsMaid 9 months ago
@UpstairsMaid
@UpstairsMaid We have gang warfare and more car wrecks. That will always tilt stats. Canadas Gdp is almost always lower and unemployment higher.
Ibringthetruth1 9 months ago
@UpstairsMaid
Your socialist HC costs less because it's 'rationed'. If we did that for medicare & medicaid then there would be protests. The UK , your model also cut its hc services.
Ibringthetruth1 9 months ago
@888564342432 The researchers also found differences in Health Adjusted Life Expectancy (HALE). The average Canadian can expect to live 2.7 more years in "perfect health" than his or her American counterpart.
longer lives with better health. what does the murder rate gave to do with that. plus mathematically your arguments are specious.
UpstairsMaid 8 months ago
All together with mediocre medical care.
Socialism!
Ibringthetruth1 1 year ago
FIXWCB is a disgruntled workman`s comp. patient that is controlling his claim. He seems to enjoy pingeonholing the rest of the country with his insurance claim through them, which has NOTHING to do with his case. He fails to tell you that.
MadHabber93 1 year ago
Canadian health care is killing people....waiting lists are huge...there are even waiting lists to get on waiting lists... ck doctors out on ratemds.com and see how many people are denied MRI diagnostic tests, NO DIAGNOSE=NO TREATMENT=POVERTY=misery=chronic neuropathic pain=crps=suicide
Canada health care is rationed
FIXWCBCANADA 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The truth about Canada's healthcare is that it has been raped by immigrants for the last 20 years.Our population was at 24,000 000 then,now at 30 000 000.Its a no brainer,,,our stupid Canadian government(Liberal and Conservatives)over the years have ruined it for us true Canadians.Our next generation will suffer...not immigrants tho...they are used to it coming from third world countries and all....
kodiak1966 1 year ago
I know our income tax is almost the same, but remember, the US has things that are tax deductable that have no reason to be, so they pay about an additional 5-8% less then us on avarage.
dave19941000 1 year ago
Health Care in the Rural area's of Canada is top notch...other than that...couldnt tell you
rigga40 1 year ago
@etano1 You forgot to mention these cancelation happened during the H1N1 (Swine flu) influenza epidemic. I don't know if you remember but it was a crisis all over the world. But why mention something like that in your statement, it might just ruin your argument.
mahalcat 1 year ago
Ontario's hospitals are an average of 150 million dollars over budget: source G&M.
As far as the Canadian model goes, if I ever had a serious illness, I would travel to the US for care. Simple things, like broken bones or whatever can be taken care of here. Why? Because when I need treatment, and I'm denied that care in the form of a waiting list, I'm not getting what I'm paying for. We pay to be treated when we need it, but we don't get treated when we need it. Scary system this is.
jellofuel 1 year ago
We would have to wait 7 months for a mammogram?.... Dude, where do all these ignorant simpletons like you come from? Could you, apart from shitty health care, also have bad schooling and too much propaganda for media? Health Care even works together. If it were important and there wouldn't be a fast solution they'd treat you in another EU country's hospital. There isn't a single German that would ever dream of letting go of European Health care, except for in a nightmare. LONG LIVE HEALTH CARE!
Efteling4Ever 2 years ago 3
you are talking out your ass, im canadian, we are not bankrupt, are hospitals are doing just fine
slickrickdarula 2 years ago 11
Where is your proof that it takes that long in Spain and Germany. You dont wait that long in england and our NHS isnt as prioritised as germanys. Germany has one of the best respected health services in europe if not the world.
wilsonnortheast 2 years ago
Actually there are countries that offer universal health care and have lower income tax rates. Furthermore Canadian income taxes are almost identical to the United States
SparwoodApple 2 years ago 12
@SparwoodApple
wrong! don't let the truth stop you from your lies.
Ibringthetruth1 1 year ago
@SparwoodApple It's mainly because of their Federal Reserve and the way they print their money.
MenwithHill 2 months ago
@MenwithHill how do you think printing is processed in Canada?
is the Fed responsible for health care???
concussedcarneous 2 months ago
@concussedcarneous No but there is inflation and their debt pump a great amount of money that could otherwise be used for other things.
