I'll go eat some cereal while you read.
Health-care ruling called 'stinging indictment'
CBC News
Some of the country's largest medical groups call Thursday's Supreme Court of Canada ruling allowing private health insurance in Quebec a "historic" decision, but Prime Minister Paul Martin is downplaying its significance.
In a 4-3 decision, the country's top court said Quebec patients should be allowed to buy insurance to cover medical treatments already provided by medicare, citing the physical and psychological suffering caused by long waits for services in the publicly funded system. more...
It's amazing that it took seven years for the court to hear this case. How many people have died because of inadequate health care during that time? So many in this country continue to pine for a socialist based health care plan. Starting with classic democrats, and recently a new wave of Christian thinking that focuses on social responsibility. Maybe this ruling from the Supreme Court will dissuade some of those thoughts, but I doubt anyone will pay much attention.
22 comments:
I haven't educated myself much on this topic, and don't plan to, so maybe I should just keep my mouth shut because I very well could be wrong...but, I wont....I think...sure, for people like you and I who have health care (insurance) obviously this system is better (go us!) but for people who don't have health care...some is better then none, even if you have to wait longer for it. Poor Mom was discharged from the Hospital because she had no insurance and the pain medicince she was receiving in the hospital was so strong the doctor couldn't give it to her outside the hospital. So she had to recover at home in SEVERE pain because she had no insurance. Not to mention what a scam it all is. If I didn't have insurance I would have had to pay something crazy like 24,000 for having Malachy via c-section and staying in the hospital. However, because my insurance is "in net-work" my insurance company gets a 19,000 discount and only has to pay 4,000...I pay 1,000. That's a crazy system if you ask me! I don't think either system is perfect. There must be something we can do!
I think you are exagerating the significance of this ruling, but even more disturbing is this sentence "a new wave of chistian thinking that focuses on social responsibility."
Now it's my turn to get some ice cream while you read this;
"Religion that God our Father excepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."
Okay, I'm back. Three guesses where that quote comes from...James 1:27
Christianity isn't some elaborate self-help program - it's meant to change the world and if you want to call loving your neighbor "social responsibility" and pretend that it is some new fangled left-wing idea that you can opt out on, that is between you and your maker, but don't start scoffing at Christians who actually give sacrificially of their time, money, and talents to help other people.
ps As someone who actually requires medical aid and can't afford it I thought your statements were ignorant and insensitive. Stick to stuff you know about.
Well this post was more about how Canada's system sucks, not how ours is great. I've got to go to work, but I'll address some of your other issues tonite.
Kim, maybe you can tell me exactly which comments I made were "ignorant and insensitive."
Oh, and I don't think I exagerated the significance at all, I hardly said anything about it. Maybe you meant the people in the story were exagerating the significance.
I don't know.
Exageration:
"Maybe you, yourself, have considered what it would be like for the government to take care of all of your medical bills and procedures. Well the Canadian Supreme Court has considered it as well, and their conclusions are surprising."
Your statements above imply that the courts decision somehow negates the value of free health care. That is an exageration, it does no such thing, and is hardly surprising considering England (a country which also provides free health care) has made a similar decision.
Insensitive:
"How many people have died because of inadequate health care during that time?"
Do you know anyone with a chronic or terminal condition that has had to suffer with NO healthcare, because those people will tell you which scenario is worse; slow help or no help.
Ignorant:
"So many in this country continue to pine for a socialist based health care plan. Starting with classic democrats, and recently a new wave of Christian thinking that focuses on social responsibility."
I guess public education would be "socialist" by your definition...and you know what I think of your "new wave of Christians."
Pooh, Pooh on Canadian health care!
I agree Mr. Tomato!
By the way...Canada doesn't have clinical trials like the US does....For example, If you're up there and have a certain kind of cancer that's deemed "terminal" you're as good as dead....no help, nada, you're just one less person that the gov has to take care of.
Steph,
Again, this wasn't a post in support of America's great health care system. However, given the choice between staying with our current system, or converting to a socialist based system, I'd certainly prefer our current system.
