Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next

And I heartily agree with you. I was addressing Bart.



That is one point on which you and I actually do disagree. After having experienced the U.S. healthcare system firsthand for most of my life, I can tell you that Michael Moore's depiction of the U.S. system in Sicko is spot-on accurate. If this sounds far-fetched, take a look at all the links I've provided in previous posts in this thread. While it's true that MM didn't delve very deeply into the faults of the Canadian system, the point of the movie was to examine the U.S. system and use other systems as a general point of reference. The main point he made about the Canadian system is that no one here has to go without coverage, living in constant fear that an illness/injury will clean out our life savings, like people do in the States. Which is true.

   

The fly in that ointment is what aging redneck made clear on point one of his response. We may have coverage for everyone but we don't have the staff. It's not just there, it's everywhere and a universal system accentuates that. This is why the US system excels at research as they are only going to provide cover to the people who pay this frees up a lot of skilled manpower to pursue the more high end innovations. At this point it really is a catch 22 as the leading edge technology will in fact save untold millions but there is no set date however a universal care system will also save millions right now but with skilled manpower at a premium you can't have both simultaneously.

   

What, you call that aging???

   

I plan on changing my perspective next year.

   

So essentially you are stating that

1) There are not enough smart people to go around in any population to support both fields,

2) The talent pool for physicians and the talent pool for scientific researchers is identical, and

3) We must all therefore choose whether we want to have enough doctors or enough researchers, since having more of one will siphon off staffing from the other.

This sounds like one of the weakest false dilemma arguments I've heard. Additionally, the big bottleneck you always hear about when it comes to research is not an issue of insufficient staffing but of insufficient funds. Kindly substantiate your claims.

   

Well, the skilled manpower shortage is blatantly obvious so no need to restate that but I stated skilled manpower not necessarily smart people. Skills mean training and education and both systems are not keeping up with demand as far as that is concerned. We are constantly bringing in more from overseas that are not being used to the fullest potential so we end up with specialists from the UK driving taxis. This is a flaw of our inadequate and out of date standards systems that have run rampant in the educational system and add to that the system itself in not keeping pace with demand.

Emergency care is similar in both systems, if you break your arm and go to the emergency you will get care in rapid fashion. Also, both systems have problems providing care in remote areas. This is a simple fact of life but one that is more readily apparent in Canada simply because of the vastness that is Canada. As we are the 2nd largest country in the world but have just over 33 million we simple will never have enough people to staff the demand.

The US budget spent on research dwarfs the investment made by Canada. The conclusion is fairly plain that indeed that is where the focus is and thus the manpower (in proportion) is in the US.

   

double

   

Thats funny because you should hear the NDP bitch about the health care cuts in Alberta

   

Jeez Bart, you seem so angry! I'm from the US (with private insurance) and fully support us moving to Universal Healthcare. Our system is going down the tubes.

   

Right on the money Kenmore (unfortunately).

I personally knew a guy that died of cancer, needing a bone marrow transplant. He was denied by his insurer. Oh, and by the way Bart, his DOCTOR said he needed the bone marrow...no matter, still denied. He died a few months latter. Makes me sick. This was a turning point in my life on universal healthcare, and the more I look at the issue, the more it is clear that the US needs to move in that direction.

   

Please excuse my delay in replying... I was feeling particularly sick (flu) the day I saw your post and simply forgot.

I used the "smart people" term for a reason, and I think you missed the point. You have taken two facts which I do not debate:

1) Compared to Canada, there are more people in the U.S. without access to medical care.
2) Compared to Canada, there are more research projects in the U.S.

but then you claimed they are directly correlated without presenting any evidence - which I do take issue with. You went on to use that claim as the basis for another claim - that due to lack of (hu)manpower we must necessarily choose between having universal access to medical care, or having adequate medical research. Then you basically said that Canada chose one route while the U.S. chose the other.

I deliberately worded it as "not enough smart people" because your claim has essentially been that the talent pool is too small to support both fields simultaneously, therefore necessitating such a choice between "access to health care" vs. "medical researchers." I am saying that there's no reason why there isn't a proportionately large enough talent pool to fulfill both needs. It's all a matter of funding priorities and system efficiency, not lack of trainable people. Your mention of wasted talent of foreign-trained doctors in Canada (a problem of efficiency) shows that, at least on one point, you and I are talking about the same thing.

I understand your point about medical access in rural areas of Canada, but by the same token, if a given population is smaller it needs proportionately less medical professionals. Thus the issue is one of proportion and distribution, not really population size per se.

Moreover, the problem of lack of access to health care in the U.S. has nothing to do with rural vs. urban areas, and everything to do with corporate greed and increasingly widespread poverty. The problem there is not geographic, it's economic.

It's not that too small a percentage of the population is trainable, it's a matter of using resources in an efficient manner to put that talent to good use. And frankly, that's not happening in Canada or the U.S. - but for different reasons and with different symptoms.

   

I concur on the basis of that statement but I must point out the budget to support that talent pool is not there. That is why I made that argument to begin with but you are correct that I did not elaborate enough on that point and simply stated it as a manpower shortfall.

True.

The same market forces are in effect in both markets but it is clear the economic concerns in the US market have more impact. For example the cost of a cast or ambulance services are not covered in either system but since the US system relies more heavily upon extended benefits the cost breakdown for said services is more effectively distributed to the people it does cover.



I almost agree but there is a limit to the depth of that skill pool and how fast we can build it up so that is a fundamental part of the healthcare equation.

   

Canada has a good -- scrap that... excellent health care system... the problem is we tend to wait to fix (our own health) after its broken..I mean I see it every day.. and I not going to preach about drugs, booze and the effects of smoking.. but really guys dont you think that we need to take some responsibility for our own health? I have worked in emerg and have seen lots of people every day who come to emerg for the slightest thing from a cough to a missed period or constipation.. there are things government needs to do as well and here in Ontario they need to start and utilize Registered Nurses and Nurse Practioners better.. there also needs to be more emphasis on preventive care.... whats costing the health care system is what my dad used to say was locking the barn after the horse got out...

   

The problem is that the system has created unlimited demand on a limited supply(doctors). I would imagine a user fee for each visit would solve a bunch of problems and get rid of alot of unwarrented trips.

   

ExPat, you wanted a response from me on this thread and here it is:

#1. Kaiser-Permanente is a non-profit organization. Therefore your citation about their "profits" is wholly irrelevant. Kaiser invests their net-proceeds back into their organization which is why they have more new facilities, more MRI & CT scanners than anyone else and why they can afford to treat more diseases that other insurance outfits specifically exclude.

#2. As to who decides who gets health care, the market already does that. Poor children who get severe burns get treated for free at Shriners Hospitals. For that matter, Canadian children with severe burns get treated for free at US Shriners Hospitals.

#3. As to people choosing to do without health insurance, yes, many do choose to go without health insurance. They forgo health insurance so they can have new cars, fancy homes, nice vacations, plasma TVs, and etc. They have financial choices to make and they've made theirs. Why I should pay for someone else's healthcare when they refuse to pay for it themselves is sheer idiocy.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next