Some people like eating excrement. Why don't we all eat excrement?

Wait a second.
Isn't this Obama chump the guy whom always says that a woman has the right to make her own medical decisions with her doctor ?!

Well, see, then Obama would never go for this pussy European socialist crap where bureaucrats make decisions for patients---after all, he's pro-choice !

CANADA. sheesh.

and how well the system works in Canada, Rebecca, that Canadians prefer to cross the border for urgent operations here?

Absolutely not a perfect system. Some people prefer to jump the queue and head on over the US. But nobody goes bankrupt for medical reasons here. No child does not go without a doctor. Nobody loses their basic right to medical services when the lose a job.
Sure, its far from perfect, but at the most basic level, it works.

As stated by Rebecca, our system is far from perfect - but its pretty damn good. I've had numerous sports related surgeries, I've had an appendix burst recently, and my care has always been excellent. My family physician has been excellent. My aging parents have required a lot of care, and their care has always been good and prudent - and we never had to worry about money. Do I have to wait some times for MRI's and certain procedures, yes. But I don't mind waiting because I take comfort in knowing every one of my fellow citizens is covered and will received good care. They won't go bankrupt, they won't have to sell their house, they won't be turned away. I take solace in that fact and it emboldens my patience with my system.

. . . . and to reply to Tatyana's comment in regards to Canadians heading south for care. Yes it happens - if you are wealthy you can head south and take advantage of America's medical services surplus. As well our health care services will at times send Canadians down south to take advantage of this space and pay for it a as well - this happens in very rural Canadian communities where a major american population centre may be just across the border, so it just makes sense and is efficient.
Our system is run lean. Your system is flush with surplus space and only accessible if you have the money. This is why American medical service suppliers are always advertising in Canada, looking for more income.

"But nobody goes bankrupt for medical reasons here. No child does not go without a doctor. Nobody loses their basic right to medical services when the lose a job."

That's true. You won't go bankrupt. You simply die while waiting, or at least have bad complications.

If your care is so good, why was Natasha Richardson brought all the way to New York instead of a Canadian hospital?

The Canadian mother of sextuplets had them at...a Montana hospital.

"Our system is run lean."

You got that right. It's so lean that a lot of patients have to come here for urgent care, and doctors move here so they can get paid what they're worth.

"our system is flush with surplus space"

See above, which means that your "surplus space" is allocated to all the wrong things. That's what happens when government directs economic activity. Instead of paying attention to market forces, bureaucrats either make honest mistakes or intentionally divert resources to the wrong things because of politics.

"and only accessible if you have the money."

Of course, like everything should be: you have to earn first so that you can consume.

If you're poor in Canada, you can roll the dice and take your chances with government care. That's every incentive to develop your skills, get a decent job, and obtain the health care you can afford yourself, from whatever the source.

I gather you don't have the money for all the health care resources that you and your family have consumed, hence your great admiration for a system that gives you great benefits -- at other people's expense.

"This is why American medical service suppliers are always advertising in Canada, looking for more income."

Do you see the utter cluelessness in what you wrote? Of course companies will advertise everywhere you can, "looking for more income." Will a company deliberately turn down good business opportunities?

I think you guys should really do some research about your Canadian system before you recommend it.
It might arguably be a good system for getting antibiotics for a virus, or emergency room scenarios such as treating an open wound.

But as far as treating long-term problems such as cancer, or being able to see a specialist for a pinched nerve, or being able to get an MRI for chronic headaches, it's not very good.

The government has to ration their services to patients. They do so by having a long waiting period. And that is achieved due to the fact that the Canadian ratio of specialists per capita is very low.
By the same token, the ratio of MRI machines per capita is incredibly low compared to the ratio in the USA---these are inarguable facts.

Actress Natasha Richardson died following her ski injury due to the scarcity of machines.

She died from refusing to wear a helmet, and then refusing to get in the ambulance that was called just after she hit her head. By the time she got to NYC, she hadn't a chance. A real tradgedy of missed opportunity. A basic volunteer (we have St. John's Ambulance Service (which is great for seeing bands for free)) could've diagnosed this problem with a Glasgow Coma Index. Her pupils would've given the game away in the first hour.

Walrus:

I definitely do not need to do any research. Both my parents are cancer survivors, my sister is a nurse and my partner is a radiologist – and I suffer from a state of perpetual recreational recklessness, so I make avid use of the healthcare system to fix my broken bones and torn ligaments. As I said our system is not perfect, and I am not saying it is leaps and bounds better then the American system, but we are all covered and we can all strive to make it better.

Have you looked at any stats in regards to Canadian healthcare? Look up some info yourself. Last time I looked Canada was ranked ahead of the U.S. in healthcare outcomes. A simple quote: ”Canadians spend about 55% of what Americans spend on health care and have longer life expectancy, and lower infant mortality rates” that was from an article in the Wall Street Journal.