I'll address a couple of your comments. First, the idea of a little coverage is better than none. The problem is, how much is a little? If the government is to take on the burden of health care for people who can't afford it, someone will have to define what "can't afford it" means. In addition, the line of how much would be provided to these people would have to be drawn. Of course the amount would never be high enough and people would always ask for "a little" more, as is human nature.
It's important to note that amount of coverage is not at all Canada's problem. Theirs is an issue of quality of health care. Due to their current system, a simple MRI diagnostic procedure has about a one year wait period. Something you could literally get tomorrow in America would take a year. How much damage can be done to your body in a year?
My personal views on what this country should do with our Medicare system is somewhat undeveloped at this point, and better served to be published another day. (I know you all shiver with anticipation) Until then, I think it's prudent for us to look at an admitted failure from our wacky neighbors from the North, and learn from their mistakes.
How many people have died because of the waiting lists in Canad can't compare to the amount of people who have died or live painful existences because they don't have any kind of coverage in America? Speaking as a Canadian, I realize that our system isn't perfect, but I know many, many people who have recieve the proper treatment within a reasonable amount of time. At this very moment, the federal government is trying to pass a budget which would dramatically increase the spending on health care and it is the "Christian" conversatives who are trying to block it. All levels of government have made pledges to lower wait lists, and funding from the public sector has slowly been coming in. The Supreme Court ruling is more of a wake up call to the government rather than admission that the system doesn't work.
And we're not wacky. It's just cold up here, that's all.
Kim,
My, my, my, you really try to come across as quiet, innocent, and sweet, but inside you’re really just a big meanie, aren’t you? It’s okay though, as I’m always up for some passionate debate. The problem is though, you’re wrong. No so much about your opinions on health care, though I think we disagree (not in the way you think) those are your opinions and I’d not call them incorrect. You’re wrong with your interpretation of my post.
I’ll ignore the numerous personal attacks you made against me and just focus on your three complaints against my post.
Exaggeration:
Your statements above imply that the courts decision somehow negates the value of free health care. That is an exaggeration, it does no such thing, and is hardly surprising considering England (a country which also provides free health care) has made a similar decision.
What you inferred from my comments was not necessarily implied. I don’t think the courts decision negates the value of free health care; I have plenty of other reasons for feeling that way. I think the ruling challenges peoples belief that the Canadian system is the utopian system of health care. Maybe you don’t feel that way, but then this post wasn’t written at you, it was written to a general audience. And while your right that England provides free health care, that’s only half true. They also allow private insurance, something the Canucks refuse to do. That of course is the main point of the Supreme Court case. The fact is America is the only non-socialized medicine first world country. Maybe that has something to do with the fact most major medical advances are made in the US. The doctors here actually get paid for their achievements.
Insensitive:
Do you know anyone with a chronic or terminal condition that has had to suffer with NO healthcare, because those people will tell you which scenario is worse; slow help or no help.
Actually those without health insurance in the US can get care. In Canada, if you need something and CAN afford it, you still can’t get it. You have to wait. Those who can get help are made to suffer. How is that fair? How is that not insensitive? I’m still not sure how what I originally said was insensitive though. All I said, as you quoted, was that it was bad people were dying. OMG, I AM SO MEAN!!!!!!
Ignorant:
I guess public education would be "socialist" by your definition...and you know what I think of your "new wave of Christians."
Ah, where to begin with this one? First, with your assertion that I am ignorant, and apparently can have no opinion on health care because I am not someone who “requires medical aid and can't afford it”. Certainly you’d agree that a person can form an educated opinion on a topic without first hand knowledge of it. For instance, I was never in a concentration camp, but I’m pretty sure the Jews got a raw deal there. But just in case you wouldn’t agree, I’ll educate you on something that you might be ignorant to. Remember when Crystal and I got pregnant when we were 17? Guess what? NO HEALTH INSURACE. None. We had to pay for the entire thing out of pocket. All 9 months of prenatal visits. The delivery, anesthesiologist, doctor, recovery, the whole enchilada. Think we weren’t poor? Try moving out of your parent’s house at 18 and supporting a family on a single income, starting out over six thousand in debt before you even make your first rent payment.