MenwithHill 2 months ago
Our Health care system is now bankrupt.... cite your source stating that Canadian health care is bankrupt. Ironic as Canada is more financially stable then the United States. Furthermore more Canadians own their own our homes, less of declare bankruptcy and our health care system is a lot more effecient
SparwoodApple 2 years ago 4
@etano1 source or it did not happen.
ziomany 2 years ago
Canadians wouldn't want a privatized health care for the world because our health care is simply BETTER than the US's. End of debate.
frankystein12 2 years ago 3
The wealthy and ignorant will come down soon!
MrFreedomrequired 2 years ago
Why do you think that private care is an easier option to implement than increasing per capita funding for public care? There is a reason the government dismantled welfare state provisions. There is a reason that unemployment insurance now called employment insurance doesn't pay out to many. There is a reason corporate tax is lowered. There is a reason we went from CAP to CHST, which underfunded our health care. There is a reason surpluses were given back in tax breaks. Class warfare.
chrisarthur77 2 years ago
Comment removed
murphyj87 2 years ago
Basically, I don't think we should have private care for the same reason we shouldn't have the great lakes privatized. No matter how many jobs or tax revenue this would raise both water and health care are fundamental rights we have and we owe it to our fellow citizens to protect and provide these rights for each other regardless of ability to pay. I again think we should focus our efforts on collectively providing these rights rather than focusing on procuring individual consumer rights to care
chrisarthur77 2 years ago 2
You blatant disregard for section 7 is disturbing and your willingness to be selective about the value of human life is disgusting. Do you honestly believe wealthy Canadians dont jump the queue by going to the US?It's the poor & middle class suffering on wait list.I'm not arguing for private healthcare as an economic freedom, i'm arguing for the protection of life & security of person.
StephSilvermen 2 years ago
I already stated that no one would find a law justifiable if they didn't already think what it justified was justifiable. So whether you are taking about section 7 or 4 is for me besides the point. The private care would be used by more wealthy individuals. Again, I care about the less wealthy and think we should fight for a collective solution given that health care is a right for all regardless of ability to pay.
chrisarthur77 2 years ago
I'm arguing for the protection of life and security of person for those who cannot afford private care. The poor are not going to be able to access private care and the waitlist will not shrink with the introduction of private care. Given the name to something as Section 7, 8, or 9 does not justify anything to me unless I already considered the right under consideration justified.
chrisarthur77 2 years ago
You don't consider the right to life & security of person a justified right?
StephSilvermen 2 years ago
Of course I do. I don't think anyone in their right mind wouldn't. I just don't see how giving poor people substandard care is going to achieve that. Seems better to agitate for better public care for the life and security of person for everyone regardless of income rather than help those who don't want to jump over to the US to get care.
chrisarthur77 2 years ago
You don't value human life. You openly acknowledge wait list violate a person's right to life & security to person but are willing to ignore it because of an UNFOUNDED fear that it will undermine public health. The supreme court says this isn't true. It isn't that way in Europe either.Your irrational fear is no different from Americans who resist health reform because of irrational fear of socialized medicine. Egalitarianism is not more important than a person's right to life, nothing is.
StephSilvermen 2 years ago
I want to shorten wait list times and advocate for an expansion of the public system. Why is this not an option? I can just as easily accuse you of violating the right to life and security for those who won't be able to afford to take advantage of private care. Again, I'd rather help everyone than just some who are already privileged.
chrisarthur77 2 years ago
I have never said Canada shouldn't try to improve the public so no it wouldn't be accurate to say I don't support section 7. The Supreme court agrees with me and disagrees with you. Private care wont undermine public care..you have no legitimate proof. There are 3 court cases trying to expand the Chauolli ruling so it looks like private is coming your way whether you like it or not.
StephSilvermen 2 years ago
Well that is unfortunate as it will not help poorer people. I hope that private care won't undermine the public care but given that we live in a class society and there are class interests that want to undermine public care and the idea that you should care about whether a fellow citizen gets care I am doubtful.
chrisarthur77 2 years ago
StephSilvermen
I actually like the private option as I'll be able to afford it.
However you're not being 100% honest when you say it won't undermine the public system, it will.
Call a urologist for a vasectomy, a week maybe, then call for a consult on another problem. 1-2months. Priority is to the money maker.
