23 / February
23 / February
If Canadian Health Care Is So Great, Why Do Their Politicians Get Treatment in the U.S.?

When doctors told Danny Williams, the premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, that he had an urgent heart problem, he made an appointment in that renowned medical Mecca of the Great White North: Miami, Florida. "This was my heart, my choice and my health," a defensive Williams explained. "I did not sign away my right to get the best possible health care for myself when I entered politics." I don't begrudge Williams for getting the best possible health care for himself. I begrudge him for denying his fellow countrymen the best possible health care by embracing socialized medicine. If America moves toward Canada, where will Canadians move to when they need the very best medical treatment?

posted at 12:04 PM
Comments

Currently, Canadians come in droves over the border to places like Burlington Vermont for immediate treatment of illnesses that they would have to wait months and sometimes years to have addressed in their home country. Blame Canada. Anyway, much like our American Royalty, the pols who screwed up Canadian health care are not subject to the same waiting and the same sub-par services. And they have the option to go anywhere in the world on the taxpayer's dime for care as needed.

Posted by: asdf on February 23, 2010 12:43 PM

This is an anecdotal piece of evidence which proves nothing, and which I have addressed before (you failed to offer a rebuttal). Do you understand what the terms empirical, anecdotal, induction, deduction, and demonstrable mean? The fact that a prominent Canadian politician seeks treatment at one of the world's best hospitals proves nothing about the entirety of a health care system or how care should be provided to all human beings.

I previously condensed the argument to this: because wealthy patient x visits for-profit doctor y does not mean that the American Illness Treatment Industry is superior to a universal single-payer health care system in another country. One has to look at a variety of metrics and contexts before one can make sweeping generalizations about any particular system. To use a single example would be fallacious argumentation and a red herring.

Do you know anything about formal logic, political philosophy, ethics, or critical thinking?

Posted by: PMA on February 23, 2010 02:28 PM

I'm not sure why I'm continuing to address these ignorant, childish, and idiotic sentence propositions, but I'll bite.

If America moves toward Canada, where will Canadians move to when they need the very best medical treatment?

That sentence should read: If America develops a universal single-payer health care system, where will privileged, wealthy Canadians pay for top-tier medical treatment?

Average Canadians and average Americans do not receive world-class health care at Mount Sinai.

Posted by: PMA on February 23, 2010 02:35 PM

By average I mean middle income.

Posted by: PMA on February 23, 2010 02:35 PM

"The fact that a prominent Canadian politician seeks treatment at one of the world's best hospitals"

One of the world's best hospitals exists in the country where there is no nationalized healthcare system. Do you think this is coincidence?

PMA, you miss one of the most important dynamics here - wherever a socialized, 'universal', government health care system is in place, not only is service rationed, generally sub par and ultimately more expensive, but the innovation in that industry dries up as, in any socialist system, professional initiative is stifled.

Say what you want about the industrial medical complex, but the advances and innovations inspired under the free market economy and capitalism do not happen under any other systems.

Posted by: asdf on February 23, 2010 03:40 PM

You had me at metrics.

Posted by: Homer J. Fong on February 23, 2010 03:42 PM

Right PMA, a leading politician in country of over 30 million people can't find a doctor that he feels comfortable with in his own country and that says absolutly nothing about the superiority of one system over another.

Posted by: PMA on February 23, 2010 04:11 PM

Here's a different anecdote.

If America's health care system is so great why do Americans go to Canada for care and to buy drugs?

Posted by: obi juan on February 23, 2010 07:28 PM

asdf wrote,

One of the world's best hospitals exists in the country where there is no nationalized healthcare system. Do you think this is coincidence?

No, this is because America is the wealthiest nation on the face of the earth. It is, however, largely irrelevant to the provision of health care to every human being. I'm not sure you or Dan understand what the word anecdotal and the term inductive reasoning means.

advances and innovations inspired under the free market economy and capitalism do not happen under any other systems.

This is absolutely 100% incorrect. Do you know what the ARPANET was? It was a product of public enterprise, not the free market. The same goes for countless technological breakthroughs; the costs of development are socialized, then big government intellectual property law and patent protection enters the picture and the rewards are privatized through big government theft. This is why the patent system and corporations ARE big government, they are protected by big government intervention and receive welfare and special treatment by big government, and conservatives love it. Conservatives are the fathers and protectors of upward wealth redistribution in the form of direct subsidy AND "tax cuts" for welfare cases (e.g. banks, the American Illness Treatment Industry, the military industrial complex, the drug war cartel, the prison cartel).

Posted by: PMA on February 24, 2010 01:50 AM

PMA, you once used Walter Reed as an example of medical care gone horribly wrong and a reason for the need for a bigger more intrusive government controlled system. Excuse me?? It is a perfect example of what happens with a government run system!

I wrote: "In fact, at the beginning of his term, President Government Controlled Healthcare proposed throwing Veterans out from under the wing of government care and into private insurance companies. That tells you a couple or three things about what the O really thinks and continues to display who we know he is.

The proposal would have authorized the Department of Veterans Affairs to charge private companies for treating injuries and other medical conditions related to military service, such as amputations, post-traumatic stress disorder and other battle wounds. The measure was intended to save the VA about $530 million a year, but the administration's pursuit of third-party billing sparked resistance from leaders of powerful veterans groups, who met earlier this week with Obama.

So, private healthcare would have saved the government $530 million a year. Hmmmmmm."

And for those who need anecdotes, here are some for your consumption along with other information about how sub standard the Canadian healthcare system is -

http://www.christiantelegraph.com/issue6368.html

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/man-dies-winnipeg-emergency-room-after-waiting-34-hours

http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/HL702.cfm

It should not surprise anybody that when life and death are in the balance in Canada, Canadians who can do so do not wait for government care and instead opt to come to a country that offers the most expeditious and overall the best medical care on the planet.

Posted by: asdf on February 24, 2010 09:52 AM

"I'm not sure you or Dan understand what the word anecdotal and the term inductive reasoning means".

WTF, dude. Would you talk this way in-person?

Posted by: Homer J. Fong on February 24, 2010 11:29 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?