A HUGE diference betwene theNorthern Ameircna health care sistems and the european oens, is general medicine. Here in Spain there is a thick network of internsist whos eonyl role is..

...take car eof minor diseases
...sort ptoentila seriosu diseases
...appoint potential serious diseases to eh right spoecialist

This saves specialists time, conslultations, and of course provides a mean to detect potential serious diseases in an early stage -the persisten coughing before it becomes pneumonia, the sweating and thirst before they become a hipoglucemic crisis caused by diabetes, this sort of thing. In Spain comes for the price of waiting til tomorrow or after tomorrow. Yes, gettigna test may be long. The'res room for improbvement. Btu gettigna test or a surgery in a ffew months is better than never get them because you ain't got the money and you ain't got a excuse (aren't dieing) to visit a ER for free.

And all in all, it's 60% CHEAPER than the American way to NOT provide health care to whole millions of people.

(Cabrini, don't get too angry at Totino. He was part of an experimental empathy transplant, they manufactured the succesor to Martin Luther King with the empathy they removed from Totino... )

Your assumption was wrong as I've already proven. You're making an ass out of yourself with those personal attacks. In reality attacking someone like that just proves you don't have any sort of intelligence to back up your point. So now you're acting like a 5 year old.

I don't think I ever said all poor people are good for nothing. You have some single parents working two full time jobs, etc.

Dude. Come on. Take a look at what you bring forward then superimpose a map of Spain and/or Belgium over a map of Canada.

You have people living in remote areas? Like what's remote? Here 'remote' is 1000km from any city of 500k or more.....nearly the width of most of these countries. Population dispersal does affect service or expense of service. In Spain where are the communities that are 500km+ from Madrid, Barcelona, Bilbao or Saville? There aren't any dude. There aren't any at all that are more than 100km from any other town either.

Same thing with Belgium: Huge population in a country that is barely 800km accross at it's widest point.

When supplies, doctors and patients have to be transported these long distances they have their negative effect on the health care system.


Ahk

ok ok ok


I know but I wanted to point out that this distances impact this point even more. Also the persons/per KM doesn't point this out but the small population also means less money from the taxes for it, so all I was pointing out is one of the reasons why the Canadian health care is one of the worst performing models is because of the distances multiplied by the low tax income for the program (and subsequent high tax for every individual).


Well that's what we gotta do if we want to guarantee healthcare to all. And just to paint the picture, we're not talking about a couple hundred people here. There are almost a million spreed out in the Yukon alone.  No one forces them to live there but they do get born and raised there. Canada's challenge here is we can't really say we're going to provide heath care to all for free IF it's feasible because none of it is truly 'feasible'...it's something for nothing that nations feel they can afford and it's people want. (and I tend to agree).


Ahk

Well this thread stopped flat.



Im pro-health care it was just that in Canada there are unique difficulties. In order for a system to work these realities must be acknowledged. Then it can work.

Its impossible to ever really examine these issues because it always becomes a narrow "USA vs Socialism " issue on forums and that is so far removed from my concern as a Canadian towards the issue that I simply cease to want to participate.

In the US serious debate on the issue is always nullified by the specter of "socialism". Alternatively people just don't want to see anything you can't make a buck from. If it doesnt make money then naturally it should fail. National Parks should also churn a profit.

In ironic fashion here in Canada debate is equally nullified and people refuse to acknowledge simple realities that could easily save a system that still works. They do this in the childish name of "not being American" and believe me it's one of the few times I look at Canada and just shake my head. SO ridiculous . We're likely to loose our precious health care to stupid blind pride.


There's only one good reason for universal health care. We deserve it. No no that's not that we deserve something for nothing. What's nothing? We work. We pay taxes. Our ancestors both dreamed and built a future where we could manage this Western boon. A society that worked hard and came from a background of people who worked hard and studied hard to be able to give the best medical care to everyone. Frankly that sounds like exactly the kind of thing Americans would be proud to excel in. Or at least I thought so. Hell the West in general is providing free health care to how many places in the world right now?


There was a story a month or so back where a rich prominent Canadaian (in politics) caused a ruckus because she went down to LA to get a very specific cancer treatment. This was the best hospital in the world for this specific case. She had the money. On forums some thought this proved something. To me it only proved that an American health care institution was happy to give a non-American first dibs in front of...who knows? A dying father? A dying 9-year old? Native to the country that spawned this hospital? That trained these doctors?