Now make a cardio specialist free enterprise. guaranteed 5 appointments a day available for premium clients. That undermines a public system. You can't stop it.
shawakwak 2 years ago
Why do European countries that allow private insurance/care have shorter wait list than Canada then? Many of their UHC systems ranked higher than Canadas in the Euro-Canada Consumer index, especially in the patient wait times & also the patient rights category. European countries also get more bang for their buck when it comes to healthcare. The Supreme Court disagrees with your assessment of what would happen if private insurance was made legal. Banning private insurance is unconstitutional.
StephSilvermen 2 years ago
All i said, is it would undermine public health. I made no comment on it's effectiveness. Like I said I agree with you on adding a private component. I want it.
It will undermine the public system in some way. People with more money will get preferential treatment. That undermines the public system.
shawakwak 2 years ago
According to the SCC, lifting the absolute ban on private care would NOT undermine the public system.
StephSilvermen 2 years ago
Careful Steph on quoting the SCC. I'm all for the private option, you don't need talking points for the Fraser Institute to sell it.
shawakwak 2 years ago
I shouldn't quote the Supreme Court of Canada even though judicial precedent supports my claims and contradicts yours? Im not trying to sell the private option to you. Just pointing out that the highest court in the land disagrees with your opinion that it would undermine the public system.
StephSilvermen 2 years ago
LOL I thought you were talking about the standards council of Canada. It did't make sense why they would comment on this but I gave you the benefit.
I'm going to find a read the entire judgement and return later.
Regardless of what the supreme court, you or I say, only time will tell.
shawakwak 2 years ago
What year? SO I can find it.
shawakwak 2 years ago
Search Chaoulli v. Quebec. The decision was in 2005.
StephSilvermen 2 years ago
Merci.
shawakwak 2 years ago
The Fraser Institute is a right wing think tank. It has as much credibility as Lewin Group (wholly owned by United Healthcare) in the US.
murphyj87 2 years ago
They're not THAT bad. yes there are holes in their research for sure. There are always issues when you draw a conclusion and they apply the facts.
shawakwak 2 years ago
If you want biased statistics, the Fraser Institute is good at that, like Lewin Group, as I say. At leats the Fraser Institute isn't owned by a heath insurance company like Lewin Group is, but that's about the only difference. Their conclusions are as biased as Lewin Group's.
murphyj87 2 years ago
hey take it easy I'm no fan of the Fraser Institute but I'd rather take an honest approach to this analysis. Not every study they put out is outright fraud. Some of it is I agree.
shawakwak 2 years ago
You don't need the fraser institue to prove that the absolute ban on private insurance is unconstitutional. StatCan can prove it.
StephSilvermen 2 years ago
Even if there were private insurance, almost noone would buy it. It would die quickly from no one buying it.
murphyj87 2 years ago
Look at the mess that inurance-run health care is in the US. 41% overhead, and 59% paid out for health care costs. Who would be that stupid to pay for insurance to get 59 cents of health care back for every dollar you spend on private insurance.
murphyj87 2 years ago
US insurance-run health care is rationed to enhance the bottom line. Insurance company bureaucrats stand between physicians and patients in the US. The insurance company bureaucrat dictates to your physician what if any treatment the insurance company will allow you to have, and it's always the cheapest treatment, not the best treatment. Do you really want that? US style insurance-run health care?
murphyj87 2 years ago
Where in the Candian Charter does it say I have the right to gov't run healthcare and I dont have the right to purchase private insurance if I want to? The canadian gov't can't violate sec 7
StephSilvermen 2 years ago
What I;m saying that bif you bought private insurance that you would get what they have in the US (and I lived there for 7 years). For every dollar you spendon health insurance you'd get 59 cents back in health care. You'd have what they have in the US, an insurance company bureaucrat between you & your physician rationing your care for profit. It would be the insurance company bureaucart who would decide what treatment you get, not your physician. 99% of Canadians would reject that concept.
murphyj87 2 years ago
It doesn't matter what you think would happen if insurance companies were allowed. According to the supreme court the absolute ban on private insurance ins't necessary for maintaining a quality public health care system.
If you don't want private insurance then dont buy, but from a constitutional standpoint, the Canadian govt has no right to ban private insurance
StephSilvermen 2 years ago
Basically no one would buy it. I experienced it in the US and you, who haven't had to live in that inferior system, don't know when you're well off. If you want private insurance, you're asking for inferior health care to what you have now,
murphyj87 2 years ago
I'm a dual citizen currently living in the US.
