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

[buddhist]

Then why do you support it?

What makes you suggest that?

 

[psychoslice]

It would have to be better, I couldn't see it any worse.

 

[Shad]

Indeed, @Mister_T having grown up in a universal health care system, I've never been able to fully understand the idea of running medical institutions as for profit businesses. It's always struck me as being a conflict of interest.

Profit does not equal greed which seems to be the basic idea people have with the private industry. Profit create a surplus off capital which can be used in a number of ways; redevelopment, new development, new services, staff, infrastructure, R&D, etc. It is basic risk and reward dynamic of investments and direct ownership. A government is restricted in it's ability to speculate in high risk ventures and it's ability to generate a surplus due to the collective public interest and voice over individual interest and voice in the private industry.

There is a disconnect regarding the universal system and political parties. Political parties are not some altruistic group even at an individual member level. Yet people treat government and parties as if it is.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What makes you suggest that?

Your responses in this thread suggest that you're against the regulation of natural monopolies. This means that, under the system you propose, there would be nothing to stop authoritarian, anti-freedom situations (like "company towns") from arising.

Basically, the economic policies you describe almost guarantee severe curtailment of freedom for ordinary people. It may be a business doing it instead of a government, but that doesn't make your system any better.

IOW: maximal freedom is achieved when we limit the ability of individuals and organizations to deny freedom to others. You're arguing against those sorts of limitations, so you're arguing against maximal freedom.

 

[tytlyf]

Privatizing everything leads to corruption and greed and a vanishing middle class. These are libertarian ideas.

L.P.D.: Libertarian Police Department

 

[tytlyf]

Profit does not equal greed which seems to be the basic idea people have with the private industry. Profit create a surplus off capital which can be used in a number of ways; redevelopment, new development, new services, staff, infrastructure, R&D, etc.

There's nothing wrong with capitalism until it reaches a certain level and it turns to corruption and greed. Companies don't hire more people if they don't have to. For instance, I bet you are against raising the minimum wage. Companies that are against raising the MW are a problem. They are putting profit over people.

 

[Revoltingest]

Privatizing everything leads to corruption and greed and a vanishing middle class. These are libertarian ideas.

L.P.D.: Libertarian Police Department

The New Yorker?
Their commentary on libertarians is like going to Breitbart for info on Obama.

But since you brought up cops....
How are things going for us being under the thumb of government employed cops?
- They seize assets & get to keep the loot.
- They rape, beat, & shoot us because they can.
- They re-sell the evidence (drugs) they collect.
- They drive drunk with impunity.
- They can hardly be bothered to do their job.
Oh, the personal tales I can tell.

Who holds them accountable?
The same government who hires them, pays them, & expects favors from them.

Caution!
I don't hate cops.
Some are good guys.
And a few are even me friends.
But we've a system in trouble, & bad apples abound.

 

[tytlyf]

The New Yorker?
Their commentary on libertarians is like going to Breitbart for info on Obama.

But since you brought up cops....
How are things going for us being under the thumb of government employed cops?
- They seize assets & get to keep the loot.
- They rape, beat, & shoot us because they can.
- They re-sell the evidence (drugs) they collect.
- They drive drunk with impunity.
- They can hardly be bothered to do their job.
Oh, the personal tales I can tell.

Who holds them accountable?
The same government who hires them, pays them, & expects favors from them.

Caution!
I don't hate cops.
Some are good guys.
And a few are even me friends.
But we've a system in trouble, & bad apples abound.

You think a private, for-profit police force would be different?

 

[Revoltingest]

You think a private, for-profit police force would be different?

It would indeed be different.
Better?
That would depend upon how it's done.
But the real point is that entrusting things to government doesn't guarantee they turn out well.

 

[tytlyf]

It would indeed be different.
Better?
That would depend upon how it's done.
But the real point is that entrusting things to government doesn't guarantee they turn out well.

So when it comes time to use the military, who's gonna pay them? Privatize the military right?

 

[buddhist]

Your responses in this thread suggest that you're against the regulation of natural monopolies. This means that, under the system you propose, there would be nothing to stop authoritarian, anti-freedom situations (like "company towns") from arising.

Basically, the economic policies you describe almost guarantee severe curtailment of freedom for ordinary people. It may be a business doing it instead of a government, but that doesn't make your system any better.

IOW: maximal freedom is achieved when we limit the ability of individuals and organizations to deny freedom to others. You're arguing against those sorts of limitations, so you're arguing against maximal freedom.

No, I am 100% against corporations. Without the corporation idea, there could be no monopolies.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, I am 100% against corporations.

So you're in favour of laws that would prevent corporations?

Without the corporation idea, there could be no monopolies.

