# "Sicko", Moore's New Movie at Cannes



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

In a very predictable fashion, the movie highly critical of the US healthcare system by Moore is receiving kudos at the film festival. No doubt the movie is full of heart wrenching cases and paints a very bleak picture of the US healthcare system.

***DISCLAIMER*** Born and raised in Canada, have resided in the US since the early 1990s. Career in healthcare both as a practitioner and as a high level executive (practiced in both countries, management just in the US).

Canada, of course, is held up by Moore (and many others) as something the US should strive for. Does anyone think the average US healthcare consumer is willing to wait 18 weeks for surgeries? Seventeen point eight weeks between GP visit and initial treatments? How about 4.3 weeks for a simple CT scan? Five weeks to start cancer treatments? An astonishing 32 weeks for neurosurgery? Are you ready to have your loved ones undergo these wait times that are the norm in Canada, a country both Hillary and Obama have repeatedly put forth as an example of where US healthcare should head?

Of course, not one to create his numbers and then refuse to give sources, please read further at: https://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?snav=nr&id=753

Please notice I did not ask any other question than, "Does anyone think the average US healthcare consumer is willing to wait...."

Just some food for thought.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

how is it that a guy who looks like he's been on the verge of a massive heart attack for like 5 or six years or whatever hasn't done the one good thing he could do for the world and dropped dead???

I really can't stand that guy...


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Moore himself is a walking testament to poor health; obesity and poor posture leads even this medical laymen to conclude a early demise. What angers me is his degeneration of social commentary as exemplified by books about meat packing houses and photos capturing Depression era oakies to 8MM pornography. Why can't we throw Rush and Michael into a SUMO training facility for 6 months and see them debut on the WWE?


----------



## rnoldh (Apr 22, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Please notice I did not ask any other question than, "Does anyone think the average US healthcare consumer is willing to wait...."
> 
> Just some food for thought.


In answer to your question. No, the average US healthcare consumer would not be willing to wait that long.

Question for you Wayfarer, since you do have impressive experience.

After the Canadian citizen has waited, does he get healthcare that is comparable to US healthcare.

I.E., unfortunately, I just had some friends and family deal with cancer. Of course they started on Chemotherapy as soon as possible. In Canada, you say that one would have to wait 5 weeks for cancer treatment. At that point is the oncological care rendered as good in Canada as in the US? In your opinion of course.

One related story that I am acquainted with. Canada doesn't approve the use of Erbitux (a phenomenally expensive colon cancer medication). My good friend is on Erbitux here in Houston. It might or might not extend his life. But at least he has hope and a prayer. In Canada, he would be out of luck (unless he could pay for it himself, which he cannot).


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I am surprised at what is happening with American economic choices. I don't think there are Two Americas (a la John Edwards), but it certainly seems that every American is a little bit schitzophrenic. I am speaking of the duality of pervasive consumerism (Tivos, DVDs, LCDs in cars, etc. etc) and the decline in quality of goods and services that we discuss here so frequently. I quite regularly vote with my feet and wallet because of bad service or bad products. With inflation so high and the dollar so low it seems everyone is getting used to "paying a lot for shiney beads" as I call it. The reason I'm off on this is, the question of the "average American". I consider myself an Average American and I won't stand in line at Walmart or Winn-Dixie. I won't even go to Costco.

Last week, I drove 45 minutes one way to visit the same eye doctor that sees Tiger Woods and Annika Sorenstam and to which our health insurance will not pay. My Wife and I just spent $833 and $649 respectively for our annual exam and a pair of glasses each. We do turn it in and it comes out of a FSA (big deal). I can't get my Wife to go to the dentist on our plan either. Instead she goes to this guy that is an amazing dentist and oral surgeon. We spent about $6,500 on three route canals and porcelan crowns for her last year. I went to the dentist on the insurance plan and I felt like a horse visiting a vet, but then I felt it was my "duty" to tough it out. I had one small cavity and it was $156 out of pocket. Again, I feel like we are very average. As I'm already paying mostly cash for healthcare in addition to insurance for major medical, if the quality of healthcare or the waiting got any worse, I probably just wouldn't go. I should probably just go ahead and move to a shack in Montana! 