StephSilvermen 2 years ago
So stay in the US if you love insurance-run health care. You and Shona Holmes would be a good pair.
murphyj87 2 years ago
Are you telling me if you or a loved one had a brain cyst and was going blind because of it you would have no problem waiting months for treatment? Being able to see isn't that important anyway?
Just because you have an irrational fear of private healthcare doesn't mean canada gets to deprive her citizen's of their sec 7 rights. Most of Europe allows private care and their UHC systems are ranked better than Canada's. Europe gets more bang for their buck too.
StephSilvermen 2 years ago
Shona Holmes, she a non life threatening benign cyst, which she had removed at the Mayo clinic for $97,000 in exactly the same amount of time she would have had surgery in Hamilton. She admitted under oath in court that she had been told 6 weeks while she said 6 months on the fraudulant commercial. 6 weeks in the US for $97,000.. 6 weeks in Canada for no out of pocket cost . To answer your question, I would never go to the US for anything..
murphyj87 2 years ago
I have better health care in Canada than I had in the US.
murphyj87 2 years ago
Shona Holmes' vision was always reversible. You buy into all her lies I guess. You must not read Canadian newspapers, because every major newspaper in Canada has debunked all her lies. The whole commercial is a lie from start to finish. She lied for insurance lobby money. We're trying to force her out of Canada, to have her move to the US for good.
BTW for health care in the industrialized world, Canada ranks #6 and the US ranks #19 and dead last.
murphyj87 2 years ago
Check out the Ontario gov't waitlist website and look up the wait time for brain cancer surgery. From the time brain cancer surgery is ordered & when one gets surgery is 84 days(90th percentile).
Look up the Canada-euro consumer index. Canada got ranked 23rd and dead last for most bang for their buck.
US healthcare is irrelevant because I am not arguing for US healthcare. I am arguing for European style healthcare & for laws that dont violate sec 7.
StephSilvermen 2 years ago
I really don't care about Ontario. Ontario is still suffering from Mike Harris hatchet job. There are 9 other provinces that have better health care than Ontario.
murphyj87 2 years ago
Who cares about the lives of the most populous province of all of Canada?
According to StatCan 60% of cardiac and cancer patients wait over a month for surgery. I could go on about longer than clinically reasonable wait lists but im sure you will come up with another excuse why Canadian's lives aren't important.
StephSilvermen 2 years ago
My mother had her bypass in 2 days here and all 15 other people in the Coronary Care Unit with her had theirs within 3 days too. I've had four surgeries in Canada, in 4 days, 6 days, 10 days, and 16 days. Maybe they wait in Ontraio (which I doubt very much) but it doesn't happen here (and the surgery I had in 10 days was for a lesion)
murphyj87 2 years ago
Why would the Ontario gov't and StatCan make up statistics about wait list? If they were going to fudge the numbers wouldn't it be in their interest to make it seem like waitlists are clinically reasonable and short?
A few personal accounts do not invalidate StatCan and Ontario gov't wait list stats. People do wait in Canada and sometimes they wait longer than is clinically reasonable which is absolutely unacceptable.
StephSilvermen 2 years ago
People in the other 9 provinces that have better health care than Ontario really don't care what Ontario does. Ontario elected Mike Harris to slash the health care system, that explains it all. Ontario got what voted for. he MIke Harris effect is still being felt in Ontario, that's why Ontario has low quailty health care like the US has.
murphyj87 2 years ago
The statcan figure was for all of Canada, not just Ontario. I know if I had a cancer, I would not want to wait over a month for surgery or for radiation. That is longer than clinically reasonable and violation of my sec 7 rights.
The problem is alot bigger than Mike Harris.
StephSilvermen 2 years ago
It took me 10 days to have the lesion removed. It was 10 days, not two weeks, not three weeks, not four weeks. 10 DAYS from GP to specialist to surgery to have a potentially cancerous lesion removed and that's the normal time here..
murphyj87 2 years ago
You are a sample size of 1. Personal examples don't invalidate statcan data, which sample size is considerably larger than 1 guy in nova scotia.
StephSilvermen 2 years ago
I don't think your anecdote is invalid and it illustrates that 'stats' is not an accurate view of the actual wait times.