(on second reading this above paragraph comes off a little more angry than I intended, but I’ll leave it and just say I was some what insulted by your comment)
And finally your reaction to my “social responsibility” comment. This is another case of you inferring something that wasn’t implied. I was simply stating facts. There is a recent Christian movement that is focused on the social responsibility of Christians. They do support the idea of socialized health care. (At least in some circles) What you assumed is that I that I was disagreeing with this groups thoughts on social responsibility. This is not at all the case. I do have thoughts on that movement, but certainly not disdain for their compassion for the poor. In fact I didn’t even share any of my thoughts about them, I just referenced that they exist. I didn’t know what to call them, so I said what I said. Do you know what they’re called?
We had the honor of hearing Nicole Nordemann at the first session this morning. At one point she admitted that she can't resist jumping head first into a debate. "I have the spiritual gift of bulldog," she joked. I'm the same way. Though I want to be a live and let live type of person, certain issues set me off.
I've always thought of you as a pretty tough skinned guy so the fact that I have hurt you really shames me. I knew I was using tough words, but I decided you could handle it and I forgot that each of us is fragile underneath it all.
I hope you won't let my irresponsible use of the words "ignorant" and "insensitive" cause you to disregard my position. Those words referred to your post, which I believed to be wrong, and were not meant to be blanket descriptions of you.
You also referred to "numerous personal attacks" that you chose not to respond to. I think you are talking about the sarastic tone I used when pointing out the Bible verse and my sharp tone when defending the "new wave" Christians. To be totally honest, I was wondering to myself, "who does Scott think he is, to lump all socially concious Christians in with socialists and liberals?" I was annoyed and my annoyance came through there. I'm sorry. You do read the Bible and, though we've never had a chance to talk about it, I'm sure you care about those in need.
As for your rebuttal, I'll have to go back and read it when I'm not so tired, but a couple things jumped out at me.
1. I know England has decided to allow private health care, that was exactly what I was saying.
2. I know you and Crystal had no insurance. I can't imagine how stressful that was for you guys and I wish you hadn't had to go through it. But having a healthy baby is one thing, now imagine you have just had this baby and she is born with a heart defect and will require multiple surgeries and months of hospitilization. $6,000 turns into $600,000 and working hard or selling the car isn't going to begin to cover it. That parent has a greater sense than either of us of the health care crisis in this country.
3. Despite your insistence, I still don't believe that there is any new movement among Christians in the area of social justice. Christians were on the front lines of the civil rights movement, the abolition of slavery, the nazi resistence movement, and will continue to be on the front lines of the most important social issues of our day as long as they represent the body of Christ on this planet.
4. You write, "I think the ruling challenges peoples belief that the Canadian system is the utopian system of health care. Maybe you don’t feel that way, but then this post wasn’t written at you" Here you imply (and no more of this "every comment is one dimensional" disclaimer please!) that I needn't get huffy because you were only talking to people who think Canada's health care is "utopian." But the truth is that in the first paragraph you clearly address another group of people; "Maybe you, yourself, have considered what it would be like for the government to take care of all of your medical bills and procedures." I do fit into that category. I don't just wonder; I wish, I pray, I fantasize that I could take the meds I'm supposed to take, see a doctor once in a while, know that if something terrible happened there would be a safety net for me.
It is high time you noticed that I'm a lot more than just some "quite innocent sweetie." The things I care about I stand up for, and I don't always leave the kid gloves on. I'm sorry you were on the receiving end and I appreciate you pointing out my rude behavior. I take it to heart and will try to be more careful of your feelings, but I will not be quite.
"I don't just wonder; I wish, I pray, I fantasize that I could take the meds I'm supposed to take, see a doctor once in a while, know that if something terrible happened there would be a safety net for me."
I don't see anything wrong with those dreams, and I'll pray that you work hard to make it a reality. But as long as it's your belief that the government should be responsible for these things, you and I won't see eye to eye here.
Since it seems that we are at an impasse, unless you have something to add I'm all for moving on. I honestly have no hard feelings towards anything you said and I hope you feel the same. Hopefully when I post my next contrary opinion you won’t shy away from coming at me again with the same vigor. Believe me when I say I am no stranger to being alone on a viewpoint.
I'm glad that you don't have hard feelings about this and I agree to simply disagree.