Now your comment in regards to the Natasha Richardson incident is just idiotic, juvenile, and lacks substance. She did not die from a scarcity or lack of access to an MRI – that is just ridiculous and fear mongering. She suffered a terrible head trauma and if she had not sent away the paramedics in that critical first hour then maybe she would have survived. She was sent to New York so that her last moments could be with her family in their adopted home state.

Perry:

“That's true. You won't go bankrupt. You simply die while waiting, or at least have bad complications.”

Bullsh$$. Show me some stats, or show me where the incidence is any different then in the U.S.

Our hospitals treat thousands of Americans every year, primarily tourists who fall ill unfortunately while on vacation, visiting, or staying in their lakeside cabins – I never hear of those Americans complaining about our system. Where I live there is an American community that is located a fair distance from an American hospital, so all emergency calls from that community are sent to the local Canadian hospital – haven’t heard any cries of third world care from those individuals.

Now the rest of your statements are just grossly offensive. Equating an individual’s need (need, or as you say “consume”) for medical care with their ability to pay for it is disgusting. Your wealth, your profession, your class, should not be barometers of your ability to access medical care. All those who suffer, their pain is equal, their need is equal – just because you can afford the healthcare does not mean your suffering is any greater then another’s – it does not mean that because you belong to a more entitled class that you should get healthcare ahead of another.

“I gather you don't have the money for all the health care resources that you and your family have consumed, hence your great admiration for a system that gives you great benefits -- at other people's expense.”

Seriously, did a 12 year old write that statement. Wow, that’s some pretty intelligent discourse.
Once again its all about money and wealth, rather then talking about the health and treatment of individuals. So If you are poor you should just shut up (don’t get all uppity), mind your place, and always remember that another’s wealth entitles their child to receive life saving treatment over your suffering child because they are wealthier. Maybe we should just put a mark on all the poor people in the hospital (or in society), make them wear an arm band or something because we wouldn’t want them to accidently get care ahead of a wealthy person.

“Do you see the utter cluelessness in what you wrote? Of course companies will advertise everywhere you can, "looking for more income." Will a company deliberately turn down good business opportunities?”

Poor Perry, in over your head. . . . again. Obviously you did not understand the statement. You live in a society that has a mass surplus of healthcare assets, yet you have 40 million people without healthcare coverage, you have many more with limited but very expensive coverage who themselves are waiting in line to get care. It seems obscene that your healthcare providers come beckoning north looking to us Canadians with all of our disposable income to fill their coffers more when you have American citizens in desperate need of care. Its wrong.

Thanks Dr. bryan,

But according to Toronto's The Globe and Main newspaper, after initially refusing medical attention, she returned to her hotel room and about three hours later was taken to a local hospital after complaining of a headache. She was transferred from there to the Hôpital du Sacré-Cœur de Montréal in critical condition.
The following day she was flown to Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City, where she died.

In other words, two different Canadian hospitals were either too busy or ill-equipped to deal with her---therefore, she was flown to NYC.
But you're damn right, by that time, it was too late.

Britain and Canada have an astonishingly low ratio of medical specialists per capita and machines per capita, as compared to the USA.
That's an inarguable fact.
But go ahead and argue against it anyhow, if it'll make you feel better.

Read this slowly, that you may get it. Medical Specialists and machines would not have saved her. A 12 year old who had been on a 2 day first aid course could have, but she refused the treatment from a paramedic.
Didn't hear an apology about how you were wrong about why she was transferred to NYC.
Obviously you failed to notice what I said about where I work. Can you guess what I have had training to deal with?

But Walrus your not making any arguments at all. You keep pointing to Richardson as your prime example.
She was transferred to a second hospital - is that unusual? It happens in the states. I was injured in a car accident in Portland and was transferred to a second hospital that specialized in my injury. Apparently that is what happened to Richardson. She was transferred to hospital that specialized in head trauma.
THe hospitals where not ill-equipped.
You can have as many specialists as you want, but that is meaningless if your outcomes/results are lower then most western nations, and more meaningless when you have millions unable to access those specialists - or that they have to mortgage every penny just to see a specialist.

bryan, you're confusing the point. There was no hope for Richardson once she refused initial treatment, but it was not known at the time. The point is that when it was thought she could still live, she was eventually brought all the way to an American hospital. Why not a Canadian hospital? Were none nearby? Yes, but none had the ability to treat her.

Toowoozy: she was transferred to a hospital so far away that she had to be flown by airplane. This wonderful Canadian system had nothing, nothing within ambulance or helicopter range that had the equipment or training.

Thus Richardson was and remains a valid point about the quality and effectiveness of the death-promoting Canadian healthcare system.

Now, to the idiot Canuck:Bullsh$$. Show me some stats, or show me where the incidence is any different then in the U.S.You asked for it, fuckwit. Here are a couple of soft pitches you'll still miss.