Funny thing is there are stats and the wait times are being reduced. Canada is going in the right direction. No US style for profit health insurance here. We'll keep our single payer.
shawakwak 2 years ago
Ask any stat prof if a sample size of one can be used to disprove statcan data and they will laugh in your face. It is ridiculous that you think the federal gov't is so utterly incompetent they can't collect reliable stats. Isn't Statcan supposed one of the best stat agencies in the world?
A two-tier system like Europe doesn't mean Canada is going to abandon public health care. American style healthcare isn't a contagious disease.
StephSilvermen 2 years ago
Whoa you've made some absurd assumptions about my stance on health care and statistics. I'm not sure I should even engage as you're hell bent on making stuff up. Why don't you just debate yourself. and the other thin that ends with ck....
shawakwak 2 years ago
Stay in the US. You think just like the American right wingnuts. Canada doesn't want you.
murphyj87 2 years ago
I am unCanadian because I believe in the Canadian Charter, agree with the Canadian Suprem court, and I am unhappy my Dad has been waiting month for an ulcer surgery in Ontario?
Please act your age. You give Canadians a bad name.
StephSilvermen 2 years ago
Do you know how many years he'd be waiting in the US with insurance-run health care if he couldn't afford a thousand dollars a month or more for health inusrance? If he's not 56 then he'd have wait until he was 65 to be able to have treatment at all.
murphyj87 2 years ago
1. American healthcare has nothing to do with my dad's sec 7 rights
2.The average cost for an employee for job-based family coverage is $3745 per year. The average cost of individual market family coverage insurance is $5,800 annually. So no, my Dad would likely not be paying a $1,000 or more a month for private insurance. My cell phone bill cost more than my insurance premiums.
3. The US & Germany have the shortest nonemergency wait times. I'm sure his wait would be shorter in the US
StephSilvermen 2 years ago
That's the average. Having a chronic illness like ulcers, he would pay four times as much as average, if he could get insurance at all with a pre-existing condition. It also raises the question why he didn't have treatment for the helicobacter pylori that caused the ulcer before it formed. Should he be fortunate enough to have insurance in the US, there is a wait time of up to three months.....for the insurance company bureaucrat between him and his physician to approve the procedure.
murphyj87 2 years ago
Again, your opinion of American healthcare doesn't justify his sec 7 rights being violated.
Also most americans get their insurance through their employer. The sick employees pay the same rate as the healthy employees so no, my dad would not be paying 1k a month.Plus there are gov't limits & laws that protect americans with job based insurance and place limits on insurance companies.
StephSilvermen 2 years ago
Just because your father can't jump ahead in the line and come before people who have far more serious conditons is not a violation of rights. Had he taken antibiotics for the helicobacter pylori, he would not have an ulcer in the first place.
murphyj87 2 years ago
That's wrong. The right to life and security of person in the Canadian Charter is a negative right, not a positive right. Preventing my father from getting medical treatment that would significantly improve the quality of his life IS a violation of sec 7. The Chaoulli ruling supports this.
StephSilvermen 2 years ago
Americans have a right to life as well, yet 45,000 Americans die each year because they are denied access to a physician and treatment because of insurance-run health care.
murphyj87 2 years ago
The right to life in the US is also a negative right, not a positive right.
StephSilvermen 2 years ago
If vyopu want to bring US insurance companues into Canada you'll have to accept the deaths associated with US medical insurance companies. People with private insurance will not have access to public hospitals. They would have to go to a private hospital and there would be very few, if any of those.
murphyj87 2 years ago
Many provinces already have medical access insurance(private insurance that kicks in if you are on a wait list for more than 45 days) and guess what?Wait lists are still going down despite some private insurance being allowed.Private insurance isn't going to take over canada despite your irrational fear that it will. For $70 a month a 50 yr could get private insurance that will cover all cost of treatment, including travel. There are no copays/deductibles & pre existing conditions are covered
StephSilvermen 2 years ago
Now really what is so horrible about medical access insurance? Sounds a hell of alot better than more insurance plans in the US. People are still covered by the public healthcare system but if they want to spend the extra $50-100 a month they can get insurance for medically necessary procedures. They may never need to use their medical access insurance but why should people be denied the right to buy it & invest in their well ebing? Wait lists are still going down in provinces that have it.