Would the average American wait? I'm sure they would considering they are already putting up with stuff I never thought they would. 

Heck, you can't even stop in a drive-thru for a milkshake without some teenager handing you one with slime dripping off the cup onto your clothes without a napkin or a straw. Twenty years ago you handed someone a napkin and a straw with the drink. Now they let you sit there dripping on your clothes and tell you "the napkin (one) and straw will be in the bag". And; that's not even healthcare. Yet, apparently my fellow average Americans are putting up with it because I still get dirty looks when I refuse.

If I won't sit in my car with my drink dripping on my clothes for 45 seconds to a minute while you get my order how long do you think I'm going to sit in the emergency room bleeding to death or at home waiting for a surgery I wouldn't even have if it wasn't darn close to life and death or quality of life (affecting my golf swing)?


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> In a very predictable fashion, the movie highly critical of the US healthcare system by Moore is receiving kudos at the film festival. No doubt the movie is full of heart wrenching cases and paints a very bleak picture of the US healthcare system.
> 
> ***DISCLAIMER*** Born and raised in Canada, have resided in the US since the early 1990s. Career in healthcare both as a practitioner and as a high level executive (practiced in both countries, management just in the US).
> 
> ...


I honestly don't know much about nationalized healthcare, so maybe you can clear this up for me. Why are there such long wait times? There seems to be plenty of physicians, at least in my area. Is there a lack of physicians and specialists in Canada? What would change under a national system?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

rnoldh,

Sorry to hear about your loss.

To the quality of care. No, I think the average hospital in the US gives better care than the average hospital in Canada. YMMV of course, but do some web searches for the MRSA outbreak in Quebec, including the "flesh eating bacteria". Heck, even a recent premier of Quebec lost his leg to it. Or some studies on nursing "ppds" (per patient day), which is how many nursing hours per each patient per day will be scheduled. Further, Canada is far more rural than the US, as a whole, with extreme weather isolating many small communities for parts of each year. It is difficult to get good medical talent to remote areas; think "Alaska".

Now, does some good medical research get done in Canada? Sure thing. Are there some great schools and great doctors? Sure thing. But we are talking aggregate numbers in your question and I think the US has a better quality of care. 

Access to care is another important issue. A few years ago Ontario surgery suites were closed down for weeks at the end of a fiscal year due to money. I remember the quote from the then health minister was emergent items would be cared for, there would be no "undue suffering". It made me wonder exactly how much suffering is due then? It is common for hospitals, in major metro areas, to have some ancillary departments closed from midnight to 6a, like labs and pharmacies.

Now, keep in mind, the average Canadian lifespan is a bit higher than the average US. Of course, there are a million confounding factors, but still, it does show something....what I'm just not sure  Will a broken arm get good care in Canada? Sure thing. 