"the percentage of the respondents in need of elective coronary bypass who had been waiting for more than three months was 0% in U.S., 18.2% in Sweden, 46.7% in Canada, and 88.9% in the United Kingdom."

Read more on Russ Roberts talking about "The death of the Canadian model."

As I said to the other liberal troll, "The stats are out there. You just choose to ignore them while blindly praising socialist health care as some ideal system that takes care of everyone immediately."
Our hospitals treat thousands of Americans every year, primarily tourists who fall ill unfortunately while on vacation, visiting, or staying in their lakeside cabins – I never hear of those Americans complaining about our system.Incredibly, you're comparing things like simple injuries and perhaps food poisoning to more serious conditions like obstetrics?

Would it be in bad taste to say that I'd mention Natasha Richardson (an English tourist injuried in Canada but brought to the U.S.), but I don't want to keep beating you over the head with that?
Where I live there is an American community that is located a fair distance from an American hospital, so all emergency calls from that community are sent to the local Canadian hospital – haven’t heard any cries of third world care from those individuals.First, you're comparing a local Canadian hospital to an American one "a fair distance" away. So what? You might have a point if you were comparing a Canadian hospital further away that got emergency calls, despite an American hospital being closer.

Second, we're talking about things like cancer, heart surgery, etc., in particular elective procedures that require a considerably greater degree of specialization than an ER. While the rest of us are making a solid point, you're talking about a different animal entirely while providing mere anecdotal evidence for support.

Third, I never said anything about "Third World" health care, so kindly stop with the typical liberal trick of putting words into someone's mouth.

Fourth, if you want to talk about Third World health care, try the Philippines. As that side of my family has experienced, you can walk in for a non-emergency procedures like an MRI, ultrasound, etc., and pay around $20.
Now the rest of your statements are just grossly offensive. Equating an individual’s need (need, or as you say “consume”) for medical care with their ability to pay for it is disgusting. Your wealth, your profession, your class, should not be barometers of your ability to access medical care.Actually, what's disgusting is that you don't consider the consequences of what you think is "fair." In the end, what you're talking about is forcibly taking money from some people to give to others who didn't earn. This engenders overconsumption of the very finite health care resources.
All those who suffer, their pain is equal, their need is equal – just because you can afford the healthcare does not mean your suffering is any greater then another’s – it does not mean that because you belong to a more entitled class that you should get healthcare ahead of another.Now this is what's actually bullshit. You're applying "equal" to things that are by definition not equal, because different people will place different values on different things. That's a fact of life.

When my dermatologist removed a mole, that same money could have bought malaria-alleviating medicine for, say, an African family. You would say that their suffering is greater, but that's only an opinion. In fact, the end decision shows that the greater value was placed on removing my mole. After all, I earned the money to pay for it.

Lost to you is the concept of "incentive": when you're taking money from people to give to others, they no longer want to earn as much. This has been proven every time an American president and Congress raised taxes. On the flip side, people who receive benefits (paid for by others, by definition) will also not want to earn as much, if anything. So your social programs don't work in a moral sense, or even an optimal economic sense.

In fact I don't belong to "a more entitled class" - there's nothing "entitled" about it. I belong to a wealthier class because I produce more than others. For that simple reason, we see the tautology that I therefore can afford more than others who produce less. This includes health care resources. So you should properly call it "a more deserving class," because we produce things of greater value that we sell.

“I gather you don't have the money for all the health care resources that you and your family have consumed, hence your great admiration for a system that gives you great benefits -- at other people's expense.”

Seriously, did a 12 year old write that statement. Wow, that’s some pretty intelligent discourse.It's a perfect valid challenge to your point, and thanks for silently admitting you can't refute it. You extol the virtues of a system that gives you what you want, courtesy of other people's earnings. Thanks for playing.
Once again its all about money and wealth, rather then talking about the health and treatment of individuals.The two are, in fact, inseparable. What's always been the basic idiocy about you liberals' conception of health care is the idea that health care is somehow not finite, that you can somehow control prices while elevating demand and preventing supply from falling. That doesn't happen in the real world, no matter how idealistic you are.
So If you are poor you should just shut up (don’t get all uppity), mind your place, and always remember that another’s wealth entitles their child to receive life saving treatment over your suffering child because they are wealthier.Once again, here's the liberal trick of putting words into someone's mouth. I never said any of these things. But what I do say is that prices, while "unfair" to you, are how any resource is allocated. Prices are what limit demand to existing supply, and how supply can increase to meet increased demand.

The flatly undeniable alternative is a bureaucracy-based rationing system, whether a lottery, extended wait times, or the arbitrary systems of political preference of the old USSR that still continue in place in Cuba.