StephSilvermen 2 years ago
If someone jumps ahead of me because they have money and insurance then that patient and the hospital will be sued. That's the US insurance-run health care that I transferred back to Canada to avoid.
murphyj87 2 years ago
The right to life is a negative right. You wouldn't win your case.
StephSilvermen 2 years ago
No one has the right to move to the front of the line because they have more money than someone else.
murphyj87 2 years ago
That's denying my rights.
murphyj87 2 years ago
Look up what a negative right is. The right to life is a negative right in the Canadian Charter, not a positive right. Also look up the current legal precedent regarding the absolute ban on private insurance (chaoulli v quebec).
You would lose your case.
StephSilvermen 2 years ago
In Canada no one has the right to buy their way to the front of the line.
murphyj87 2 years ago
Section 7 is a negative right, not a positive right. Try reading the Canadian Charter instead of being irrational and emotional.
StephSilvermen 2 years ago
And if I have a longer wait because people with money and insurance jump in line in front of me then my Section 7 rights are violated.
murphyj87 2 years ago
No your rights would not be violated. Again I suggest you look up the difference between negative and positive rights.
And also look at european countries with UHC systems that also allow private care. They have shorter waits and get more bang for their buck. The Canadian Supreme agrees that the absolute ban on private insurance is not necessary for maintaining a quality public healthcare system.
StephSilvermen 2 years ago
If I'm made to wait when I would have had surgery sooner because people with money jumped in line ahead of me then my rights are violated as much as your father's were.
murphyj87 2 years ago
Wrong again. Look up what a negative right is. By preventing my father from improving the quality of his life the gov't is violating his negative right to life. The gov't is not violating your negative right to life however. You wrongly believe that you have a positive right to life but you don't. Look up section 7. It is negative, not positive.
StephSilvermen 2 years ago
Making me wait while the rich and insured jump in front of me is preventing me for getting treatment and preventing me from improving my quality of life. Therefore my section 7 rights are violated.
murphyj87 2 years ago
Section 7 does not convey positive rights nor does it impose any positive obligations upon the government. Your rights wouldn't be violated. Where in the Charter does it say all Canadians have the right to a publically funded healthcare system? It doesn't.
Just because you don't understand the Canadian charter or what a negative right is doesn't mean your rights would be violated by allowing private healthcare. The supreme court agrees.
StephSilvermen 2 years ago
Basically what you want is for people to get treatment and surgery by the size of their wallet, not by the seriousness of their condition.
murphyj87 2 years ago
I want the Canadian Charter to be upheld. I want Canada to adopt a European style healthcare system.
StephSilvermen 2 years ago
Just wait until your father needs an urgent bypass and a bunch of people with more money and better insurance buy their way in front of him and he dies fo a heart attack because he had to wait because those people bought their way in front of him in line.
murphyj87 2 years ago
That always has been the strength of the Canadian system, everyone is treated equally and that the more seriouls ill are looked after first. There are no second class citizens. Private insurance makes most Canadians second class citizens when it comes to treatment.
murphyj87 2 years ago
@StephSilvermen LOL. talk to british people about dentists under their syastem ....
UpstairsMaid 9 months ago
If you want to be Americans with American style private insurance then you have to use you American style private, for profit hospitals, wherever those would be, but you would be denied access to the public hospitals the rest of us Canadians use.
murphyj87 2 years ago
That is a totally absurd claim.
1.Most of europe has private healthcare & UHC and they don't face the problems America face. No one is arguing to make Canada like America.
2. Private care and insurance who greatly benefit public hospitals and bring in more money in the public system, Why send people to the US when they could be treated for 1/2 of the cost in a Canadian hospital benefiting the canadian economy?
3. One can have public healthcare & private insurance like they do in the UK
StephSilvermen 2 years ago
And it is US insurance companies that are the driving force behind privatization in Canada.
murphyj87 2 years ago
Also people in the US wait up to three months for the insurance company bureaucrat standing between a patient and his physician to approve (or more often deny) the procedure. Many companies do not provide insurance for their employees and they have to buy it on the open market. Regulations on isurance companies in the US are few and they can chgarge what they want and can deny for any reason.
murphyj87 2 years ago
Sure very few. Wait times are not easily digested or created. It can depend on the type of surgery, your location, your availability. Just to make it clear if you have to have surgery you get it fast. This notion that people are dying in line for care is nonsense.
