"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...


You do know that every "first world" country in the world except the
U.S.has universal health care, don't you?
No sense dwelling on 4.5M when the real number is many hundreds of
millions. None of those many countries are going bankrupt as far as I
know.

--Vic

There's a difference between simply "having" universal care and having
"good" universal care.
I haven't heard too many of our northern neighbors bragging about the
quality of their health care system.

Eisboch

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...


You do know that every "first world" country in the world except the
U.S.has universal health care, don't you?
No sense dwelling on 4.5M when the real number is many hundreds of
millions. None of those many countries are going bankrupt as far as I
know.

--Vic

There's a difference between simply "having" universal care and having
"good" universal care.
I haven't heard too many of our northern neighbors bragging about the
quality of their health care system.

Eisboch

Depends what's wrong with you.
Having a heart attack?... you're probably as well off up here as Stateside.
Need a knee or hip replacement........ be prepared to wait.
We have American visitors continually sending letters to our local paper
amazed at the quality of care they received while taken ill here.
(maybe they expected much worse)
As I see it, our system works pretty good most of the time but could be much
better if the federal gov't paid their fair share.
Small, poorer provinces with aging populations , like Nova Scotia, struggle
with the financial burden.
This is worstened by having the US next door offering much better
salaries/incomes for doctors, nurses and other health professionals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Health_Act

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:13:04 -0300, Don White wrote:



As I see it, our system works pretty good most of the time but could be
much better if the federal gov't paid their fair share. Small, poorer
provinces with aging populations , like Nova Scotia, struggle with the
financial burden.

It's cheaper too. US health care cost amount to over 15% GDP. Canada's
are less than 10% GDP.

wrote:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:13:04 -0300, Don White wrote:



As I see it, our system works pretty good most of the time but could be
much better if the federal gov't paid their fair share. Small, poorer
provinces with aging populations , like Nova Scotia, struggle with the
financial burden.

It's cheaper too. US health care cost amount to over 15% GDP. Canada's
are less than 10% GDP.


A huge percentage of that 15% is comprised of the horrific price gouging
by drug companies and the equally horrific charges imposed by for-profit
hospitals.

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 13:48:53 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:13:04 -0300, Don White wrote:



As I see it, our system works pretty good most of the time but could be
much better if the federal gov't paid their fair share. Small, poorer
provinces with aging populations , like Nova Scotia, struggle with the
financial burden.

It's cheaper too. US health care cost amount to over 15% GDP. Canada's
are less than 10% GDP.

Which is great if that is the only measure of good healthcare.

My oldest is an oncologist and without getting into detailed
specifics, because of her speciality, sees Canadians on a regular
basis.

I should say those who can afford to pay for quality care in that
particular speciality because the treatment protocols are light years
behind the US - those who can afford it, tend to live much longer than
those treated in Canada.

Not saying that is the rule - just an anecdote.

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 13:48:53 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:13:04 -0300, Don White wrote:



As I see it, our system works pretty good most of the time but could be
much better if the federal gov't paid their fair share. Small, poorer
provinces with aging populations , like Nova Scotia, struggle with the
financial burden.

It's cheaper too. US health care cost amount to over 15% GDP. Canada's
are less than 10% GDP.

Could it be cheaper because it's cheap?
--
** Good Day! **

John H

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:33:15 -0400, John H. wrote:


It's cheaper too. US health care cost amount to over 15% GDP. Canada's
are less than 10% GDP.

Could it be cheaper because it's cheap?

It could be cheaper because it works more efficiently. You seem to
forget, this country isn't barbaric. We *do* pay for indigent and
uninsured health care, but it's usually at the emergency room. In this
country, the uninsured usually do not have a primary care practitioner to
deal with ailments before they become expensive problems.

And, if you mean by cheap, it is of lesser quality, you would be wrong.
By objective standards, life expectancy, infant mortality, etc.
countries with universal health care surpass us. We may have the best
emergency health care on this planet, but we do not have the best health
care system, just the most expensive.

wrote:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:33:15 -0400, John H. wrote:


It's cheaper too. US health care cost amount to over 15% GDP. Canada's
are less than 10% GDP.
Could it be cheaper because it's cheap?

It could be cheaper because it works more efficiently. You seem to
forget, this country isn't barbaric. We *do* pay for indigent and
uninsured health care, but it's usually at the emergency room. In this
country, the uninsured usually do not have a primary care practitioner to
deal with ailments before they become expensive problems.

And, if you mean by cheap, it is of lesser quality, you would be wrong.
By objective standards, life expectancy, infant mortality, etc.
countries with universal health care surpass us. We may have the best
emergency health care on this planet, but we do not have the best health
care system, just the most expensive.



In indigent care...we sort of have this to a very limited degree in
some areas of the country, and for some illnesses, but there are many in
need of serious or long-term treatment who are simply turned down or
turned away. This is especially true in the arena of mental illness and
treatment for addictions.

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 07:51:30 -0400, hk wrote:


In indigent care...we sort of have this to a very limited degree in
some areas of the country, and for some illnesses, but there are many in
need of serious or long-term treatment who are simply turned down or
turned away. This is especially true in the arena of mental illness and
treatment for addictions.

If you read the fine print, many who think they are insured, aren't for
many mental illnesses. Insured or not, when dealing with health care,
many of us are in for a wake-up call when health care is needed.

wrote in message
t...
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:33:15 -0400, John H. wrote:


It's cheaper too. US health care cost amount to over 15% GDP. Canada's
are less than 10% GDP.

Could it be cheaper because it's cheap?

It could be cheaper because it works more efficiently. You seem to
forget, this country isn't barbaric. We *do* pay for indigent and
uninsured health care, but it's usually at the emergency room. In this
country, the uninsured usually do not have a primary care practitioner to
deal with ailments before they become expensive problems.

And, if you mean by cheap, it is of lesser quality, you would be wrong.
By objective standards, life expectancy, infant mortality, etc.
countries with universal health care surpass us. We may have the best
emergency health care on this planet, but we do not have the best health
care system, just the most expensive.

Part of the cost here as opposed to other countries, is we do most of the
major medical research in this country. Other countries just ride the coat
tails and do not have the added expense, or just steal the research.