Universal Healthcare. Good Idea or Commie Plot?

[griff61]

Griff,

You treat profit as if it's a dirty word. Free market capitalism, with all it's flaws, is still far superior to any other system in dealing with the allocation of goods and services. It has allowed America to prosper into the greatest country the world has ever known. And that includes Canada. That is why you and millions of others stream across our borders every year.

No one streamed across the border from my family. I was born here.
China owns the US due to unfettered the capitalism of the past 30 years. In the arena of health insurance, there is no such thing as a true capitalist market. It is a captive market where the consumer MUST pay whatever price the insurance company demands, or they simply go without. There is no secondary market to a hospital, not is there time to 'shop around' for a cheaper ER after an accident.
Explain the function of the insurance industry as it pertains to pure capitalism, if you can. You can ponder this quote from another socialist stooge while you're doing it.

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country...Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money-power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."

Abraham Lincoln

[griff61]

Griff61,

I've removed your previous post as it was a personal attack on another member.  This will be how I handle any further violations.

.
My apologies Hoopty, I should wait to post until I've had my coffee.

[griff61]

Hoopty,

That's a common tactic used by liberals. When confronted with irrefutable logic and an indefensible position they resort to ad-hominem personal attacks. Notice that he didn't address the content of the post.

There was no content to address.

[Duckbutta]

Griff,

I think out of control government spending has more to do with your China point.

As to your insurance point, noone is FORCED to pay what any one insurance company DEMANDS. There is no monopoly in the insurance industry. Last time I checked, there was an insurance market that provides many different products from many different companies. If you don't like your current provider, seek out another one. That's the beauty of America. Choices. You propose a government solution, a true monoply, in every sense of the word.

There is so much more to say, but unlike some others, I have to go to work. My health depends on it.

[griff61]

Griff,

I think out of control government spending has more to do with your China point.

As to your insurance point, noone is FORCED to pay what any one insurance company DEMANDS. There is no monopoly in the insurance industry. Last time I checked, there was an insurance market that provides many different products from many different companies. If you don't like your current provider, seek out another one. That's the beauty of America. Choices. You propose a government solution, a true monoply, in every sense of the word.

There is so much more to say, but unlike some others, I have to go to work. My health depends on it.

To boil your response down, you're saying you have no idea what true capitalism or a free market are. Thanks for clearing that up.

[_Adam_]

Griff, et al,

Here is some information about universal health care that I have pulled from a peer-reviewed source that should lend credence to the arguments I have tried to articulate before.  While a single payer system may have its advantages, I have yet to see substantial evidence to suggest the benefits will substantiate the costs of adopting it.  If you cannot consider and acknowledge that these are legitimate problems, I will have to respectfully bow out.

My words are in blue, while the peer-reviewed report is in black.

The Frasure Institute writes that:

"Using general taxation to finance the health care system can reduce the administrative costs of collection and
payment, as providers and consumers both must deal with only one insurer.
The disadvantages to funding health care from general taxation include a lack
of transparency, as there is no easily established link between the payment
into, and the benefits received from, health care. This means that an increase
in tax rates claimed to be for health services can be far larger in revenue terms
than any increase in funding to health care." Frasure Institute, How Good is Canadian Health Care, 2008.

So here, power hungry politicians can increase taxation in the name of health care yet not pass that on to the actual health care program.  You don't know any power hungry politicians do you?  You can't possibly imagine that there are politicians in this would who would use public interest for personal gain can you?

Here is the issue of the problem of the commons...

"Also, a system with general tax
financing and no cost sharing—i.e., care that appears "free" to the consumer,
such as in Canada where health care is entirely financed through general
taxation [2]—can lead to what Pauly (1968) described as an "inconsistency,"
where individuals demand health care as though it were free and yet consider
the positive costs of that care when voting over changes in tax rates. In
other words, general tax financing can potentially lead to chronic shortages
in health care financing." Frasure Institute, How Good is Canadian Health Care, 2008.

This is the problem of the commons that Hardin writes about in his essay "The Tragedy of the Commons".  You quickly dismissed my assertion that Canada is suffering from the problem of the commons, but here is evedence from a peer-reviewed source that suggests they are indeed suffering from it.  At this point, if you deny that this problem exists, you will have proven to me that you are unable to have an enlightened discussion.


"Health care spending in Canada for 2008 was forecast to be $171.9
billion or $5,170 per person (CIHI, 2008). This total spending for 2008 is
approximately 10.7% of that year's GDP (CIHI, 2008)." Frasure Institute, How Good is Canadian Health Care, 2008.