shawakwak 2 years ago
They're not dying in line in Canada, but in the US 45,000 Americans die from lack of health care.
murphyj87 2 years ago
Preaching to the choir.
shawakwak 2 years ago
Just confirming what you said and adding the US reference for good measure.
murphyj87 2 years ago
If you want private insurance in Canada, you get US insurance companies and US inferior health care, and good luck using your insurance anywhere in Canada.
murphyj87 2 years ago
I would never go back to live in the US. My health care is twice as good in Canada right now than it was for the seven years I lived in the US.
murphyj87 2 years ago
There are more than two options for a healthcare system. Just because you allow private healthcare doesnt mean canada is going to turn into the US. That fear is completely irrational.
StephSilvermen 2 years ago
Who do you think is pushing privitization in Canada? It's the US insurance lobby who's financing Canadian privatization, with an eye on 33,000,000 new victims. Health insurance in Canada would be sold by US insurance companies, so it would be exactly like the US because it's the same companies.
murphyj87 2 years ago
The gov't that got rid of UHC in Canada would immediately get a vote of no confidence and the new gov't would immediately bring it back. Canada isn't going to abandon UHC. That is compltely ridiculous that they would. Most of Europe allows for private healthcare and they haven't gotten rid of the UHC system. Their systems are even better than Canada's.
StephSilvermen 2 years ago
No political party would commit poilitical suicde by changing from the health care system we have and have had for 44 years. Even Stephen Harper wouldn't risk losing his political career by proposing to change Canadian health care.,
murphyj87 2 years ago
That is my point exactly! No one would ever do that and Canadian healthcare will never turn into American Healthcare. Even if the Chaoulli Case is expanded Canada still wont become like the US.
StephSilvermen 2 years ago
I mean the few of you who would buy insurance would have inferior, rationed health care. There's doubt I would continue to have the better health care as it is now than you would with insurance. I'm just telling you if you bought insurance in Canada, you would get second class health care compared to what you would have have in Canada now.
murphyj87 2 years ago
If you feel that way about private health insurance then dont buy it. I'm sure most Canadians wouldn't be interested in private insurance anyways. But for people that would like to have Canadian healthcare and private insurance there is no constitutional reason why they shouldn't be able to.
StephSilvermen 2 years ago
Private insurance would not be accepted by physicians and public hospitals in Canada. You would have to go to a private hospital or clinic or to the US to use your private insurance. The travel cost would be prohibitive to get 59 cents of health care for each dollar you spend.
murphyj87 2 years ago
If you want the private insurance like Americans have, with it comes the probablility of going backrupt from medical bills as happens with 1,000,000 Americans a year. This has not existed in Canada, but private insurance will being that to the handful who would buy private insurance... bankruptcy and inferior health care to what you have now is the private insurance legacy..
murphyj87 2 years ago
Again, your argument has absolutely so legal merit. If you were standing before the supreme court, arguing in defense of the ban on private insurance what would you say? Pathos and your personal opinion are all fluff and don't matter. The canadian charter does.
StephSilvermen 2 years ago
no not so***
StephSilvermen 2 years ago
I'm not making a legal argument, I'm making a practical one.
murphyj87 2 years ago
Why would Canadians go to the US for an insurance-run health care system that's inferior to Canada's?
murphyj87 2 years ago
While private care and fixing the public system aren't mutually exclusive why would we want to focus energy on allowing private care instead of fixing the public system? Who does that benefit? Well to answer my own question it benefits those that can afford private care. I side firmly with those who cannot afford private care and deserve the best possible care regardless of ability to pay. This means focusing on fixing public care rather than trying to implement private care.
chrisarthur77 2 years ago
Expanding private care would create jobs and increase revenue(to help fund the public system. I can't believe you acknowledge that sect 7 is being violating in Canada but dont' care. You have no proof private care would destroy public care hence why the supreme court ruled the ban was unjustified.
StephSilvermen 2 years ago
We have a doctor shortage. This might simply further understaff the public system.
Again, I don't care about the wealthy who can afford private care. I care about those that cannot. I think we should focus on improving their care (and all of our care) rather than the care of those who are more well off.
chrisarthur77 2 years ago
Only 70% of Canadians have private insurance so there is inequality in the current system anyways.Since the govt already covers medically necessary services insurance premiums would be much less than there are in the US.The govt doesnt have to give tax breaks to those w private insurance & even if they did it would offset by the tax insurance companies pay,additional revenue created by new jobs & medical tourism,& also less lost productivy & less medical expenses that occur becuase of wait list.