However if it was my ticker in question, I would hate to be in Canada. My best friend recently dropped dead from CHF at the age of 41. They sent him home with a very high BNP, clear pulmonary hypertension and an ejection fraction of about 30% with an appointment three or four weeks out for a cardiac cath. procedure. He dropped dead on his couch three days after being discharged. In the US, that just would not have happened like that.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I am surprised at what is happening with American economic choices. I don't think there are Two Americas (a la John Edwards), but it certainly seems that every American is a little bit schitzophrenic. I am speaking of the duality of pervasive consumerism (Tivos, DVDs, LCDs in cars, etc. etc) and the decline in quality of goods and services that we discuss here so frequently. I quite regularly vote with my feet and wallet because of bad service or bad products. With inflation so high and the dollar so low it seems everyone is getting used to "paying a lot for shiney beads" as I call it. The reason I'm off on this is, the question of the "average American". I consider myself an Average American and I won't stand in line at Walmart or Winn-Dixie. I won't even go to Costco.
> 
> Last week, I drove 45 minutes one way to visit the same eye doctor that sees Tiger Woods and Annika Sorenstam and to which our health insurance will not pay. My Wife and I just spent $833 and $649 respectively for our annual exam and a pair of glasses each. We do turn it and in and it comes out of a FSA. I can't get my Wife to go to the dentist on our plan either. Instead she goes to this guy that is an amazing dentist and oral surgeon. We spent about $6,500 on three route canals and porcelan crowns for her last year. I went to the dentist on the insurance plan and I felt like a horse visiting a vet, but then I felt it was my "duty" to tough it out. I had one small cavity and it was $156 out of pocket. Again, I feel like we are very average. As I'm already paying mostly cash for healthcare in addition to insurance for major medical, if the quality of healthcare or the waiting got any worse, I probably just wouldn't go. I should probably just go ahead and move to a shack in Montana!
> 
> ...


That makes two of us, ksinc. I really hate it when they do this, and I always ask for a napkin. It's even worse when they hand you your drink and the lid pops off. Most of the time, they don't even put napkins in your bag.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> I honestly don't know much about nationalized healthcare, so maybe you can clear this up for me. Why are there such long wait times? There seems to be plenty of physicians, at least in my area. Is there a lack of physicians and specialists in Canada? What would change under a national system?


Why the waits? Let's look at CTs. Check my link. About 4 per each million Canadians, about 19 or so for each million Americans. Further, up until recently, the machines in Ontario (maybe other places, I can just accurately cite Ontario) only operated part of the day due to union type stuff. In fact, it was quite a scandal a cat or dog could get in easier for a CT (or was it MRI?) in the GTA faster than a person because as the machines were not allowed to take human patients in the evening, vets had been using them for animals!

In some cases, there are less physicians. Again, in Ontario, there was a shortage of OB/GYNs when I left the area. It had to do with government set payment rates vs. overhead costs for the doc. At Hudzel Hospital in Detroit, there was a whole LDRP suite referred to as the "Canadian Club" as women were heading to Detroit to give birth from the Windsor area. https://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=849

And then there is the fixed budget. If a province gets X amount of dollars and it runs out in November....they scrimp until the next fiscal year.

Edit: Lax, again, this is *not* my opinion, this is a yearly study completed by a fairly well regarded think tank in Canada. Check the link out.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Econ 101: Chapter 3: Price Controls = increased demand and reduced supply AKA shortages.

FWIW,
Chapter 1: Econ - the study of the allocation of scarce resources
Chapter 2: What is price?


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Econ 101: Chapter 3: Price Controls = increased demand and reduced supply AKA shortages.
> 
> FWIW,
> Chapter 1: Econ - the study of the allocation of scarce resources
> Chapter 2: What is price?


I understand how this works in the market, but why would there be an increased demand for medical service? I don't go to the Dr. very often, I actually hate to go, so maybe that is why I am failing to see this. I guess if cosmetic procedures were included, I could see an increase in demand for that. I'm not saying I am for nationalized healthcare. I really haven't put much thought into it. Visits to the doctor are low on my priority list.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> I understand how this works in the market, but why would there be an increased demand for medical service? I don't go to the Dr. very often, I actually hate to go, so maybe that is why I am failing to see this. I guess if cosmetic procedures were included, I could see an increase in demand for that. I'm not saying I am for nationalized healthcare. I really haven't put much thought into it. Visits to the doctor are low on my priority list.


Well, if you understand market forces then you should understand that when it's cheaper people are less hesitant to go for things like colds & flus, small cuts and bruises, or sprains as examples. If you can go for free or very cheap, why not go for everything? A lot of people could find an excuse to go to the doctor if there was not a cost barrier. This is how HMOs and medicare work today. They are swamped with people that would not be at the doctor if they were paying their way. I stepped on a small rock this weekend and have a sore spot in my foot as we speak, but I'm not headed to the doctor. If I could go get x-rays for free, why wouldn't I want to do that?