I was in my young teens when my father explained a truism of life to me: "Money talks." I don't remember the context, but even to my young mind it seemed logically sound. That's the incentive for people to get better jobs so they can afford better things.
Maybe we should just put a mark on all the poor people in the hospital (or in society), make them wear an arm band or something because we wouldn’t want them to accidently get care ahead of a wealthy person.Actually, this already happens in the communist countries that laud themselves for "100% universal health care coverage." It isn't done with armbands, but if you know someone in the nomenklatura or are part of it, you get treated faster and at a better facility.
Poor Perry, in over your head. . . . again. Obviously you did not understand the statement.My dear fuckwit, you have no clue whatsoever about the issue. It's you who are in over your head. There was nothing difficult to understand about your blathering, and your cluelessness is self-evident.

You wrote: "This is why American medical service suppliers are always advertising in Canada, looking for more income."

And the rest of us say in chorus: "So?"
You live in a society that has a mass surplus of healthcare assets, yet you have 40 million people without healthcare coverage,This is actually a myth that you leftists love to propagate. First, you're wrong to claim "healthcare coverage." You're talking about insurance. When I had no health insurance, I still could go to a doctor. Anyone can, provided there's the money.

Second, even playing your game of apples and oranges, this "40 million" counts the 10-15 million illegal immigrants who by definition don't have health insurance. It includes the several million Americans at any given time who are, on average, 4 months in-between jobs and can start up new plans at a new job.

It also includes tens of millions of young Americans who choose not to have health insurance. I was one, because I was young and healthy enough to pay out of pocket; I had no worries about cancer, heart disease, etc., and saw no need to pay for insurance against highly improbable events. After marriage, my wife and I got a higher-deductible health plan that's essentially just for catastrophic coverage. It's perfect for our needs, as we're young and healthy but are starting to get a little older.

So for all your talk of "40 million," it's just more lying bullshit from you leftists who don't know any better.

you have many more with limited but very expensive coverage who themselves are waiting in line to get care. It seems obscene that your healthcare providers come beckoning north looking to us Canadians with all of our disposable income to fill their coffers more when you have American citizens in desperate need of care. Its wrong.With all of your disposable income? What kind of fantasy world do you live in?

Fact: the U.S. has higher GDP per capita and higher Gross National Income per capita than Canada. Look it up.

Fact: the U.S. is overall taxed lower than Canada. That isn't to say it's good here, just not as bad as for you Canucks.

Hence you have absolutely no basis to claim you have greater "disposable income." I have family up in Winnipeg who'd love to move down here and make more money, if it weren't for restrictive U.S. immigration policies.

Let me add something else in reply to our newly arrived Canadian fuckwit. You want to paint me as cold, heartless, elitist, what have you. You talk about everyone's suffering being equal, yadda yadda.

I challenge you on this: how charitable are you with your own money? What do you do, as an individual, to help the poor of the world? Talk? Buy U2 CDs to support Bono's hot air?

I'll state this bluntly but not brag. Care to see pictures of a Third World school that I've partially adopted? It at least has bare concrete floors, not dirt, but there are no lights during the day because electricity is largely unaffordable. The first time I ever visited, I sighed to the principal, "These children never had a chance, did they." She thought I was super-wealthy, as in enough to remodel the school and fund it for perpetuity. Unfortunately, as decent an income as I have, that much is beyond my ability. So I do what I can, as an individual. Thus far I can't get anyone at major U.S. charitable foundations, like the Ford Foundation, to listen to my request because I'm not an organized charitable group.

I bring the children chocolates every time I go there. It's one of the most enriching things to see their eyes light up as they squeak, "Thank you!" By far, they're more polite than any American schoolchildren of the same age that I've met.

Have you ever walked along the streets of some Third World city, or along the beach of a resort island that contrasts rich and poor, and given money to a begging mother and her children? No UN/UNICEF, no NGO, just you as an individual acting out of individual charity. Not to say you haven't, not in any wise. If you have, I'll be surprised but still pleased. I'd also encourage you to do more of that, instead of talking about "insuring everyone" that necessitates taking my wealth by force to give to others.

But to you, I'm some evil capitalist who feels "entitled" just because, you know, I happen to earn what I have. There's nothing "entitled" about it, and anything "privileged" is between God and myself.

Excellent work, Perry.

Fight them with facts and logic---each is kryptonite to leftists.

As Perry wrote, people with serious head injuries don't get shuttled around from hospital to hospital...UNLESS the first & second hospital determine they are ill-equipped to deal with the patient.

Also, there is not an endless supply of medical care to Canadians and Brits---it must be rationed.
The governments ration it by limiting access to it.
Limiting access is achieved by fewer doctors, long waiting periods, and fewer machines.

I'll mention for a third time that Canada & Britain have an astonishingly low ratio of specialists per capita and machines per capita, as compared to the USA.

It's an indisputable fact.
But then again, leftists never allow facts to get in the way of their intense utopian yearnings.

Poor, poor, sensitive Perry. You seem overwrought. Trouble in the school-yard today?

Perry, no one said you were an evil capitalist; that was your own inference – or personal assessment. Personally I believe you are more misguided then anything else, and a little irrational after reading your post.

