Socialized Medicine From One That Has Experienced It

Hoover  1 Jun, 2008  General

24 Comments so far »

1. MM said

   June 1 2008 @ 10:36 pm

   wow
   i really hope you’re joking
   so according to u only the rich should be able to be treated for cancer, heart disease, etc…
   as for the working poor who live day-to-day on their meager salaries, too bad huh?
   im a canadian, & all i can is thank God there is socialized medicine, i incidentally have a eye surgery in 2 months & without socialized med. i would NEVER be able to pay for it, & according to u healthcare is for the rich only, so i would affectively lose my sight just cause im not worthy of it since im poor. i mean, seriously, wtf is the matter with u?

2. jimbo said

   June 1 2008 @ 10:50 pm

   Our shitty school health insurance has exposed me to the variety of inefficiencies associated with government (public school)-run care vs. privately-run care. Anyone else have experience with this in the U.S.? The quality is so poor and SLOW; makes me feel bad for our patients.

3. Gabe said

   June 1 2008 @ 11:48 pm

   MM: What gives you the right to demand that others provide for your needs? When exactly did healthcare become a right? What was the triggering point? It wasn’t always the case. Surely there was some magical turning point when it all the sudden became acceptable to demand the product of somebody else’s labor. I don’t understand this entitlement mentality. Socialized medicine is government enforced robbery. It’s stealing from the “rich” to give to the “poor.” When did that become okay. If Robin Hood showed up at my door, I would shoot him in the face.

4. ReZ said

   June 2 2008 @ 10:19 am

   Well I do not agree with your opinion that healthcare is a privilige and not a right. If a country cannot provide healthcare to its citizen, what can it provide? I think this is a basic necessity of life and hence it does become the right of everyone to receive adequate healthcare. However the methods by which this can be dispensed are debatable. Socialized medicine has its faults but so does the private system in the USA. The story you mentioned above could be true, there might be many cases but you cannot base your opinion on one case alone. I am sure there are many people who are disgruntled with the american system as well…let me guess…the 50 million who arent insured because they cannot afford it. No system is perfect but overall i would prefer a system which provides care to all regardless of their monetary status rather than one which is selective i.e. best care only for the rich.

5. bronx43 said

   June 2 2008 @ 10:32 am

   Rez, 4 out of 5 uninsured Americans are employed and can actually afford health insurance. Employers are less and less likely to offer employer-based health insurance, and individuals who are willing to accept the risk of not having insurance would simply forgo it. You are right that no system is perfect, but that doesn’t mean that all available options are equal. The Massachusetts health plan is one step towards the improvement of American healthcare, as it mandates employers to provide healthcare for their employees. The remaining, small population who actually cannot afford insurance would receive benefit from a variety of government-based programs.

6. Beach Bum said

   June 2 2008 @ 12:57 pm

   It’s a bit of a tired debate. First of all, Canada does NOT have socialized medicine. They have universal, government run, health insurance. Doctors are self-employed (and self-regulated), and hospitals, for the most part, are not government run or owned. This may be a small distinction, but I think it’s an important one.

   True socialized medicine has doctors as employees of the state, and every hospital and clinic, government owned. The Canadian system does not come even close to this situation. While there are inefficiencies in Canada’s health care system, they pale compared to those in truly socialized systems.

   Second, the people who think that Canada’s health system is “the best thing since sliced bread” obviously haven’t lived or worked in health care in Canada. The Canadian system is full of inefficiencies, problems, and delays. That being said, IMO there are some positive aspects to the system in Canada. That doesn’t make it the best system in the world, and there is clearly room for improvement.

   A health care system can not be removed from the cultural climate in which it exists. I would suspect that a Canadian system wouldn’t work in the US because American society is much more individualistic than Canadian society. The founding principle of Canadian society is “peace, order, and good government,” where the US started with the premise, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Canadian society embraces the idea that the community should care for the less fortunate and are proud of that fact.

   Frankly, it is insulting when Americans make comments about the way Canadians have chosen to structure their health care system; you appear to think that the vast majority of Canadians who value their health care are morons. It would be one thing for you to point out the differences in cultural climates between the two nations and suggest that what works in Canada wouldn’t in the US, it’s another thing entirely to make the sorts of remarks that you have made. Try for a bit of cultural sensitivity!

   There is an often quoted description of customer service: “You have three options: high quality, cheap, and fast. You can only have two at a time.”