When I got my first single-person group insurance for my company, it was $53/mo for me. That was 1993. I asked the lady why it was so cheap? Her answer was, "You're a single male in your 20s. Statistically you are too young and stupid to go the doctor unless you are dying." 

Insurance is not priced solely on the likelyhood of getting sick, but the likelyhood of a doctor visit, lab tests, and treatment.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> I understand how this works in the market, but why would there be an increased demand for medical service? I don't go to the Dr. very often, I actually hate to go, so maybe that is why I am failing to see this. I guess if cosmetic procedures were included, I could see an increase in demand for that. I'm not saying I am for nationalized healthcare. I really haven't put much thought into it. Visits to the doctor are low on my priority list.


Overutilization was the very reason for the creation of co-payments. For some reason, people always assumed the demand curve for healthcare was a vertical line. The Rand studies first disproved this. Co-pays, even very modest ones, stopped bored house wives and little old ladies from using the physician's visit as a recreational diversion basically. Of course, co-pays are painted as bad things created by the evil empire of Western medicine, but in point of fact they were introduced to take advantage of people's indifference curves and save the system large sums of money. Predictably, AARP came out with "Medi-gap" insurance to frustrate the co-pay mechanism.

Also, when there are no economic incentives to make wise decisions, people make poor ones. Heck, many make poor ones even with incentives, so imagine what taking those away does. For instance, one night about 20+ years ago, I had a midnight hockey practice, not an unusual thing. I got caught between two people putting me into the boards and cracked some ribs.

I went to the ER. 
I had to wait. 
I got bored.
I started talking to people.

One was a young mother with a sick kid yelling up a storm. The kid had been puking for two days or so but the mother had not taken him to the doc. She mentioned she'd not have to pay for any meds if she went to the ER (yes, drugs are not part of Ontario's plan, or at least the 20+ years I lived there). So bad choice, ER visit vs. GP, sicker kid, system pays for meds. This very incident is what set me on my path of renouncing socialistic government. I just thought, "How stupid are we, letting this idiot make decisions paid for by our tax dollars?"


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Overutilization. Si.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Predictably, AARP came out with "Medi-gap" insurance to frustrate the co-pay mechanism.


AARP is probably the most evil and selfish organization that has ever been founded. Their lobbying efforts consist solely of robbing the grandchildren of members to pay for their benefits.


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

Why shouldn't we have free healthcare for US citizens? We already provide it for every Juan, Ricardo, and Geraldo who managed to swim the Rio Grande.

Hell, let's just let the government regulate _everything_. After all, the state knows what's best for us.


----------



## SoutherWinds (May 24, 2007)

A little better regulation at least on the big pharma companies couldn't hurt. Charging rediculous prices and making rediculous profits.... Only in America


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

SoutherWinds said:


> A little better regulation at least on the big pharma companies couldn't hurt. Charging rediculous prices and making rediculous profits.... Only in America


How does one determine what is a ridiculous price and a ridiculous profit?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

SoutherWinds said:


> A little better regulation at least on the big pharma companies couldn't hurt. Charging rediculous prices and making rediculous profits.... Only in America


And; the drugs they make - only in America.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Well, if you understand market forces then you should understand that *when it's cheaper people are less hesitant to go for things like colds & flus, small cuts and bruises, or sprains as examples. If you can go for free or very cheap, why not go for everything? *A lot of people could find an excuse to go to the doctor if there was not a cost barrier. This is how HMOs and medicare work today. They are swamped with people that would not be at the doctor if they were paying their way. I stepped on a small rock this weekend and have a sore spot in my foot as we speak, but I'm not headed to the doctor. If I could go get x-rays for free, why wouldn't I want to do that?
> 
> When I got my first single-person group insurance for my company, it was $53/mo for me. That was 1993. I asked the lady why it was so cheap? Her answer was, "You're a single male in your 20s. Statistically you are too young and stupid to go the doctor unless you are dying."
> 
> Insurance is not priced solely on the likelyhood of getting sick, but the likelyhood of a doctor visit, lab tests, and treatment.