“Fact: the U.S. has higher GDP per capita and higher Gross National Income per capita than Canada. Look it up.”

And? What’s your debt ratio? How out of touch are you. Seriously, our corporate tax is lower then yours, we haven’t run a deficit since 1998

"The Canadian government cut its debt from 71 percent of GDP in 1995 to 32 percent in 2008. U.S. federal public debt will jump from 41 percent of GDP in 2008 to more than 60 percent next year."

Our banking system the envy of the western world:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/183670

And as for our personal taxes they are slightly higher then yours, but you haven’t factored in healthcare/insurance costs that U.S. citizen has to pay on top of their taxes.

“Canadians’ real disposable income grew twice as fast as that of their U.S. counterparts in the last four years, and that trend is set to continue in the post-recession economy, according to new report from CIBC World Markets Inc.

Since 2005, per capita real disposable income in Canada has risen by $2,600, whereas in the U.S. it has risen by just over US$1,300. This is a complete reversal of the trend seen in the 1990s when Canadian income stagnated compared to surging U.S. earnings, CIBC World Markets says.

“So quick was the revival of Canadian income that in a short four year span, per capita real income in Canada was able to wipe out no less than 15 years of income underperformance vs. the U.S.,” says Benjamin Tal, senior economist and author of the report. “In fact, when measured in common currency, real per capita disposable income in Canada relative to the U.S. is now back to the 1990s level.”

The report notes that personal income is derived from four categories: labour income; transfers from government; interest and dividends; and other. The key driver behind Canada’s outperformance was in labour income which saw an 11% increase (inflation adjusted per capita) over the past four years -- far outstripping the 2% increase south of the border. In fact, the outperformance of labour income in Canada has accounted for the entire widening income gap between Canada and the U.S. since 2005.

The report uses three factors to determine labour income growth: wage increases; job creation; and the sectoral distribution of employment. “The reality is Canada has outperformed the U.S. in all categories,” notes Tal.

Tal’s research also found that the quality of new jobs was much higher in Canada than the U.S. The number of jobs created in high-paying industries was up by more than 4.5% in Canada but down 4% in the U.S. As a result, the ratio of high-paying to low-paying jobs in the U.S. has fallen by almost 10 percentage points over the past four years while in Canada it remained relatively stable. This difference in the sectoral distribution of employment growth accounted for close to 18% of the increase in the labour income gap between the two countries since 2005.

The report notes that the Canadian performance is even more impressive given that U.S. households enjoyed a significant tax cut and increase in transfer payments from government over the last four years.

Canada also outperformed the U.S. in per capita real disposable income over the past four years in the “other” category (which includes items such as self-employment income), while the performance of income from investment was roughly the same in both countries.

“Even putting aside the strengthening of the Canadian dollar, the Canada-U.S. per capita disposable income gap has widened by six percentage points since 2005,” says Tal. “The chief factor here was the much stronger increases in Canadian labour income which in turn, were boosted by a cocktail of faster job creation, higher wage gains and a healthier sectoral distribution of new jobs in Canada.

Tal notes that there is little doubt that the reversal of fortune in Canadian personal income was largely linked to the recent surge in commodity prices in general, and energy prices in particular. “The broadly based gains in labour income over the past four years (job creation, wage gains and favourable sectoral distribution) suggest that the economic multiplier of higher commodity prices on the labour markets, and thus personal income in Canada, is powerful.

“Our view that the recent retraction in commodity prices is just a correction within a context of rising commodity markets suggests that in the post-recession economy, Canadians will continue to collect more and larger paycheques than their neighbours to the south.”

Odd isn’t it. We’re such a socialist nation in your eyes, yet things are pretty damn good up here.

Regarding your soft pitches, you were right – you certainly substantiate my thoughts that you have a 12 years olds intellect. Did you read the whole OECD report? Nice cherry pick. Do you not think I could list a plethora of references/ links countering your lame-ass 2006 report. And Russ Roberts! C’mon, that just makes you look even more foolish.

Here, I get one cherry pick myself:

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/04/18/health-canada-us.html

Perry, I am glad you are charitable, many of us are. I’ve seen my share of shit in the world, paid my dues in sweat and blood, and give where the need is prudent.

As for the Richardson assertions, they are inaccurate and at this point make you seem desperate.

The facts as you put it are simple: Our healthcare outcomes have been substantiated to better then yours, our life expectancy is better, our infant mortality is better, our quality of life better.

Perry, I suggest you learn to relax a little man. Lose some weight, open your eyes, and talk to someone about all of your hate. The world is changing. Unfettered capitalism really screwed up, now lets hope a more equitable and balanced outlook will now prevail.

It’s funny how arguable those so-called facts are, isn’t it.