The report does not give US spending for 2008 so I cannot give you a comparison.  I merely included this data to show that the numbers you have claimed are outdated at best.

Here, the Frasure Institute addresses access to advanced technology...

"For availability of MRI machines, Canada ranks a depressing fourteenth
in a comparison of 25 OECD countries. For availability of computed
tomography scanners, Canada ranks a miserable nineteenth out of 26 OECD
countries. Worse still, for availability of lithotriptors, Canada ranks a dismal
third last (tied with New Zealand) out of 21 OECD countries. Finally, Canada
ranked an uninspiring eighth out of 21 countries for mammograph availability.
It is clear that the Canadian health care system does not provide a level of
health technology commensurate with its relatively high spending. It is also
interesting to note that the diffusion of MRI machines over time (the rate at
which they are acquired) has been much less rapid in Canada than in other
OECD countries (Harriman et al., 1999), implying that Canada also has older
and less effective MRI machines and lacks widespread access to open magnet
and more sophisticated, special purpose, scanners.
Given these levels of access to high-tech health care, it is not surprising
that a wait of more than two months exists for an MRI scan in Canada,
or a waiting time of more than one month for a CT scan (Esmail and Hazel
with Walker, 2008)." Frasure Institute, How Good is Canadian Health Care, 2008.
This is intereting isn't it...  The Candians spent 10.7% of their GDP on health care yet their access to equipment that is rapidly becoming obsolete is poor.


Here is an excerpt from Table 14 in Frasure Institute, How Good is Canadian Health Care, 2008.
Time waited to be treated in ER
            CDN   US
<30 mins:         25%   33%
30 mins to 1 Hr:      14%   19%
2 Hours or more:      46%   31%

Ability to get an appointment to see a Dr when sick or needed care:
            CDN   US
Same Day:         22%   30%
Next Day:         14%   19%
2-5 days:         26%   25%
6 days or more:      30%   20%

Wait for elective surgery in past 2 years:
            CDN   US
< 1 month:         32%   62%
> 6 months:      14%   4%

Overall system view:
            CDN   US
Minor changes needed:   26%   16%
Fundamental changes:   60%   48%
Rebuild completely:   12%   34%

So from the chart, 46% of ER patients have to wait 2 hours or more compared to 31% in the US.  Only 39% in Canada waited 1 hour or less for services while 52% waited one hour or less in US emergency rooms.  I can think of no better time to need quick access to a Doctor then when I am sitting in an emergency room.

Almost 50% of sick folks can see their Doctor the same or next day in US, while in Canada, only 36% enjoy the same access.

Almost twice as many reported that they were able to receive elective surgery within one month in the US versus Canada.

60%, the majority of Canadians think that the Canadian Health System needs fundamental change.  I'll allow that the US isn't much better, but for something you profess to be far superior, one would speculate that this number would be much lower.


"In 2005, Canada ranked twenty-third (tied with Korea, Poland, and
the UK) out of 28 OECD countries in a comparison of age-adjusted doctor-
to-population ratios [table 10]. That year, Canada had 69,108 doctors
(OECD, 2008). In order to rank with equally developed countries, Canada
would have needed a significantly larger number of doctors. For example,
in order for Canada's 2005 ranking to equal that of first-ranked Iceland, the
number of doctors would have had to be higher by approximately 65,817—a
95% increase.
Although the number of doctors per capita has increased over time, it
is important to consider the rate of growth of doctors (age-adjusted) in other
countries. In 1970, Canada had an age-adjusted ratio of 1.8 doctors per 1,000
people, the second-highest ratio among 20 OECD countries for which data
were then available (OECD, 2008; calculations by the authors). Since 1970,
however, all but one of these countries have bettered Canada's growth in doctors
per capita. While the age-adjusted proportion of doctors in Canada grew
by 31% over the period, the average increase in the proportion of doctors in
the other 19 countries was 152%.
In the 35 years between 1970 and 2005, Canada's doctors-per-capita
rank fell from second of 20 countries to twenty-third of 28 countries. This
is particularly remarkable given that in 2005, Canada's age-adjusted health
spending as a percent of GDP was higher than all other developed nations
with universal access health care programs save Iceland and Switzerland.
Comparatively, the health care sector should have enough resources to
provide for many more doctors than we now have. The long and growing
waiting lists suggest that we could certainly employ more physicians to our
advantage."