That makes sense. I'm still in my 20s, I'm often stupid and I'm not dying, so I guess I wouldn't be one of the people abusing the system.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> That makes sense. I'm still in my 20s, I'm often stupid and I'm not dying, so I guess I wouldn't be one of the people abusing the system.


Yep! I turn 39 this year and I'm starting to think about going to the doctor more often. However, I still don't actually go yet. LOL


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

SoutherWinds said:


> A little better regulation at least on the big pharma companies couldn't hurt. Charging rediculous prices and making rediculous profits.... Only in America


I say we just regulate them out of business in the US. All those sick people die, end of our problems!


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> I say we just regulate them out of business in the US. All those sick people die, end of our problems!


If we could manage to force all of the pharmaceutical companies out of business insurance premiums would become very low because there would be no treatments to pay for. Then everyone could afford to have health insurance and we'd have 100% coverage. Sounds like success to me.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> I say we just regulate them out of business in the US. All those sick people die, end of our problems!


Sickness should be illegal - just like narcotics and machine guns.


----------



## SoutherWinds (May 24, 2007)

ksinc said:


> And; the drugs they make - only in America.


Please, you know thats not true...


----------



## narticus (Aug 24, 2006)

hopkins_student said:


> If we could manage to force all of the pharmaceutical companies out of business *insurance premiums would become very low* because there would be no treatments to pay for. *Then everyone could afford to have health insurance and we'd have 100% coverage.* Sounds like success to me.


Please give me your estimate as to the relative decrease in premiums due to eliminating pharmaceutical coverage.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Jolly Roger said:


> Hell, let's just let the government regulate _everything_. After all, the state knows what's best for us.


I don't know about the limits of the "State's" presumptive knowlege but, Hillary certainly thinks she "knows what's best for us."???


----------



## tabasco (Jul 17, 2006)

SoutherWinds said:


> Please, you know thats not true...


You are correct. Multi-national corporate ownership is more the norm. However, absent a profit motive, the enormous cost of R&D would preclude any development of new drugs. What, would you make "obscene profits" illegal, like the laughable gasoline charade last week in Congress ?
FYI, anything Hillary-like will be pounded to dust here. Put on your hard-hat.

Further, the issue of product liability is a barrier that keeps many drugs from getting to market.

-not 20, but mostly healthy


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Part of the cost of medications is the damnable defensive medicine that physician's are required to practice to keep the med-mal lawyers off their butts (yes, my favorite people!). However, that will cease to be an issue with Hillary care.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

SoutherWinds said:


> Please, you know thats not true...





tabasco said:


> You are correct. Multi-national corporate ownership is more the norm.


So sorry, but I don't know that's true. And P&G is a Multi-, but it's also American.

Let's see a new gov't program is going to replace this $190B+$182B+$145B+$131B+$127B+$115B+$87B+$80B+$77B+$67B=$1.201T

Get rid of those and you can go buy some Bayer at the doctor. Didn't they just do an M&A with someone in America?

This doesn't even include the bios, diagnostics, or drug delivery companies.

Once again we greet the reality of those who want drugs and gas, but don't want American drug companies and oil & gas companies. TNSTAAFL.

PFIZER INC [PFE] $193.4 B 
JOHNSON AND JOHNS DC [JNJ] $182.6 B 
GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC [GSK] $145.2 B 
NOVARTIS AG ADS [NVS] $131.4 B 
SANOFI-AVENTIS SA [SNY] $127.9 B 
MERCK CO INC [MRK] $115.7 B 
ABBOTT LABORATORIES [ABT] $87.3 B 
ASTRAZENECA PLC ADS [AZN] $80.8 B 
WYETH [WYE] $77.7 B 
LILLY ELI CO [LLY] $67.4 B

https://biz.yahoo.com/ic/ll/510mkt.html


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

So back to the OP.