Perry, I'm not 'confusing the point'. I do not want to argue either for or against in the nationalised healthcare issue. I do however know a little about the treatment of head trauma. I think the use of this woman's death was a poor example, and blaming any healthcare people for her death was wrong. That's when my bs meter pinged.

bryan and Canuck;

If the first two Canadian hospitals had believed at the time that they had the effective specialists and/or machines to treat her---they wouldn't have transferred her.

The way you guys are using the post-mortem analysis of her particular specs to assert that she was 'doomed' from the start is irrelevant to the larger point that...those hospitals still don't have enough specialists/machines !
And that is due to government rationing.

The autopsy is an analysis made AFTER THE FACT.
But when time was short and the Canadian doctors were panicking and had to make a split-second decision about how to give the woman the best chance for survival...they determined their hospitals couldn't provide her with the best chance of survival---so they transferred her---that's the whole "point."

The free market system provides the best products and services for the greatest number of people.
Zillions of people all over the world benefit from drugs, technology, and education which emanated in American medical laboratories.
Arguing otherwise is just plain silly.
But then again, leftist thinking is all about utopia, rather than the real world.

After the beat down that Perry provided you guys, maybe you two should use that Big Brother Government healthcare to see an orthopedist about those black eyes.
On the other hand, by the time your scheduled appointments roll around(mid-October, maybe), your wounds will have healed.
At least, your external wounds will have healed.
:)

@ Walrus: be careful, man, or this will become a mutual admiration society! Excellent point on the specialists and machines per capita. State-worshippers just don't understand that government involvement will drive up demand ("It's free!!!") while discouraging demand. Government has pricing power because of force: a health care provider, whether a doctor or technician, will accept whatever Medicare/Medicaid says is "fair" for all procedures and tests, if they accept even just one payment. That's why there's a growing movement among doctors, a good movement, to refuse all government payments and go purely private.

Health care is already a very finite resource, but how can you expect leftists to understand this, when they already can't distinguish between health care and health insurance?

To bryan:Perry, I'm not 'confusing the point'. I do not want to argue either for or against in the nationalised healthcare issue. I do however know a little about the treatment of head trauma. I think the use of this woman's death was a poor example, and blaming any healthcare people for her death was wrong. That's when my bs meter pinged.Yes, you're completely confusing the point. We know in hindsight that it was too late, but only after her death and autopsy.

Simple, really: when it was thought she could still be saved, she was brought to a New York hospital instead of the Canadian alternatives.

Only after she was brought to the U.S. did doctors realize it was too late, but when she was flown to New York, it still appeared she could make it.

It looks like my reply to one of our Canadian fuckwits didn't go through, so let's try it again. (This is why I like composing in Notepad, and saving the text file just in case.)

Poor, poor, sensitive Perry. You seem overwrought. Trouble in the school-yard today?Overwrought nothing, my dear ignoramus fuckwit. I'm just giving you the usual smackdown that I deliver to all leftists here.

If there's any "playground" I'm on, it's here: I'm your bully, I enjoy it, and you make it so easy. I have a real job -- how about you? Living off mommy and daddy, as well as the taxpayers?
Perry, no one said you were an evil capitalist; that was your own inference – or personal assessment. Personally I believe you are more misguided then anything else, and a little irrational after reading your post.You did everything to insinuate that. Don't be so cowardly now to backtrack. Must I remind you of what you wrote? "Once again its all about money and wealth..." "So If you are poor you should just shut up (don’t get all uppity)..." What were you, or what would you call me, hmm?

I'm a capitalist, but hardly evil. You're the evil one who promotes the theft of people's property to distribute to others. As far as rationality, our exchanges here prove it: you're a fool and moron who wants to live off others' money.
And? What’s your debt ratio? How out of touch are you. Seriously, our corporate tax is lower then yours, we haven’t run a deficit since 1998Are you truly that deluded, or are you joking here? You cite one, ONE tax, because...well, it's the only tax you can cite.

But hey, Obama make us just like you. He's already made our debt surge (in his first year it'll be four times greater than the worst of Bush's years), and we can look forward to higher taxes too.
"The Canadian government cut its debt from 71 percent of GDP in 1995 to 32 percent in 2008.You don't realize three things:

1. You can thank your Conservative Party for this (temporary) improvement.

2. The door swings both ways. The reduction in debt was from forces beyond your border. On the global market, nobody wants to buy Canadian bonds as much as U.S. bonds, particularly in the last 18 months since the global economy peaked. It's a matter of creditworthiness, a trust in getting repaid.

3. Once your government's tax cut plans go into effect over the next several years, your government isn't planning to cut spending to match. Its own estimates are that the debt will start going back up. Didn't you get the memo?
U.S. federal public debt will jump from 41 percent of GDP in 2008 to more than 60 percent next year."The final debt for 2008 was 40.8%, and it's projected to be 54.8% for 2009 and 60.1% for 2010. I get data from the official sources, btw, not soundbites. You might want to try that.