Never heard of a natural monopoly, eh?

Natural Monopoly

 

[buddhist]

So you're in favour of laws that would prevent corporations?

No ... I would like to see an absence of corporate laws. Essentially, government would not "see" or recognize the existence of any corporation.

Never heard of a natural monopoly, eh? Natural Monopoly

From your own link: "natural monopolies occur when a company takes advantage"

 

[Shad]

For instance, I bet you are against raising the minimum wage. Companies that are against raising the MW are a problem. They are putting profit over people.

Depends on why the wage is being increased. I can see arguments due to inflation having merit. I reject the idea of an increase to a "living" wage.

You are making a baseless claims. Some companies reject the increase as it could destroy businesses as the products are not high sellers. For example the restaurant industry can be fickle in regards to quality of products, costs of production and customer use. An increase in wages can result in closing the business thus all staff get paid $0 /hr

 

[idav]

Depends on why the wage is being increased. I can see arguments due to inflation having merit. I reject the idea of an increase to a "living" wage.

You are making a baseless claims. Some companies reject the increase as it could destroy businesses as the products are not high sellers. For example the restaurant industry can be fickle in regards to quality of products, costs of production and customer use. An increase in wages can result in closing the business thus all staff get paid $0 /hr

It's up to businesses to figure out how to avoid paying slave wages, but they would rather move to china than avoid it. That's a moral dilemma and money doesn't have moral dilemmas.

 

[tytlyf]

Depends on why the wage is being increased. I can see arguments due to inflation having merit. I reject the idea of an increase to a "living" wage.

You are making a baseless claims. Some companies reject the increase as it could destroy businesses as the products are not high sellers. For example the restaurant industry can be fickle in regards to quality of products, costs of production and customer use. An increase in wages can result in closing the business thus all staff get paid $0 /hr

Raising the minimum wage is normal and people against it are corporate apologists. Republicans typically don't have middle class policies, which the minimum wage is one.

Then the business deserves to fail. If they have to rely on paying people peanuts to stay in business, good riddance.

 

[Revoltingest]

So when it comes time to use the military, who's gonna pay them? Privatize the military right?

I favor partial privatization, which we already have.

 

[Augustus]

Profit does not equal greed which seems to be the basic idea people have with the private industry.

Having lived in countries with universal public healthcare and for profit healthcare, there is certainly a difference. Bias towards overtreatment, overprescription of medicines, overlong hospital stays, overcharging, attempts to keep patients 'in the system', doctors choosing drugs based on commission from the drug company and the number one concern when a patient arrives at a hospital (even in an emergency) is can they pay for their treatment.

Many people here don't have medical insurance and it really sickens me to know that they are financially exploited by hospitals with excessive bills for things that were not necessary and that they can not afford without severe financial hardship.

Overtreatment and overprescription are major public health hazards. I feel a lot more reassured in a system where a doctor has a mild disincentive towards treatment rather than a a solid material interest in monetising every interaction with patient.

 

[Augustus]

not free and was never touted as being free. We just decided, it was a good thing to do and has proven its value over the test of time in innumerable ways. I don't particularly mind that I had to wait 6 months for a cat-scan or 3 months for a MRI scan. I lived. I also don't mind that I've had to wait for 2 years with a hole in my abdomen.

Waiting lists for non-essential procedures can actually be a good thing as they act as an incentive against treatment. They also give people time to think about whether it is necessary, or for the condition to heal itself which is good as operations are not a risk free procedure.

I was on a waiting list years ago for a tonsillectomy as I got tonsillitis 6-8 times per year, I eventually decided against the operation and now I rarely have any problems at all.

Obviously this doesn't apply to all conditions, but will prevent a some unnecessary ops and even save a few lives every year.

 

[Shad]

Having lived in countries with universal public healthcare and for profit healthcare, there is certainly a difference. Bias towards overtreatment, overprescription of medicines, overlong hospital stays, overcharging, attempts to keep patients 'in the system', doctors choosing drugs based on commission from the drug company and the number one concern when a patient arrives at a hospital (even in an emergency) is can they pay for their treatment.

Many people here don't have medical insurance and it really sickens me to know that they are financially exploited by hospitals with excessive bills for things that were not necessary and that they can not afford without severe financial hardship.

Overtreatment and overprescription are major public health hazards. I feel a lot more reassured in a system where a doctor has a mild disincentive towards treatment rather than a a solid material interest in monetising every interaction with patient.

Doctors receive bonuses from pharmaceutical companies under a universal system. The same system discourages testing which is costly. I have had this happen to me when it comes to asthma. It took me 10 years to find a doctor that would setup tests with various specialist in order to provide the right pharmaceutical drug. It changed my life.