   To oversimplify the debate, the US has chosen high qaulity and fast, Canada, high quality and cheap. There is no way to have a health care system that delivers all three without breaking the bank. Cultural values determines, for the most part, which choices a government will make.

   There is a lot of bandwidth used up railing at drug seekers and people who abuse the system. Now, Canada has its share of individuals who abuse the system. And it’s a problem that needs to be adressed. But most Canadians would rather risk abuse of the system by a few, so that the majority of citizens have access to health care. We look at the US and find it somewhat incomprehensible that the wealthiest nation on the planet, that spends the most money on health care, has large portions of its population with limited or no access to it.

   I find it an interesting cultural study, but if you’re going to engage the discussion, at least know a little bit about what you’re talking about.

7. MM said

   June 2 2008 @ 1:41 pm

   Gabe:
   couldn’t the same argument be applied to roads, highways, esl classes, police, firefighting, etc..
   i’ve never driven on the 407 in ontario, nor on route 66, why should my tax dollars go towards providing the upkeep for those. i’ve never taken esl either, why should i care about immigrants language skills, i’ve never had a fire so why should i pay to have fire hydrants installed on the street as well as their salaries.
   & like the poster above me said i would prefer that the system be abused by a few morans & everybody have access to healthcare, rather then whats going on in the US with MILLIONS not having access to healthcare,
   & i have lived in the US (in nyc) so im not completely ignorant to the workings of med insurance in the US.

8. MM said

   June 2 2008 @ 1:43 pm

   * oh & one more thing i apologize if my 1st comment seemed a bit rude, im taking summer courses & am slightly stressed out by the fact i have 2 tests fast approaching.
   anyways, cheers!

9. Shining Hector said

   June 2 2008 @ 3:26 pm

   “MM said:

   wow
   i really hope you’re joking
   so according to u only the rich should be able to be treated for cancer, heart disease, etc…
   as for the working poor who live day-to-day on their meager salaries, too bad huh?
   im a canadian, & all i can is thank God there is socialized medicine, i incidentally have a eye surgery in 2 months & without socialized med. i would NEVER be able to pay for it, & according to u healthcare is for the rich only, so i would affectively lose my sight just cause im not worthy of it since im poor. i mean, seriously, wtf is the matter with u?”

   So basically, your sight is worth nothing to you, but as long as someone else is paying for it, great? The fact that you’re sitting here arguing on the Internet would seem to point that you’re not leading a Dickensian existence spending every waking moment in a constant struggle to survive, and falling just a little bit further behind every single day. If you had to, you couldn’t go without, say, Internet access to save your sight? Or take the time you’re using to type away to work just a little longer like your surgeon did for years straight to get where he was? Hustle up a surgeon willing to take you as a charity case (they do exist here, you know) and offer to try and do your part to help defray the hospital expenses? There are really precious few “NEVER”’s in this world, but there’s no shortage of those happy to quit before they even try and then complain a lot.

   Oh, and bonus points for later railing against Hoover’s lack of cultural sensitivity while at the same asking, “i mean, seriously, wtf is the matter with u?” for espousing some his own beliefs.

10. bronx43 said

    June 2 2008 @ 4:56 pm

    Beach Bum,
    In Hoover’s defense, I don’t think he necessarily made his remarks with the undertone that the Canadian system is inherently worse or that anyone who supports it is a moron. Instead, he’s responding to individuals with the grass-is-greener-on-the-other-side mentality, who constantly rip on the American healthcare system, while putting the Canadian system on a pedestal. As you said, no system is perfect, and Americans who are adamant in their push for socialized (or pseudo-socialized) medicine need to realize this.

11. anarchron said

    June 3 2008 @ 11:03 am

    You guys should check out our healthcare system in Australia. Sure it’s not perfect, but at least there’s the choice of socialised/universal healthcare for those who can’t afford it. On the other hand, if you do have personal healthcare insurance, you won’t get shafted waiting for elective procedures.

    I’m not too sure what the Canadian system’s like, but at least it’s better than the British NHS. It’s the best of both worlds.

12. Sabathius_44 said

    June 3 2008 @ 12:07 pm

    IMO : - Health care is a right, getting fast efficient health care is a priveledge that money can buy.
    - However, treating doctors/the health care system however you please because it is a right … is not a right.

    I live in Canada and love the health care system. Though I fully back the idea of a two tier system so that you can pay more to get faster care for your family if you are willing to pay for the extra insurance (well worth it imo.)