Here is more evidence that Canada's health system isn't as peachy as you try to portray.  They don't have enough doctors, and the number of doctors continues to fall behind other developed nations at the expense of waiting lists to see the doctors.

[_Adam_]

Griff,

You treat profit as if it's a dirty word. Free market capitalism, with all it's flaws, is still far superior to any other system in dealing with the allocation of goods and services. It has allowed America to prosper into the greatest country the world has ever known. And that includes Canada. That is why you and millions of others stream across our borders every year.

No one streamed across the border from my family. I was born here.
China owns the US due to unfettered the capitalism of the past 30 years. In the arena of health insurance, there is no such thing as a true capitalist market. It is a captive market where the consumer MUST pay whatever price the insurance company demands, or they simply go without. There is no secondary market to a hospital, not is there time to 'shop around' for a cheaper ER after an accident.
Explain the function of the insurance industry as it pertains to pure capitalism, if you can. You can ponder this quote from another socialist stooge while you're doing it.

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country...Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money-power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."

Abraham Lincoln

Our republic is being destroyed by the actions of our government.  The massive increases in government spending, the bailouts of private corporations with the use of taxpayer funds is destroying our republic.  The great depression was caused by the central bank, and there is evidence to suggest that the current recession has been caused by artificially low interest rates as a result of actions by the federal reserve.  The push to get credit to unworthy individuals who otherwise could not get home financing is what put the housing market where it is today.

[griff61]

The Frasure Institute writes that:

First, it's the FRASER institute. The report is here: http://www.fraserinstitute.org/commerce.web/product_files/HowGoodisCanadianHealthCare2008.pdf

I didn't say that care in Canada was peachy, it isn't here either.There is no valid comparison in the report between the CHA and the US funding of their respective systems.

from the executive summary:
In this study, we primarily compare Canada to other countries that also have universal access, publicly funded, health care systems. Since the United States and Mexico do not, we often ignore these countries in the comparisons made.

So here, power hungry politicians can increase taxation in the name of health care yet not pass that on to the actual health care program.  You don't know any power hungry politicians do you?  You can't possibly imagine that there are politicians in this would who would use public interest for personal gain can you?

Your quote is describing among the 3 methods of paying, not a description of the CHA system or funding. In fact, the executive summary states:
Regrettably, international comparison does not enable us to choose between
the greater transparency and potentially shorter waiting times of a segregated
social insurance program or general taxation funding since 11 OECD countries
use general taxation, 12 use segregated taxation or a social-insurance
program, and five have mixed financing systems.

As far as the US is concerned, we can either throw our hands in the air and do nothing, or we can try to do something different and also pass laws that ensure transparency.

Here is the issue of the problem of the commons...

This is the problem of the commons that Hardin writes about in his essay "The Tragedy of the Commons".  You quickly dismissed my assertion that Canada is suffering from the problem of the commons, but here is evedence from a peer-reviewed source that suggests they are indeed suffering from it.  At this point, if you deny that this problem exists, you will have proven to me that you are unable to have an enlightened discussion.[/color]

There isn't a single example of it actually happening in the Fraser report. In fact your citation is from a statement about hypothetical problems in one of three seperate funding methods. Please feel free to point out the specific case the report refers to, in Canada.

You may want to be careful throwing around the 'peer reviewed' claim, as the Fraser institute is not the same as the NE Journal of Medicine. Rather it is a private organization that publishes opinion papers. I am sort of intrigued that most times you make a claim out you feel the need to add that if I disagree with you that I am instanlty incapable of something or other.

"Health care spending in Canada for 2008 was forecast to be $171.9
billion or $5,170 per person (CIHI, 2008). This total spending for 2008 is
approximately 10.7% of that year's GDP (CIHI, 2008)." Frasure Institute, How Good is Canadian Health Care, 2008.

The report does not give US spending for 2008 so I cannot give you a comparison.  I merely included this data to show that the numbers you have claimed are outdated at best.

If you looked at my citations, which apparently you haven't, they were the actual numbers from 2006, not estimates, you might want to take note that the total spent on health care includes both the CHA portion (71%) and the private portion (29%). This would make the Fraser estimate of the CHA contribution about $3700. which would constitute an increase of 8% over a 2 year period.
Compared to 11.1% for US employer-subsidized plans.

And again, in Canada the private portion goes for things like dental, prescriptions, private rooms, etc.
[/quote]

This is intereting isn't it...  The Candians spent 10.7% of their GDP on health care yet their access to equipment that is rapidly becoming obsolete is poor.

