• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Canadian Healthcare. Is It Really Better Than The United States?

james bond

Well-Known Member
It is better than what we have now in the United States with Obamacare. The liberals and Obama screwed up the healthcare system so everyone could get covered. It consolidated the insurers, so there is less competition and costs are higher now for less coverage. Employers do not want to pay in full for this coverage anymore. The one good that they did was everyone is now covered. Conservatives have to realize the changes that took place from the 1970s and address the new problem and not just say get rid of Obamacare. We can't go back to the old system. If the conservatives do not respond so that the United States has something like the Canadian Healthcare System, then I expect their politicians to be tossed out on their fat ****s in a hurry.

Conservatives still want everyone who wants insurance to pay their fair share. What the conservatives have to understand is everyone should be covered under a healthcare system, not just those without pre-existing conditions or the poor who cannot afford insurance. For example, a debilitating illness to one member of a family could take that family and put them into poverty from which they cannot recover. Thus, they're going to sue someone if they're is liability on the part of government or someone with deep pockets. The medical care costs are too high and this is one of the reasons. It isn't just politicians and lobbyists at work in the United States.

One of the shiny examples of healthcare for all is the single-payer system in Canada. This seems to work in that many people are satisfied with the system, but there are faults such as the best doctors do not work in that system.

Harvard Healthcare Study
"Why Canada?

Thirty years ago, there was no significant difference in the provision of health care in Canada
and the U.S. Since 1971, however, the two countries have gone in dramatically different directions
with dramatically different results.

To highlight some of the more important differences, in the U.S. today,
over 37 million people are without health insurance and a further 53 million are underinsured, which means that they are inadequately insured in the event of a serious illness.

Canada, by contrast, not only offers all of its residents comprehensive health care, but it does so at a far lower cost than in the U.S. While Canadians spend 8.7% of their Gross National Product on health care, or the equivalent of $ 1,483 (U.S.) per person, the U.S. spends 11.8% of the GNP, or $ 2,051 per person for a health care system that doesn't provide health care for all.

For Americans, health care coverage depends primarily on whether health insurance is provided by their employer or through two major public programs, Medicaid for the poor and Medicare for the elderly. For both public and private employees, health care benefits and cost vary tremendously. By making workers dependent upon their employer for health care, there is an extra burden on workers who are forced to change or lose their jobs in the U.S. Also, a growing number of people with a history of health problems, or with what insurance companies deem to be "pre-existing conditions," find themselves "uninsurable." With rising health care costs, many employers in the private sector do not provide any health care benefits at all. Most employers, whether private or public, are attempting to shift the cost of health care programs onto workers. Medicare, for example, now covers only about 40% of the health care costs of the aged.

All Canadians, rich and poor, regardless of the state of their health, age, or employment status, are covered by the same comprehensive system. Canadians go to the doctor of their choice
and receive hospital care for free. There are essentially no financial barriers to health care in Canada,
and there is an ample supply of physicians. Private insurance that duplicates the comprehensive services covered by the provincial plans are prohibited. Co-payments, deductibles, and direct patient payments to providers for covered services are also not permitted."

http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/lwp/healthc.pdf

Differing Opinions
Liberals
AARP
5 Myths About Canadian Health Care - AARP

HuffPo
Americans Who've Used Canada's Health-Care System Respond to Current Big-Lie Media Campaign | The Huffington Post

Conservatives
Still don't have one except to repeal Obamacare?
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
It isn't quite true to say the Canadian system is free. At one point, being a healthy sot, I needed 5 stitches to close a cut, but learned upon entering the Emergency Ward that I had let my provincial medical coverage lapse when I had changed jobs a few years earlier. I was always one of those very low priority things.... The bill for that visit was over $500.

Likewise, I had a hernia about 2 years ago and just a few days ago got my appointment to have the hole mended. That is 2 years! Granted, I won't have to pay for the visit, but Canadians do pay, through their taxes. And if you are in BC, also pay your provincial medical premiums.
 

buddhist

Well-Known Member
Do you mean like in the U.K. where one can go either NHS or private?
No ... as I understand it, NHS is funded through taxation, and taxation = force.

A "universal" healthcare system, if it's so great, should be opt-in; those who join might pay a percentage of their income.
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
So presumably you'd be happy to pay tolls for literally everything? Roads, emergency services etc?
Yeah, really, eh.


"Hello, welcome to 9/11. Your call is important to us. To speed up your assistance request please select one of the following payment options."

1 - To use a credit card and have Emergency Services instantly dispatched.
2 - To use a debit card and have Emergency Services instantly dispatched.
3 - To use an existing Emergency Services Priority Account. Your Emergency Services team will be allocated as soon as possible.
4 - To pay for Emergency Services with cash or household goods (barter). An Emergency Services team will be allocated to your needs barring any Priority Paid clients that can impact our response time. Waiting times for this option may exceed 24 hours but not exceed 72 hours.
5 - If you are unable to pay but need an Emergency Services team dispatched. We will endeavor to respond to your situation within 72 hours.
6 - To hear a duck quack if you are not in immediate need of assistance. If you select this option you may receive a call back asking why you bothered to call us at all.
 

buddhist

Well-Known Member
If your neighbour's house was on fire, would you object to your taxes paying for the fire dept to put it out?
I would like the option to select and pay a private fire fighting association to perform the task for me, if I owned a house.

If I don't feel I'll ever need to use fire fighting services, why should I pay taxes for it?
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
I would like the option to select and pay a private fire fighting association to perform the task for me, if I owned a house.

If I don't feel I'll ever need to use fire fighting services, why should I pay taxes for it?
Because if your neighbour's house is on fire, your house is in danger.
 

buddhist

Well-Known Member
I don't think very many people who have fires at their homes expect to use fire fighting services either.
Of course not. I'm merely stating that any adult who has the mind to purchase a house should choose to protect it (or not protect it) in whatever way he or she feels best fits his personal needs and circumstances.

Perhaps he decides to purchase fire insurance. Or not. Or earthquake insurance. Or not. Or flood insurance. Or not. Or hire a fire fighting contractor. Or not.
 

buddhist

Well-Known Member
And will you instruct this "contractor" to put out the fire on your neighbour's house? Or will you wait till your house is on fire?
If I wish to be generous and pay out of my pocket for their services to put out my neighbor's fire because of my neighbor's negligence, then it's my choice to do so.
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
Of course not. I'm merely stating that any adult who has the mind to purchase a house should choose to protect it (or not protect it) in whatever way he or she feels best fits his personal needs and circumstances.

Perhaps he decides to purchase fire insurance. Or not. Or earthquake insurance. Or not. Or flood insurance. Or not. Or hire a fire fighting contractor. Or not.
Hehe.... Bet you don't have meteorite insurance. Comet insurance?
 
Top