Canada vs. USA- Healthcare

Roman · #11 (**permalink**) 10-03-2006, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Capitalist Pig

Something that is not well known is that the majority of people in the US who do not have health insurance can afford it, they just choose not to. Its just more liberalism trying to force people to do what they think is good for them. I can either buy my own health insurance, or I can pay the government in taxes the ammount that the government requires to provide that coverage for me. The advantage to the socialist system is simply that whether you like it or not, your covered. If you get hurt, than your decision to not plan for that possibility wont come back to haunt you. Whereas in the US, you have many different companies competing for your business, this raises the standard of healthcare. Not every hospital can perform a quadruple bypass, so the ones that can will get the business from those who need that surgery. Canada can get away with their system only because they are our friendly neighbor to the north. If it wasnt for American medical and pharmacuetical companies doing all the researching all the new drugs, and developing new techniques for complicated operations like brain surgery, than the quality of Canada's health care would be vastly more inferior than it already is compared to the care that can be had in America.

I would disagree with everyone can afford it. While in college I worked at a pizza shop that offered health insurance. My prices was somewhat reasonable for store of about 12 employees, about 150/month, for some girls I worked with they wanted double. Some of the girls were making only 6.50/hr, no way in hell they could afford it.

melchizedek22 · #12 (**permalink**) 10-03-2006, 11:41 AM

one system covers every citizen,one leaves 45 million uncovered!
not to hard to guess

DC125 · #13 (**permalink**) 10-03-2006, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roman

Can you provide mor einformation on your healthcare system. One thing I'm curious about is the costs and how you guys pay for it as far as taxes, etc.

I've heard that the UK uses a gas tax to pay it which definately wouldn't fly in the states.

I presume gas is the same as petrol (fuel for cars), if so, we have incredibly high taxes on petrol (unfortunately), the result of this is that the cost of petrol per litre is about £1, which by today's exchange rate is $1.89.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...21/ixhome.html

However, this is general taxation, and its purpose is not directly for the NHS, it is for providing public services in general. The NHS (healthcare) in the UK is free, and provided through taxes.

"Despite spending more of its gross domestic product on health than any other country (13.7%), the United States ranked only 37 out of 191 WHO member states; the United Kingdom, which spends just 6% of gross domestic product on health services, came out 18th. France spends 9.8%."
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/conte.../320/7251/1687

Capitalist Pig · #14 (**permalink**) 10-03-2006, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by melchizedek22

one system covers every citizen,one leaves 45 million uncovered!
not to hard to guess

We have been over this already, you are just not listening. The vast majority of people in the United States who do not have health care, dont have it because they choose not to have it. Your job is not required to provide you with health care. Health care is not a guarantee of the constitution. And the best part is, here in America, even if you choose not to purchase health insurance, even if you choose not to prepare for the future, YOU STILL GET HEALTH COVERAGE. There are free clinics EVERYWHERE. An emergency room by law cannot turn you away if you are hurt. There is room in the barn for everybody, 45 million people of their own free will choose to walk around outside in the rain. UNDERSTAND?

George O Well · #15 (**permalink**) 10-03-2006, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leader#1

You know the question - which is better and why?

All I know is that Canadians live 2 years longer than Americans and their health care costs half as much.

There is one other think I know. Our private system smells.

Dom1 · #16 (**permalink**) 10-03-2006, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by George O Well

All I know is that Canadians live 2 years longer than Americans and their health care costs half as much.

They are still paying for the health costs whether they need it or not through much higher taxes.

ken.e · #17 (**permalink**) 10-03-2006, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dom1

They are still paying for the health costs whether they need it or not through much higher taxes.

I think Canada has got healthcare right, the US can cut from defence and focus on homeland security education and healthcare, which i believe would keep the nation safer, happier healthier and allow the United Stated to continueto lead the worl in scienctific and technological advancements

TheYellowDog · #18 (**permalink**) 10-03-2006, 05:19 PM

The problem is that there will no longer be the innovation in healthcare once every state goes to socialize it. The quality of health care will level out for a while and then fall as new deseases come about and nobody wants to try to find cures because they make just as much money, if not more, doing the exact same thing they've been doing for the last 20 years.

When was the last time Europe had a large outburst of cures for health problems that weren't cosmetic?

Cordelier · #19 (**permalink**) 10-03-2006, 05:26 PM

I don't know, Yellow Dog... you've got socialized Defense programs, and the technowizards at Lockheed Martin and Raytheon still manage to come up with no shortage innovative ways to kill people, don't they?

Anyway, philosophically, what's the difference between protecting your citizens from being killed by invading armies and protecting them from cancer? They both kill you just as dead, don't they? Which do you figure is a bigger threat to you?

TheYellowDog · #20 (**permalink**) 10-03-2006, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cordelier

I don't know, Yellow Dog... you've got socialized Defense programs, and the technowizards at Lockheed Martin and Raytheon still manage to come up with no shortage innovative ways to kill people, don't they?

Anyway, philosophically, what's the difference between protecting your citizens from being killed by invading armies and protecting them from cancer? They both kill you just as dead, don't they? Which do you figure is a bigger threat to you?

There's a bit of a difference there; defence programmes are protecting their own butts, what does the doctor have to loose if there isn't anyone that he knows suffering from a new desease if he gets paid no matter what?