StephSilvermen 2 years ago
New jobs can be created in the public system, which will lessen any productivity losses and wait list expenses. I understand the argument for private care I just choose to focus on those who cannot afford private care before worrying about those who are relatively more wealthy and can. My concern again is that private care might harm our culture of solidarity in which health care is seen as a right and will take doctors and possibly funding from public care.
chrisarthur77 2 years ago
We should work to improve the position of those without good care instead of increasing inequality.
I don't know about the economics of giving tax breaks to people who then spend that money thus generating the amount lost. I think that was called trickle down economics...though it has a more technical name, which at the moment escapes me. It didn't work out when Reagan tried it I don't see why it would now. However given that they will spend the money in this scenario the only problem would be
chrisarthur77 2 years ago
I didn't bring up trickle down economics. Insurance companies have to pay taxes on the premiums they collect. If people are paying more in premiums because they have insurance for medically necessary insurance then that means insurance companies are paying more in taxes. Medical tourism could bring in billions annually, which could subsidized public health for Canadians. The jobs created by private health would also generate revenue which can help fund UHC.
StephSilvermen 2 years ago
Medical tourism would bring in billions? Really? The problem is not funding per se but allocation of funding. The government can bring in extra cash but there still needs to be pressure to get it to allocate it. By taking the relatively wealthy out you alleviate that pressure. We should work collectively to fund properly the public system so we can all receive great care.
chrisarthur77 2 years ago
Feeding the well off so they can provide tax revenue for the poor is trickle down economics. The jobs from private health would be poached from public. We have a doctor shortage.
chrisarthur77 2 years ago
Giving tax breaks to big business is considered trickle down. Where did I mention tax breaks for insurance companies? Germany allows people to opt out for American style insurance and they have more doctors per capita than Canada. Canada needs to focus spending on drs otherwise you will keep losing them to the US. Everything you irrationly fear can easily be avoided with regulation.
StephSilvermen 2 years ago
The tax breaks go to well off individuals or companies in this "theory". We need to increase the amount of doctors we educate and fast track those who come here from other countries. The situation is ridiculous. I have a friend that had to go to the States to train to be a doctor and now he has a huge debt. Of course he will have to pay that off in private US care before coming back here.
chrisarthur77 2 years ago
Germany has more doctors. So there is not threat of poaching if you have private care. Since we have a shortage we have the poaching threat.
chrisarthur77 2 years ago
Germany has more drs because of gov't policies and incentives. With regulations, a dr shortage can be afforded.
StephSilvermen 2 years ago
avoided not afforded
StephSilvermen 2 years ago
If Canada were to open up public covered procedures for private care then there would be a shortage of doctors because people would leave the public system to make more cash in private care. We don't train enough doctors. That is the problem. Unless you want to open up private colleges to train doctors the public system will continue to have a shortage unless it pays higher fees to doctors. I don't think that doctors are underpaid and if we pay them more this will raise expenses further.
chrisarthur77 2 years ago
And given that we already have difficulty getting the government to properly fund health care this doesn't seem like a good idea.
I don't think my fear is unfounded. It is no secret that the part of the business class has been clamoring to dismantle our health care. This is being done through the back door (P3s like I said and private care as an additional option). Why do you think it is easier to implement private care than extend public care? Again, class warfare. I side with the poor on this
chrisarthur77 2 years ago
There are two major reasons why Canada has a dr shortage. One,many Canadian doctors(1 in 9) go to the US. The other reason is because the gov't reduced med school enrollment spots in a calculated effort to cut cost by rationing drs & therefore rationing care. Canada already has to compete w private to keep their drs.More healthcare spending doesn't mean shorter wait list. When provinces focuses on drs, then wait list actually do decrease.
StephSilvermen 2 years ago
Yes so we shouldn't create more private care as this will further exacerbate the doctor shortage in the public system. What should be done is that there should be an increase in the amount of doctors trained. This is not done because it would mean the government would have to raise taxes. Most likely this would be income tax, which is progressive and thus taxes the wealthy at a higher rate. They could just get private care for themselves cheaper and forget about the poor.
chrisarthur77 2 years ago