We demand UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE from the government, NOW!

United States
July 26, 2007 9:16pm CST
As has been said, "Be careful what you wish for, you may get it." Here's an article by a Canadian doctor who discovered he had a lot to learn about health care after he got out of medical school. His education did not include that part about ER's that stank of urine and sweat or patients having to wait far too long for critical treatments. All this and worse comes with government run health care. That's what this brave doctor discovered when he seriously started to study health care systems. This is why he is speaking out. Read what he has to say here. http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=270338135202343 To sum if up in a way most Americans can understand, consider this. "The VA, Veterns Association medical care system, is exactly what you get when the government runs health care." No, the VA is not substandard when compared to other government run health care systems. It is typical. It is the kind of medical care all Americans will get when the government takes over the health industry. So, what do you think? Do you favor private medical care or government run health care? Please, explain your answer.
3 people like this
7 responses
@Lindalinda (4112)
• Canada
27 Jul 07
As a Canadian I will be forever grateful for universal health care. I read the article and noticed in part he talks about a situation in 1997. Our health care i far from perfect but no one is denied medical attention. Apart from ER's we have many walk-in clinics where you can get immediate attention. It is true that in Ontario many people don't have a family doctor but that does not preclude medical care from a clinic. Yes it is true that sometimes people have to wait a long time for a knee replacement or other non life threatening operation but they could not afford to have the preocdure done if they had to pay privately or pay private health insurance. Allowing doctors to set up private clinics would creatre a two tier system, one for the rich or well off, one for the poor. Just reading some of the posts on Mylot from people in the US who cannot afford insurance or have to rely on their HMO's boggles my mind. It is so sad that the richest country in the world leaves millions of people out in the cold as far as health insurance and medical care is concerned is sad. I have had many discussions with American friends who have good jobs and pay lots of premiums. They assure me that no American is ever denied medical help if he/she cannot pay. But how far and where do they have to go? There is a controversial film called Sicko dealing with the Amerrican health care system. It is made by Michael Moore. Maybe his facts are not always correct but it reveals some shocking situations. If you have a chance go see it.
• United States
27 Jul 07
"Maybe his facts are not always correct but it reveals some shocking situations." If he can't keep his facts straight I will not pay him any attention whatsoever. The "shocking situations" are what is most likely to be an untruth. "Allowing doctors to set up private clinics would creatre a two tier system, one for the rich or well off, one for the poor. " Suppose a private system intially was for the rich primarily? So what? Why do you want to deny the rich the benefits of their money? Don't tell me it would be more fair. More fair in a supposedly free country means being able to spend your money as you see fit as long as it is not to harm people. Besides that, a private system would expand to include people who were less and less "rich" as time passes. Competition is always a good thing. A private system in competition with a public system would improve both. This is basic behavioral science.
2 people like this
• Canada
27 Jul 07
The rich always do with their money whatever they want to do with it. I know Canadians go across the border and pay $ 25000 to $30000 and have procedures done because they don't accept the wait time. I have no objection to this. Canadian doctors are subsidized during their training by the Government. They know the situation with health care before they become doctors. If they are not satified with the money they bill the provincial health department they can always requalify in the US and move there. Some do, some stay some come back because they don't like your system. The point I am trying to make is that the richest country in the world has no adequate safety net for all its citizens as far as health care is concerned. Most European countries who are much poorer have this. According to this organization 43 Million people in the US have no health insurance. http://www.cbpp.org/9-30-03health.htm and this is a post from 2003. I know this is an anecdotal story but I would like to share it with you anyway. One of my friends broke her hand in Texas last year. She went to an ER in Austin. Her credit card was immediately charged with $ 500, even though she had taken out extra insurance for the US. She was told she had to go after the insurance company herself. What if her credit card would have been maxed out? I broke my shoulder last year. I went to a very busy ER in downtown Toronto. Did I have to wait? yes I waited two hours. Did it stink of urine and was it filthy? No. Busy? yes extremely busy. I got fixed up and was referred to the fracture clinic for follow up for the next three months. Because of my age the doctor there suggested I see my family physician to get a bone density test. I told him I did not have one. No problem, the fracture clinic would do the test. How much did all this cost me? $3.70 return fare on the subway for each visit. There are complaints about our system but for the most part there is gratitude.