The US spends 15.3% of its GDP on healthcare in 2006 still 1/3 more than the 2008 estimate for Canada, and still over 40 million people still uninsured, never mind about access to MRI's.

60%, the majority of Canadians think that the Canadian Health System needs fundamental change.  I'll allow that the US isn't much better, but for something you profess to be far superior, one would speculate that this number would be much lower.

The funding method is far superior, the actual delivery is as adequate as it is here, perhaps more so because it is available to everyone, not simply those who can afford it.

Why would you think that the numbers would be lower? We have, supposedly, the greatest system on earth here and yet:

"Fifty-one percent of the GOPers said universal healthcare coverage should be a right of every American" http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/poll-shows-many-republicans-favor-universal-healthcare-gays-in-military-2007-06-28.html

And that's just Republicans.

Here is more evidence that Canada's health system isn't as peachy as you try to portray.  They don't have enough doctors, and the number of doctors continues to fall behind other developed nations at the expense of waiting lists to see the doctors.

You do understand that the comparisons are being made to smaller countries with REAL socialized medicine, don't you? Look at the charts.

also, from the OECD citation (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/2/38980580.pdf)
Despite the relatively high level of health expenditure in the United States, there are fewer physicians per capita than in most other OECD countrie. In 2006, the United States had 2.4 practising physicians per 1,000 population, below the OECD average of 3.1.

and

The number of acute care hospital beds in the United States in 2006 was 2.7 per 1 000 population, also lower than the OECD average of 3.9 beds.

It seems like lack of doctors and beds might be a universal problem.

[_Adam_]

Why can I not let this go....?

First, it's the FRASER institute. The report is here: http://www.fraserinstitute.org/commerce.web/product_files/HowGoodisCanadianHealthCare2008.pdf

Sorry to offend your sensibilities.  I was busy trying to give you accurate information while preparing breakfast for my 4 yr old.

You may want to be careful throwing around the 'peer reviewed' claim, as the Fraser institute is not the same as the NE Journal of Medicine. Rather it is a private organization that publishes opinion papers.

I pulled the report from the Branford Millar Library at Portland State University which made the claim that the report is reputable and reviewed.  Again, my apolopies, I was merely trying to utilize a neutral 3rd party based in Canada as a reputable source.  I have specifically chosen not to include information from government sources as asking the government how the citizens are is akin to asking the cat how the mice are.

I am sort of intrigued that most times you make a claim out you feel the need to add that if I disagree with you that I am instanlty incapable of something or other.

I just appears that way to me.  You instantly dismiss the issue of the problem of the commons as if you are unable to comprehend and apply it.  It isn't a difficult constuct to follow, and all the while you seem to magically be able to sew arguments together that suit your purpose.  In short, you appear to be disengenuous.  Please don't take that as a personal attack, as it was meant to give you an understanding on why I may or may not think your are incapable of recognizing a logical opposing argument.

I didn't say that care in Canada was peachy, it isn't here either.There is no valid comparison in the report between the CHA and the US funding of their respective systems.

There is some valid information to compare that I have pointed out.  I was merely responding to what I thought was wrong with the Canadian system.  I used subjective data from the report to suggest that there are perceived quality issues as reported by actual citizens.

Your quote is describing among the 3 methods of paying, not a description of the CHA system or funding.

My quote was describing implications of using a general taxation scheme to fund healh care insurance or health care services.  Canada happens to use the general taxation method, so your dismissal of this criticizm is disengenuous at best.

As far as the US is concerned, we can either throw our hands in the air and do nothing, or we can try to do something different and also pass laws that ensure transparency.

If you think that a free market system is doing nothing then I can see why you are so frustrated.  I happen to agree that we need laws that ensure transparency.  Didn't our new president promise more transparancy on the campain trail and has yet to offer the 5 day viewing period promised to the public?

There isn't a single example of it actually happening in the Fraser report. In fact your citation is from a statement about hypothetical problems in one of three seperate funding methods. Please feel free to point out the specific case the report refers to, in Canada.

I don't think I need to give specific examples in Canada.  The problem of the commons is universal.  It happens everywhere when free access and infinite demand upon a finite resource exists.  Canada is not exempt from this.  Nor is the US for that matter, but I am only offering criticizms of Canada's system since I am HAPPY with mine here in the US.