13. MM said

    June 3 2008 @ 7:52 pm

    Shining Hector:
    So basically, your sight is worth nothing to you, but as long as someone else is paying for it, great? The fact that you’re sitting here arguing on the Internet would seem to point that you’re not leading a Dickensian existence spending every waking moment in a constant struggle to survive, and falling just a little bit further behind every single day. If you had to, you couldn’t go without, say, Internet access to save your sight? Or take the time you’re using to type away to work just a little longer like your surgeon did for years straight to get where he was? Hustle up a surgeon willing to take you as a charity case (they do exist here, you know) and offer to try and do your part to help defray the hospital expenses? There are really precious few “NEVER”’s in this world, but there’s no shortage of those happy to quit before they even try and then complain a lot.

    Oh, and bonus points for later railing against Hoover’s lack of cultural sensitivity while at the same asking, “i mean, seriously, wtf is the matter with u?” for espousing some his own beliefs.
    ——————————-
    well, obviously my sight is not too forgone & as u said i am on the internet (though how do u kno if im at the library (another public resource & responsibiliy) or at home paying for my own internet?), i just have a condition which has a pretty high potential of getting worse if not treated soon.
    & as for me not paying for my health fees, obviously i do through my own taxes, which in turn help to pay for someone elses chemo, hiv meds, insulin, operations, etc… & that is something im fine with, as long as when the time comes & i need some help with my health other ppl’s taxes help to pay for them, so basically by say 100 ppl paying 50 bucks a year in taxes for medicine=5000 bucks, so that if a portion of the population needs a 500$ operation so that everybody helps to pay for it & it wont destroy anyone financially if they do become sick
    & i also agree with Sabathius_44, that would make sense & at the same time not shut out those less fortunate & would definitely speed things up a bit

14. bronx43 said

    June 3 2008 @ 9:34 pm

    MM, whether or not your taxes go to another’s healthcare is not the point at hand. In a socialized system, it still comes down to the wealthy paying for the poor. The amount that you contribute to the public healthcare funds is small compared to contributions by someone in a better financial situation. So, whereas, you’re receiving healthcare in excess of what you pay for, the wealthier individual receives healthcare in deficit of what he/she pays for. Therefore, ultimately, someone else is still paying for your healthcare in a nationalized system.

15. wackyvorlon said

    June 4 2008 @ 12:29 am

    Of course, I must remind that the plural of anecdote is not data. My own experiences have been very different. I live in Canada, and have had very good success. No, the canadian system is *not* a shining example of success. There has been a lot of mismanagement, and it needs improvement. That being said, I vastly prefer our system over the american one. Private healthcare is great as long as you can afford it. Once the bank account and the insurance run dry, you’re in a bad spot.

16. Bob said

    June 4 2008 @ 1:00 pm

    “health care is a privilege and not a right”

    Damn straight. How many times must socialism fail for people to understand it is not just the implementation of forced equity that goes bad, it is the rotten foundation upon which socialist institutions are built: that everyone is entitled to an equal slice of the pie. That idealistic foolishness should have been recognized and rejected long ago.

17. Shining Hector said

    June 4 2008 @ 10:15 pm

    MM said:
    “& as for me not paying for my health fees, obviously i do through my own taxes, which in turn help to pay for someone elses chemo, hiv meds, insulin, operations, etc… & that is something im fine with, as long as when the time comes & i need some help with my health other ppl’s taxes help to pay for them, so basically by say 100 ppl paying 50 bucks a year in taxes for medicine=5000 bucks, so that if a portion of the population needs a 500$ operation so that everybody helps to pay for it & it wont destroy anyone financially if they do become sick”

    What an interesting idea. You get a bunch of people who chip in to a fund, and in the unlikely event that something goes horribly wrong to one of them so that they need an expensive procedure, the fund pays for it. What should we call that? Oh, I have an idea. Insurance. Sounds catchy, huh?

    You know, that’s a great idea, and I’m thinking it just might work and even be reasonably priced so long as it’s only expected fulfill its designated purpose and pay for extraordinary expenses like cancer and eye surgeries that could bankrupt a normal person, and not say regular out of pocket expenses like vaccinations and doctor visits and generic drugs. You don’t buy car insurance to pay for oil changes and gasoline, after all.

18. Sarah C. said

    June 18 2008 @ 9:43 pm

    Thank you for posting this! America needs more health professionals to take an informed stand and we certainly can’t count on the AMA or AMSA for that!