The only thing I would add is that if you are interested in engaging in debates in the future you should know that it is considered poor form to take an attack on your position as a personal attack, and even worse form to resort to the kind of name calling that you indulged in at the top of your first reply to me.
My, my, my, you really try to come across as quiet, innocent, and sweet, but inside you’re really just a big meanie..." Your sarcastic tone doesn't make it any less personal and personal attacks (attacks directed at the person and not the comments) are prohibited in even the most informal debates.
ps Don't worry, if you were the only one who felt the way you do about this topic our health care system would look radically different than it does now.
The only thing I would add is that if you are interested in engaging in debates in the future you should know that it is considered poor form to take an attack on your position as a personal attack, and even worse form to resort to the kind of name calling that you indulged in at the top of your first reply to me.
Stick to stuff you know about.
Hmmmmmmmm...
I have looked at my entries again and again to see what on eath has got you so upset. You are the king of sarcasm, so I know it's not the sarcasm, I clearly stated that it was "your statements" that I had a problem with, and no where did I call you names...
Despite not being able to understand your reaction, I took you at your word when you said you were hurt, and I apologized.
You responded by saying that you sincerely hope I will "work" my way out of a situation that is caused by a chronic and debilitating illness, and then invited me to continue to engage you in debates.
I expressed my hesitation at going through this drama again, and your response was cryptic at best, and possibly insulting (you'll have to tell me what that last comment means, I don't get it.)
If this is the way you try to manipulate debates, it worked. I quit! You win! You can say what ever you want and I swear I'll stay as far away as possible.
I have stayed away from this debate after my first comment because of fear. I think that when ever Kim and I share a similar viewpoint on a subject, people feel like we are ganging up on them and feelings get hurt. However in reality we are not ganging up on anyone we just grew up in the same household, therefore we share alot of similar beliefs. (Although we often approach them from dif. angles because we're very dif. people... Most of the time I'm much more emotional and Kim's more intellectual)
However I feel ok jumping back in here because it appears that if anything, Kim was the one being ganged up on here so I'm hoping it's ok for me to share my opinion among friends.
Part if not all of the reason I feel so strongly about this is my family history. (which I would perfer not to drag out into this blog) But those of you who know me well may understand how health insurance could have made a dramatic dif in my families life. If proper medication had been available, possibly a great deal of heart-ache may have been spared. Not only that, but if it wasn't for charity cases it is very possible my brother Jason would not be with us today. So obviously this argument hits me at a very personal level...and whether mature or not I do take it personal. I look at the dif. health care could have made in my families life and I think wow and we're the middle class...think of the millions of people worse off than us?! I do believe God has called us to help those who can't help themselves. I undestand you may feel like people take advantage of the sytem because you have seen people do that. But not everyone does. There are people who really do need assistance. Obviously there will be people who "fake" it but that isn't our place to judge. The Bible says if someone asks for our coat we give it to them, not say well let me decide if I think you have worked hard enough for it.
I am like you Steph, I took this debate personal too and I am only being honest not saying I am right to have. I felt like Scott was being ganged up on. Anyway, I appreciate your comment. I know what your family has gone through. I also do not want to bring them into this debate. I really feel like I can't have an opinion about this because I only know what I have heard other people discuss and have only read up on this a little, but I do strongly agree with Scott from what I do know. I want to do more of my own research about this.
I really liked what you said. God has called us to help those who can't help themselves. I have been thinking a lot about that lately and I want to do that. And I know Scott feels the same. I feel like you guys are saying he is some kind of heartless monster who doesn't care about people in desperate need. That is simply not true at all. I know I make people angry when I defend my husband but I am OK with that.
I have been so hurt by all of this fighting (although some (Scott) would only call it "just talking"). I can't help but feel that Satan has wiggled his way into our little group of friends. I understand that we should be able to discuss important issues without getting all upset. It is just a huge flaw of mine. I don't know how to not get upset.
Kim, Scott is not upset, not in the least bit. I really feel like his comments have been misinterpreted by you.
"The only thing I would add is that if you are interested in engaging in debates in the future you should know that it is considered poor form to take an attack on your position as a personal attack..."