It'll never make sense to me.
Ahk

It is not a right, it has never been a right.  Now if you want to make it one and justify it, thats fine.  But then you will also ration it.

One reason no innovative medicine comes out of Europe is because they ration it, they ration the growth and development.  You have the citizen "slugs" who must wait for the proper treatment.  And you have the upper class who get the best treatment because they can afford it.  In the end the only difference between rationing based on price and rationing based on politics, is that he rationing based strictly on politics, usually sucks.  French doctors hate working in France (they are paid roughly what your teachers in the US are paid), and many do come to the US.  German healthcare workers hate the system and there are constant strikes, and they can't find enough people to fill the needs of their population and they literally tax the hell out of people in order to cover it.

US rationing which is partially through price, tends to have a better standard of care, though it doesn't cover all of citizens (85% are covered).  So in the US we have a higher standard of health care for 85% of the population and the issue lies in how to handle the 15% (some of whom opt out in order to take home more pay - an option not available in Europe).  Throwing out our medical system would be the worst mistake because Americans by and large reject the European system of healthcare.  Americans tend to enjoy making their own decisions and using their money as they see fit (I know its a radical thought in socialist countries). 

So from our point of view (the US), rights, are especially important and enumerated and not everything that is convenient or desireable is a right.

So lets look at the rebuttal:

1-Our ancestors did not dream of a future where their medical was covered.  They dreamed of a future in which they could make their own economic decisions and make their own way.  Europe was a paternalistic hell hole for them, that is why they left.

2-We do work and we do pay taxes.  But the taxes we pay are not a guarrantee for full medical coverage, and based on that reasoning we might as well pay all of our income to the government and then make economic demands, but that means giving up our rights to choose.  Every time we want the government to do something, it means we have to give up some individually based right.  If you want the government to have the right to medical care, then you give up your right to choose your doctor, to choose your treatment, to choose much of anything (unless you are, of course the wealthy who don't have to worry about poor healthcare).

3-Our ancestors did not dream of "managing" the western boon.  They dreamed of being part of it, of allowing the unfettered individual free to make their own income.  Western boon was managed in Europe, that is why they left.

Americans don't trust government, they almost never have.  Europeans have always trusted government, they always will, whether that government is benovelent, as many are, or a fascist nazi program (which many have been and will be again), Europeans tend to do those things the government wants.  It is their nature, it is their "group think".

But lets talk about socialism:

In the US socialism is not considered a virtue.  Group think isn't a virtue.  In Europe it is the norm.  For univrsal healthcare to work, the population must be easily malleable.


It has nothing to do with "first dibs".  It does have something to do with the right to choose, including the rights of individuals outside the US.  Socialism sees things as limited and sure, someone could have "dibs" since the healthcare was very limited.  There is no "first dibs" (which indicates the idea of a limited abilty to provide healthcare).  In fact all who can are allowed to come and take advantage of the healthcare available.

At this point one is forced to ask.  Canada, and Europe, with all of its taxes to ensure a great "quality" of healthcare to its people, why is it the best treatment for cancer in the world - a major killer in Europe and the Americas is in the US?  Why do they come here, why is innovation dead elsewhere?  If it is simply a question of investment, then why is Europe failing miserably in that investment with no innovation to show for it, and in the US, new drugs and treatments coming forward all the time?  If you have cancer, you are better off in the US than Europe or even Canada.

France, not surprisingly, has not made the cancer survival rates public.



UK Telegraph

So how does Europe cover all those people.  Well, a bureaucracy will tell you that some drugs are covered and some are not.  The decision is not based on effectiveness, but cost.  Cheaper drugs are easier to deal with.  In the UK 41% of the Brits have to wait more than 4 months for surgery.  And European health systems have emphasized preventative health care less and less.

 
Somewhat telling.

Well no baldar socialism has absolutely nothing to do with the inarguable linar time restriction under which the entire universe operates. There are only so many doctors, only so many operations that can be done.....normally that would that would mean first come first serve.....nothing socialistic about that, under these circumstances it would not become first come first serve unless you had the money. So indeed a non-American was given precidence over an American because the non-American had the money.

Dibs, precidence. Whatever.
Ahk