And again, in Canada the private portion goes for things like dental, prescriptions, private rooms, etc.

My insurance covers prescriptions.  I don't need supplemental insurance to cover them.  My dental insurance is so cheap it is almost negligible. Here you have indirectly responded to my question about the need to purchase additional (supplemental insurance/services) in Canada.  I suspose a health insurance program is less than complete if it doesn't cover prescription drugs.  Do you see where I am hinting at disenginuity?

This is intereting isn't it...  The Candians spent 10.7% of their GDP on health care yet their access to equipment that is rapidly becoming obsolete is poor.

The US spends 15.3% of its GDP on healthcare in 2006 still 1/3 more than the 2008 estimate for Canada, and still over 40 million people still uninsured, never mind about access to MRI's.

You deflected instead of responding to the criticism.

60%, the majority of Canadians think that the Canadian Health System needs fundamental change.  I'll allow that the US isn't much better, but for something you profess to be far superior, one would speculate that this number would be much lower.

The funding method is far superior, the actual delivery is as adequate as it is here, perhaps more so because it is available to everyone, not simply those who can afford it. Why would you think that the numbers would be lower?

I was suggesting that the Canadian number of 60% should be lower.

...perhaps more so because it is available to everyone, not simply those who can afford it.

Oh, but wait, the Fraser report indicates there are issues among the lower socio-economic classes...
"The problems with access to care are also not uniform among the
socioeconomic groups in Canada. Though the health system in Canada is
often defended as one that treats all equally, a notable difference in the ratings
of care among economic groups has been found in Canada. According to a
study by the Commonwealth Fund, Canadians with below-average incomes
were 9% less likely than those with above-average incomes to rate care as
excellent or very good, and 6% more likely to rate care as fair or poor in a
survey of citizens in five countries (Blendon et al., 2002). Canadians with
below-average incomes were also more likely not to visit a doctor as a result of
cost concerns, and were more likely to have difficulty seeing a specialist relative
to those with above-average incomes (Blendon et al., 2002). Government
provision of care in Canada has clearly not meant equal care for all."

In your perfect system, why would "Canadians with
below-average incomes were also more likely not to visit a doctor as a result of
cost concerns, and were more likely to have difficulty seeing a specialist relative
to those with above-average incomes (Blendon et al., 2002).

Why would you think that the numbers would be lower? We have, supposedly, the greatest system on earth here and yet:

"Fifty-one percent of the GOPers said universal healthcare coverage should be a right of every American" http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/poll-shows-many-republicans-favor-universal-healthcare-gays-in-military-2007-06-28.html

And that's just Republicans.

Ever hear of the concept of pandering?  You are pointing to a campain poll in an election year when being a "repugnican" was by and large a horrible place to be.  I would imagine that a desperate "repugnican" would advocate anything during 2008 to get re-elected. This is another example of your disengenuity.

It seems like lack of doctors and beds might be a universal problem.

I agree.  I think we need more Doctors, since it can't hurt to have one on every corner.  And again, I was leveling criticism at Canada compared to other nations with a socialized scheme. Not the US where people seem to have quick and ready access to doctors.

[griff61]

Sorry to offend your sensibilities.

You didn't offend me, you just miss-referenced your source 6 or seven times. I'm assuming other people are reading this and might like to be able to find the source themselves.

I was leveling criticism at Canada compared to other nations with a socialized scheme.

So you're advocating nationalizing healthcare? Many of the countries that performed better than Canada as far as service delivery is concerned, have nationalized healthcare. It's like comapring apples and oranges. It's one of the reasons that the report itself says that it is an unfair comparison.

My intended purpose is to explore whether we can do a single payer insurance system here, in the US, without resorting to nationalizing healthcare. Perhaps you'd prefer the German system?
I'm not interested in nationalizing health care, just making basic health care available to everyone.

I don't think I need to give specific examples in Canada

Seeing as I have asked repeatedly and you haven't, or can't provide an example of an actual occurence that displays the characteristic of the commons in the Canadian system should give you some idea of why I dismiss your claim. Theory is nice, but facts are better.
You make claims, I ask for a citation or proof or even an example, and you make accusations of disingenuity and turn around require it from me.
If the commons applied, certainly it would show up as out of control costs in the Canadian system. It is actually more rampant in the current US system, where there is TRULY no cost to the uninsured/illegal alien end user at the local ER.

You deflected instead of responding to the criticism.