I feel like you did make this personal with your first comment"As someone who actually requires medical aid and can't afford it I thought your statements were ignorant and insensitive. Stick to stuff you know about." Right there to me you stopped talking about the issue and started talking about Scott.
I don't know what to think anymore. This does make me uncomfortable and scared. I feel like I am losing my mind. I can't sleep at night, I think terrible things, my heart is heavy all the time, and throat is lumpy. I feel like the end of the world is coming. I really truly feel that. I know I sound crazy now. I am so unhealthy right now. It is late and I will probably be up all night again over this. Blogs suck.
This may piss you all off but I love all of you. Scott, Kim, and Steph. You are all so special to me.
I do believe God has called us to help those who can't help themselves. I undestand you may feel like people take advantage of the sytem because you have seen people do that. But not everyone does. There are people who really do need assistance. Obviously there will be people who "fake" it but that isn't our place to judge. The Bible says if someone asks for our coat we give it to them, not say well let me decide if I think you have worked hard enough for it.
Will someone please tell me how God commanding CHRISTIANS to help the poor translates into the GOVERNMENT should pay for health care?
Please?
Kim,
I think you'd be hard pressed start an debate with anyone with a comment like, "You're and ignorant jerk, stick to stuff you know about," and not get the other person a bit riled up. Especially if that person has put as much thought and time debating this topic with other people as I have. I got over that though and was fine with moving on, and then you came back with a little speech an debate etiquette in which you corrected me for doing the very thing you did. I never took offense to your opposition to my point, just you calling me ignorant and suggesting I not talk about this subject, as if you are the all powerful ruler of health care debate and decides who can or can not discuss it.
That was the reason for my "cryptic" response. I thought it odd to criticize me for doing something you did first. It was puzzling and it made me go "hmmmmmm."
Scott, I love you but Kim did not say you were an ignorant jerk. She said that your statements were ignorant and insensitiven. Let's not misquote her. I know that that comment hurt you but don't change what she said. That's all I have to say about that.
Hey, easy killer. I don't need anyone from the FBI monitoring my blog.
I am a Canadian, from Quebec, living in the us. From my own experience, Canada has nothing to envy of Usa for healthcare. They are more looking toward some european countries, working with both a public and a private sector.
The situation is not related to poor services or a bad system. I think Quebec health system is wonderful and efficient. But the population is growing older and older, and old people require more health care, and there is not enough doctors to cover the increasing population. The US have the same problems, but are fixing it by "importing" doctors from foreign countries, notably Canada, providing easier access to working visa and immigration procedure. It can be frustrating for some Canadian to see it, since these people (doctors) benefit from the easy "socialist" access to education, mainly sponsered and financed by the society (it is easier for Canadian to get educated, at least on a money perspective).
The ruling was made basicaly to fight over the US and keep those doctors in Canada instead of letting them go work in the US and still be short on doctors.
On a short time, this rulling will be very bad for Canadians if too much doctors move to a private system at the same time. But it will probably not happen this way. The doctors are not "cheap social employees" working for a government, they live very well. The last time I checked, a surgeon in Canada was able to earn around 350,000$ a year (300,000$us) more or less.
On the long term, though, it will prevent the US to import those "brain" as easily, some doctor will chose to work in private hospitals, and some will rather work in public ones.
When I hear Americans talking about "canadian socialism", I feel a misunderstamding from the term "socialist", often perceived as being at same level as Cuba or China! Canadian are concerned about one principle that states all citizens are born equal. When you are born with a major disability, or accidently lose your mobility or function of your body, it becomes harder to follow the rest of the society, your capacity is not "equal" anymore. It becomes normal for the society to help those people to live a better life and at least provide good healthcare. Of course there is some failure as any systems, but I don't agree to one of the previous comment about a "policy" to let people in terminal phase to die, I did not see this as being part of the Canadian system, it could have happened, but it ressemble to one recent case in USA of a women being left to starvation until death !
There is nothing bad to change a system : it's called improvement. Every society should look at others, and find better ways of improving their system.
Great blog I hope we can work to build a better health care system as we are in a major crisis and health insurance is a major aspect to many.
Post a Comment