19. psychsocialist said

    June 30 2008 @ 5:24 pm

    This guy is full of shit. Look at WHO and other independent reports–they all say in essence that the U.S. health care system has some of the worst outcome statistics in the developed world, while being the most expensive. You can always find some disgruntled shill to tell you how bad the Canadian or other socialized health care systems are–those are called anecdotes, and they’re not the same as real evidence. I went to med school in Canada and I’m now a resident in the U.S., and I can tell you: The U.S. system sucks.

20. psychsocialist said

    June 30 2008 @ 5:25 pm

    Oops, meant to say you can always find a disgruntled shill to say that socialized systems are inferior.

21. med student said

    October 19 2008 @ 3:24 am

    Health care is a right not a privilege. To be able to be treated when inured is the most basic of human nobilities.

    What the fuck is wrong with you?

22. Premed said

    November 7 2008 @ 12:36 pm

    Is health care a right or a privilege? This moral argument for socialized medicine is by far the strongest and most difficult to rebut. But here goes. There is a moral obligation for people to help others in need. Peter Singer in his the New Internationalist (1997) gave an example of the “Drowning Child and the Expanding Circle,” in which one should pretend that he/she is walking a job interview per se. You are dressed in your best suit and this interview could land you a great new job. On the way, you take a shortcut through a park with a pond in the middle. There alone is a small child playing next to the water’s edge; you watch the child slip and fall into the water. The child appears to be drowning. There is no one around but you. What do you do? Few, if any, would do nothing, and Singer would say this is due to an inherent moral obligation to save the life of the child, regardless of any losses incurred. Contrarily, I believe there is an inherent altruism in many people, which in this scenario would invoke an instinctive response to save the child. This distinction between altruism and morality is crucial in the argument between socialized medicine and private. Now pretend that you are at the edge of the park and there is a fence between you and the child, who is now 100 yards away. Does your “moral” obligation change? Many would again say no, Singer goes on to ask “would it make any difference if the child were far away, in another country perhaps, but similarly in danger of death, and equally within your means to save, at no great cost – and absolutely no danger – to yourself?” Now here is the problem with the scenario, the above question is impossible and unrealistic and therefore impractical. So in a more applicable case, what if you are at home watching the news and see that there has been a 12 car pile up on a nearby interstate(say 30 minute car ride or hour walk). Would you go and help? I can guarantee a fraction of those who would save the child would step out of their homes, hop in their car, and speed off. But why? Inconvenience, preoccupation, laziness, impracticality…But here is what is important. Are those people morally wrong for not immediately jumping out of their seat and heading out the door? Here is another scenario. Imagine there is a homeless shelter down the road giving away free meals to hobos. You saw a flier on the way home but do not even contemplate going to help or donating money. Again have you committed a moral fault? I do not believe in either case one has offended ANY moral code. But why not? Because people do not have a innate moral obligation to assist any and all in need, regardless of their ability to do so. In other words, whether you are wealthy, poor, young, old, smart, or stupid; morality does not dictate that anyone has a right to HELP from others. To this one might say,”Well, what about the right to life?” The right to life is highly ambiguous. Besides the enigmatic beliefs of liberals that a convicted criminal has more of a right to life than an unborn innocent child, there must be some clarification of the right to life. As stated in Article 6.1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: “Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.” One could say that by depriving people of health care, the private system of the US is depriving them of their right to life. But that does not occur in the US. No one is denied a right to actively acquire insurance, health care, or primary care. Their own personal/financial ability to do so determines the accessibility of the system. Therefore, if the blame does not fall on other individuals of a society or the system itself, the responsibility rests on the individual to procure the means to sustain his or her life. The current problems with private health care are not the exclusion of the minority but the overall cost of health care. I want to make it clear that I do not personally believe we should just willingly let other people die. However, I do firmly believe that it is not my moral obligation nor the government’s right to force me to do so. Therefore the answer for the uninsured is the attack on high health care price and the altruism of others combined with the active attempt of the uninsured to acquire health insurance. So in summary, there is no moral offense committed by not actively paying for or directly delivering health care or any other care to an individual in need. The absence of action does not conclude the perpetration of a crime. Therefore private medicine is not an immoral system and most importantly Health care is not a right.

23. Yannick said

    November 10 2008 @ 2:51 pm

    Screw the poor, if they were worthy of life than they wouldn’t be poor. Survival of the most fit to survive, if your not than to hell with you, your a drag on the rest of us.

24. Premed said

    November 20 2008 @ 8:48 pm

    And if you had any intelligence whatsoever you would realize that is, in no way, what I am saying. Moron.

Comment RSS · TrackBack URI

Leave a comment