No, I responded simply that the US spends a larger percentage of its GDP (15% vs 11%) and rather than dealing with MRI waiting times, we fail to cover everyone. Do you really think MRI acces is a more pressing need than access to good health care?
Its great to be able to get an MRI quickly, but first you have to get a doctor to treat you in the first place.

In your perfect system, why would...

Not sure why I have to remind you over & over, but I never said the Canadian system was perfect. It provides coverage to everyone, that makes it better than one that costs nearly double and covers 70%.

How about this then;
You think the Canadian single payer system will never work and the current US system is broken.
What is your plan to cover the over 45 million uninsured and control health care costs? Perhaps you'd prefer the German system? What solution do you propose?

Adopting the social insurance model in Canada would offer greater transparency and provide the opportunity for competition in insurance supply, while potentially reducing waiting times and maintaining the same protections for the unfortunate as presently exist. (from the Fraser report)

[flew-da-coup]

No, I responded simply that the US spends a larger percentage of its GDP (15% vs 11%) and rather than dealing with MRI waiting times, we fail to cover everyone. Do you really think MRI acces is a more pressing need than access to good health care?
Its great to be able to get an MRI quickly, but first you have to get a doctor to treat you in the first place.

It matters if you are suspect to cancer or any other fast moving problems like spine inflammation.

[griff61]

No, I responded simply that the US spends a larger percentage of its GDP (15% vs 11%) and rather than dealing with MRI waiting times, we fail to cover everyone. Do you really think MRI acces is a more pressing need than access to good health care?
Its great to be able to get an MRI quickly, but first you have to get a doctor to treat you in the first place.

It matters if you are suspect to cancer or any other fast moving problems like spine inflammation.

If you can't afford to actually see a doctor, you aren't ever going to have the luxury of worrying about whether you get an MRI or not.

[_Adam_]

Griff,

The problem of the commons manifests itself in longer wait times.  I don't need a peer-reviewed report to see it.  The fact that you are willing to look past the long wait times and the need for supplemental insurance are evidence of the problem that you have failed to seriously consider.

I have been promised Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.  Not socialized health care.  I appreciate that I can, as a result of my own effort, get better than adequate health care.  I don't think that it is a citizen's responsibility to provide health insurance for their neighbors.  Just like I think it is an unfair burden on tax payers when a couple squeezes out a dozen kids and then burdens the public schools with them.  You referenced octomom a while ago, and yes, that is a burden on the California economy, and guess what, that state is going broke!

I also think illegals are a burden on the health care system in our border states, and I do not think it is my responsibility to care for them either.

Ethically, you are correct,we probably should provide for the less fortunate, and we do through social programs and state funded programs that are going bankrupt left and right.

If a single payer system provided for and guaranteed the level of care and access to doctors and advanced medical equipment and the discounted rate you speak of, I would probably be all for it except that I know there is a trade off somewhere.

I have also read in this thread that Canadians enjoy cheaper drug prices which is true.  The US allows the drug companies to charge more (via patents) to recover R & D costs for the first three years.  When you consider that Canada and other countries do not pay towards R & D costs one could make the argument that Canada is a "free-rider" on the US.

And last but not least, you made no response to the Fraser report where it discussed disparities on access to health care by lower-income families in Canada.  Nor have your really responded to fair and accurate criticism of the problem of the commons as evidenced by longer wait times and aging equipment.

[_Adam_]

No, I responded simply that the US spends a larger percentage of its GDP (15% vs 11%) and rather than dealing with MRI waiting times, we fail to cover everyone. Do you really think MRI acces is a more pressing need than access to good health care?
Its great to be able to get an MRI quickly, but first you have to get a doctor to treat you in the first place.

It matters if you are suspect to cancer or any other fast moving problems like spine inflammation.

If you can't afford to actually see a doctor, you aren't ever going to have the luxury of worrying about whether you get an MRI or not.

If you need to see a doctor and seriously can't afford it, we have programs that will cover you.  My little brother had a $300k back surgery compliments of the citizens of the State of California.  Our system seems to work, that is unless you view a lack of health insurance as a lack of medical care.

[Hoopty]

Hoopty,

That's a common tactic used by liberals. When confronted with irrefutable logic and an indefensible position they resort to ad-hominem personal attacks. Notice that he didn't address the content of the post.

Duck,

You crack me up... I guess that if you address the content of the post while attacking the person, then that's ok?

I've only had to ever ban one member and that was for continuous use of 'ad-hominem' arguments.  And as far as I can tell, that member isn't a "liberal".