Our increased debt is all thanks to Obama, who wants to make our health system like yours. You should be praising that "bargain" he's getting for us.
Our banking system the envy of the western world:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/183670Oh indeed, your banking system is so much larger than ours...oh wait, it isn't. Let's take your generalized claim as if it were true. Do you understand that it doesn't matter how "good" a manufacturer or reviewers claim a product is? What counts is sales. The rest of the world does far more banking with us than you.

Now, I said "as if it were true." Yours is an utterly absurd and false statement to make, considering the few justifications. "Not as leveraged" is only one factor. "Housing prices didn't decline as much" is only a half-factor, because the vast majority of American mortgages (even upside-down ones) are still not in foreclosure.

And as for our personal taxes they are slightly higher then yours,Here is the understatement of the week.
but you haven’t factored in healthcare/insurance costs that U.S. citizen has to pay on top of their taxes.And you haven't factored in higher American incomes -- gross or disposable. You can't cherry-pick stats for your comparisons; I don't let anyone get away with that.

If you want to talk about healthcare/insurance costs, a third of it (Medicare and Medicaid) are all about taxpayers paying for other people (namely the retired and the poor). We already have our own private policy, and that's enough -- we don't need to be paying for others.
“Canadians’ real disposable income grew twice as fast as that of their U.S. counterparts in the last four years, and that trend is set to continue in the post-recession economy, according to new report from CIBC World Markets Inc.

Since 2005, per capita real disposable income in Canada has risen by $2,600, whereas in the U.S. it has risen by just over US$1,300. This is a complete reversal of the trend seen in the 1990s when Canadian income stagnated compared to surging U.S. earnings, CIBC World Markets says.Putting aside that this is an unsustainable trend, growing is not the same thing, whether comparing income, GDP or anything else. You're at 45 mph, accelerating slowly, when we're cruising at 60. Let me know when we see you in the rear-view mirror, ok?

And as I've pointed out above, your government's income tax cuts will result in higher debt levels. Enjoy it while you can. Like here, the debt will come due sooner than you think.
“So quick was the revival of Canadian income that in a short four year span, per capita real income in Canada was able to wipe out no less than 15 years of income underperformance vs. the U.S.,” says Benjamin Tal, senior economist and author of the report. “In fact, when measured in common currency, real per capita disposable income in Canada relative to the U.S. is now back to the 1990s level.”That's good news to hear: you're back, uh, to the 1990s when U.S. income (relative or absolute) was still better.
The report notes that personal income is derived from four categories: labour income; transfers from government; interest and dividends; and other. The key driver behind Canada’s outperformance was in labour income which saw an 11% increase (inflation adjusted per capita) over the past four years -- far outstripping the 2% increase south of the border. In fact, the outperformance of labour income in Canada has accounted for the entire widening income gap between Canada and the U.S. since 2005.

The report uses three factors to determine labour income growth: wage increases; job creation; and the sectoral distribution of employment. “The reality is Canada has outperformed the U.S. in all categories,” notes Tal.All fine and dandy, but why is our income still higher?
Tal’s research also found that the quality of new jobs was much higher in Canada than the U.S. The number of jobs created in high-paying industries was up by more than 4.5% in Canada but down 4% in the U.S. As a result, the ratio of high-paying to low-paying jobs in the U.S. has fallen by almost 10 percentage points over the past four years while in Canada it remained relatively stable. This difference in the sectoral distribution of employment growth accounted for close to 18% of the increase in the labour income gap between the two countries since 2005."High-paying industries" is largely the finance sector. We have and always had a lot more of those jobs to lose, and once the financial sector across the globe stabilizes, those jobs will return.
The report notes that the Canadian performance is even more impressive given that U.S. households enjoyed a significant tax cut and increase in transfer payments from government over the last four years."Transfer payments from government" is actually double-counting. Barring central banking that creates money out of thin air, the money must be earned in the first place for government to spend on something or "give" it to someone.
Canada also outperformed the U.S. in per capita real disposable income over the past four years in the “other” category (which includes items such as self-employment income), while the performance of income from investment was roughly the same in both countries.This says nothing without hard facts.
“Even putting aside the strengthening of the Canadian dollar, the Canada-U.S. per capita disposable income gap has widened by six percentage points since 2005,” says Tal. “The chief factor here was the much stronger increases in Canadian labour income which in turn, were boosted by a cocktail of faster job creation, higher wage gains and a healthier sectoral distribution of new jobs in Canada.And again, if it's so great, why are you still behind?
Tal notes that there is little doubt that the reversal of fortune in Canadian personal income was largely linked to the recent surge in commodity prices in general, and energy prices in particular. “The broadly based gains in labour income over the past four years (job creation, wage gains and favourable sectoral distribution) suggest that the economic multiplier of higher commodity prices on the labour markets, and thus personal income in Canada, is powerful.This is hardly a "healthy sectorial distribution" that he was just talking about -- it shows a dependency on commodity production, which has been waning in recent months because of markedly decreased global demand.
“Our view that the recent retraction in commodity prices is just a correction within a context of rising commodity markets suggests that in the post-recession economy, Canadians will continue to collect more and larger paycheques than their neighbours to the south.”Good grief, what a terrible run-on sentence.
Odd isn’t it. We’re such a socialist nation in your eyes, yet things are pretty damn good up here.Nobody ever denied things aren't "pretty good" for Canucks overall. Better than Zimbabwe, but as a friend once put it, "Canada is like a loft above a really great party."