1 person likes this
• United States
27 Jul 07
"The point I am trying to make is that the richest country in the world has no adequate safety net for all its citizens as far as health care is concerned." This is a falsehood. It is against the law in the USA for an ER to refuse treatment to anyone. Illegal aliens without insurance get treated at a local hospitial and don't pay a cent. It is a severe problem as the hospital has to make up for this by charging more to others. Some hospitals in high illegal immigrant areas have even closed because of the legal requirement that they can not refuse treatment.
2 people like this
• United States
5 Feb 08
no offense redyellowblackdog but I have been a nurse for almost 21 years and ER's, nursing homes, and even some intensive cares already stink of urine, sweat, and patients having to wait far too long for care, and we most definately do not have government controlled health care nor have we for the past 21 years. Health care has gone straight down the tubes in the years I have been a nurse. Just another point one of the reason the VA hospitals stink so bad is because they refuse to pay their employees a decent wage, that is just for starters, but they dont get paid much less than any other health care organization. The biggest mistake this country ever made was when health care went to for profit status. Now they are all greedy, money hungry, how can we pinch a dollar to make the biggest profit, load of crap. They are not in health care anymore because they care about people or want to help people, they are in health care to become a millionaire plain and simple. Never mind the oath that every single doctor must take, please might just as well spit on it, it means nothing anymore.
1 person likes this
• United States
5 Feb 08
No offense taken. You are in a position to know what you are talking about. That's what I like to see in my discussions. As to the public vs private issue, this is what I said earlier. Without competition anything deteroiates. The ideal system would have both private and public facilities. The competition as the public choses which they prefer would raise the level of care in both systems. I simply predict the private sector will always beat the government system unless the government passes laws restricting the private. If both kinds of systems exist, everyone benefits. I mean the above sincerely. I know how to evaluate complex interactive human systems. Competition is the way to overcome as much as possible the inherent flaws in both the public and private methods of health care. BOTH systems do have huge flaws as to maintaining high quality. Where they complement each other and patients are free to choose, both systems do better.
• United States
5 Feb 08
I agree competition is a good thing, there really isnt any at this point. Not sure that would work so well either, all ambulances are told to take patient to the nearest hospital not the hospital of choice of the patient. Having patients drive themselves to a hospital in a emergency situation I would not say is a very wise move. I have said this before in previous months, I think everyone should have medicaid or whatever you wanted to call it, and they pay what they can afford, based on income and family size. Everyone has the same coverage, no one is refused for care that is proven to be needed, not wasteful just because the patient wants it. That kind of stuff would be extra care and would be elective and paid out of your own pocket, like a new nose job or liposuction or a boob job. Everyone deserves excellent standards of care, not just the ones with good insurance, and should be affordable to their income, though no one gets it for free. Hospitals and doctors would be paid flat fees that are reasonable and fair not price gouging the consumer. As for the insurance companies themselves, I have absolutely no respect for them at all.
@shestalou (293)
• Canada
28 Jul 07
I lived in the states and canada and I have to say I hated the medical care I recieved in the states, I had insurance but the doctor wouldnt even see me because of I had a non life threating medical problem, I had to see his nurse. I was treated badly by them, when I came back to Canada my doctor treated me right away and was treated with respect. I am sorry but I abhor the American medical system and very happy with the Canadian system.
1 person likes this
• United States
28 Jul 07
Your example points out why both private and public health care should coexist. If there is competition both kinds will get better.
1 person likes this
@Zmugzy (773)
27 Jul 07
Of course "some" private health care will be superior to tax financed health care because it can charge more to the select few who few can afford to use it. There may be, for example, some extremely wealthy people living in barbaric and oppressive lands such as Saudi Arabia. They can afford to fly around the world looking for a nice hospital to stay in. I'm sure most of Bin Laden's extended family can afford to do this. The vast majority of Saudi Arabians cannot afford to do this of course....... ......Regarding health care in the UK, from my own experience the difference in quality between private and government really is about the same and there are plenty of cases where going private has proved to be worse. The main advantage why people go private over here is to avoid waiting lists. But as I said earlier, a government financed system will always be a massive challenge and can never be perfect. However, it will always be a fairer system that tries to provide for all citizens rather than a select few...... .....It's also important to note that the government doesn't actually "run" the "Health Service" (as we call it), it is run by hospital managers, doctors and nurses who work in consultation with each other.....
1 person likes this
• United States
27 Jul 07
Those hospital managers, doctors, and nurses work for the government and are a part of the government. The government does run the "Health Service". You are rationalizing. I should make clear that I do not object to a government run health service being in existence. What I vehmentally object to is the government putting restrictions on the existence of private health care. This actually is what the advocates of government run health care want to happen in the USA. This will destroy the quality of health care in the USA if it happens. Without competition anything deteroiates. The ideal system would have both private and public facilities. The competition as the public choses which they prefer would raise the level of care in both systems. I simply predict the private sector will always beat the government system unless the government passes laws restricting the private. If both kinds of systems exist, everyone benefits and it does not matter who is right, you or me.
2 people like this
@Zmugzy (773)
27 Jul 07
The government run health care system in the UK, where I live, is not perfect but it is still one of the best health care systems in the world that provides free excellent service to all at point of use. The government run health care system in Cuba is by far the most superior health care system in Latin America.
1 person likes this
• United States
27 Jul 07
The free health care system in the UK from reports I have seen is that it is at best adequate. This is demonstrated by the fact that people like the Saudis have built private hospitals in your country for when their countrymen are in the UK. That privately run health care systems are better is why Saudis regularily travel to the Mayo clinic in the USA. My sister sees them when she goes there. What I am pointing out is that in the government run UK system, the Saudis and others have developed an alternative. In the US run private system, Saudis actually travel to the US just for the superior health care. There is a lesson to be learned here. You could have an excellant health care system as opposed to what you have. However, the choice is yours to make. I believe the Cuban system is way over hyped. The communists hardly ever tell the truth about anything. I actually did a study of communist propaganda when I was younger. The extent to which they resort to lies is appalling. There is no reason to believe anything the Cubans, or Michael Moore, have to say about anything, much less their health care. Too many people still risk their lives to flee Cuba for me to believe for a minute that their government runs anything well. In the USA the biggest problem with proposals for universal health care have been the attempts to ban private health care at the same time government health care is implamented. An analysis of that situation reveals the likely cause of this is the knowledge that if people have a choice, they will choose the privately run system.
2 people like this
@RealIolo (1854)
• United States
27 Jul 07
If you are poorer then dirt; not real smart, dropped out of school before you graduated HS, can't get a good job with health care benefits then government run health care would be a boon. Because some health care is better then no health care. If you have money then this might not be such a great idea. But then if you have serious money you can still go anywhere you want to get the kind of health care you seek. Overall I am undecided on this issue. It is probably better the way it is then to be government operated. Problem is that depending on the condition, some people can't afford the treatment they need even with a decent job and insurance. I do think the pharmaceutical industry needs to change their approach to meeting the needs of the populous. Right now they seem to spend a lot developing enhancement products which benefit a few when they should be concentrating on making other meds that keep people alive at a cost those people can afford.
@bonbon664 (3470)
• Canada
27 Jul 07
As part of the fast shrinking middle class, I'm very glad that I live in Canada. I frankly couldn't afford to pay the insurance for health care. The system is far from perfect, but, if I get sick, I will get care. I had a routine mammogram the other day, and waited 6 weeks, that's with no symptoms, and no rush, I thought that was pretty good. I have admittedly waited in emergency rooms for over 8 hours to be treated, but, I understand that they are going to take the most critical cases first. It's far from free that's for sure, we pay loads of taxes. I think I prefer that though, go getting second rate health care because I can't afford the "good" doctors.