If it's so much better up there, why do people want to come here? We have illegal aliens making their way as far as New York, so it's not like they cross the southern border and suddenly stop.
Regarding your soft pitches, you were right – you certainly substantiate my thoughts that you have a 12 years olds intellect. Did you read the whole OECD report?I did when RR first posted about it. Did you, ever? I didn't think so.
Nice cherry pick. Do you not think I could list a plethora of references/ links countering your lame-ass 2006 report. And Russ Roberts! C’mon, that just makes you look even more foolish.Thanks for admitting you're a complete dunce and can't refute a single thing I said. You could only hope to approach the brilliance of Russ Roberts, and you don't dare refute any hard statistics I toss at you.

So where are your stats? Post them, if you dare.

As they like to say over at Cafe Hayek, "Reality is not optional." Except in Canada, I guess.

Here, I get one cherry pick myself:

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/04/18/health-canada-us.html"Overall, Canada did better, and in fact we found a statistically significant five per cent mortality advantage [of survival] to people with diagnoses in Canada compared to their counterparts in the United States,"

That is, if you can get to a Canadian doctor and get diagnosed these days. This "review" is so statistically absurd that a beginning statistics student would get immediately flunked for a blatantly dishonest attempt. It's a study of studies, and the researchers cherry-picked 438 out of 5000 reports. Old and new reports, to boot, which means that your modern results are balanced out by pre-socialized days.

The review claims: "Few uninsured patients in the United States, who probably suffer the worst quality care, were included in the studies examined."

This is actually not true. The uninsured can go to emergency rooms here and get care as good as anyone else. Even illegal aliens here, who as I pointed out are routinely miscounted among the "uninsured."
Perry, I am glad you are charitable, many of us are. I’ve seen my share of shit in the world, paid my dues in sweat and blood, and give where the need is prudent.The smell of bullshit in your words here is overwhelming, but don't get all defensive on us.
As for the Richardson assertions, they are inaccurate and at this point make you seem desperate.Again, thanks for admitting you have no rebuttal. The fact remains that when it looked like she could be saved, she was taken all the way to New York, because Canadian healthcare was inadequate. Period. Reality is not optional at CH, but truth is not optional with me, and I will keep beating you over the head with it.
The facts as you put it are simple: Our healthcare outcomes have been substantiated to better then yours,A statistically absurd study is validation?
our life expectancy is better,These are in fact skewed by two things. First, there's the high homicide rate of young black males. If you have 99 people who live to an average of 75, but one who dies at 18, that's already enough to lower it to 74.43. Statistically, when you count only natural deaths, the U.S. average matches any Western nation. But perhaps you'd like to argue that the homicide rate of young black males is because of inadequate emergency room care, or laws requiring a police report of gunshot wounds?
our infant mortality is better,This part is true, at least marginally so. However, infant mortality (at least in the U.S.) is not because of a lack of "access" to health care. I wouldn't expect you to understand the difference.
our quality of life better.Yes, you have 300 million people, we have only 30...oh, wait a minute.
Perry, I suggest you learn to relax a little man. Lose some weight,Since you mentioned it, a couple of years ago, once I put my mind to it, I dropped 40 pounds. I didn't need government to tell me I needed to, or how. However, Saint Obamus will tell us, when our health industry is nationalized, what to eat and etc.
open your eyes,The problem with talking with idiots like you is that I see and conceptualize more than you ever could. You're the one who foolishly thinks that healthcare is something infinite and easily redistributable. I've yet to decide whether you willfully stick your head in the sand or if you enjoy sticking your head up your ass.
and talk to someone about all of your hate.My, my, now who's the one drawing inferences!

So you don't think I'm an evil capitalist, just a hateful one.
The world is changing. Unfettered capitalism really screwed up, now lets hope a more equitable and balanced outlook will now prevail.There was nothing "unfettered" or "capitalistic" about what blew up in the global economy. This crisis was purely government-driven.

Now look, my dear fuckwit, if you want a flameware, I welcome it. You want me to "relax," then you'd better take yourself down a notch or two before I do it for you.
It’s funny how arguable those so-called facts are, isn’t it.Nothing "arguable" about them, at least not the facts that I have set down.

K, where's my reply to the Canuck?

Is it the one above? That was the only thing caught in my spam filter.

That's one of 'em; I sent it through twice. Spasiba, hope you're feeling better!