People that have posted here tangentially, like SoutherWind, do you think the average US healthcare consumer is ready for Canadian levels of healthcare service?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc, 

I see no reason why, with a modest tax increase on the "wealthy" (all those making more than 70k), Hillary or Obama could easily nationalize all those companies or have a Federal dept. to handle it all.

Narticus: the "relative" decrease? It is going to be hard to quantify and answer for you, but if you are willing to fund my research, to the tune of say $10 million over the next four years, I will attempt to answer it. However, for estimation purposes, consider all the people that will quickly die with no drugs. Why all the truly sick people, those that are the biggest costs to the system. Take a stab yourself at how much health insurance will cost if only people well enough not to need any drugs are in the system.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> I see no reason why, with a modest tax increase on the "wealthy" (all those making more than 70k), Hillary or Obama could easily nationalize all those companies or have a Federal dept. to handle it all.


I see. Thank you.


----------



## narticus (Aug 24, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Narticus: the "relative" decrease? It is going to be hard to quantify and answer for you, but if you are willing to fund my research, to the tune of say $10 million over the next four years, I will attempt to answer it. However, for estimation purposes, consider all the people that will quickly die with no drugs. Why all the truly sick people, those that are the biggest costs to the system. Take a stab yourself at how much health insurance will cost if only people well enough not to need any drugs are in the system.


I agree, Wayfarer. I was curious as to hopkins_student's assessent of the ratio of pharmacy costs relative to medical costs. I suspect his estimate is far, far off.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*To be serious for a moment....*

re: drug costs.

During a lecture I had with one of the first "health care economists" he presented the idea of the cost of "halfway" treatments. His example was polio. For some time, the US had a "halfway" treatment for polio, in the guise of the old iron lung.  It was costly as hell and not a good life for the victim of the disease. However, medical science was able to keep them alive. Then came the polio vaccine, a full treatment through prevention. The vaccine was far, far, far, less expensive and saved most of humanity from the dreaded disease.

His proposition was that part of the ever increasing rising cost is the halfway treatment we have for so many diseases at this time. When we get more full treatments, costs will drop. An example of this is Alzheimer's Disease. Right now, we have no way to effectively stop the progression of the disease and the cost of care for these people in later stages is very high, due to the fact that they must be placed for long term care. However, I was just at a dementia intensive and it does appear that within the next 18 months or so, a slew of drugs that effectively stop the progression should hit the market. The catch is they do not reverse, so early detection is going to be key and this whole new thing of "MCI" or "mild cognitive impairment" is going to be watched for. New imaging systems/isotopes are coming online too, that will allow for earlier detection. So basically, the cost of care should drop as the disease model will be more of a chronic one like diabetes and either eliminate or greatly reduce the time people will spend in Alzheimer's units.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

narticus said:


> I agree, Wayfarer. I was curious as to hopkins_student's assessent of the ratio of pharmacy costs relative to medical costs. I suspect his estimate is far, far off.


My post was mostly sarcastic, but let's take a stab. Without medical treatment you are left with surgical treatment, physical therapy, occupational therapy, and rehabilitation. Without antibiotic prophylaxis and sedatives and anesthetics (no drug companies anymore) we have no more surgery. So, we've cut medication and surgery out of the treatments for which medical insurance companies would have to pay. I'm imagining that we've saved a pretty substantial amount.


----------



## narticus (Aug 24, 2006)

hopkins_student said:


> My post was mostly sarcastic, but let's take a stab.


I'm quite relieved. I was wavering between sarcastic/non-sarcastic and was incorrect in my choice. I love the no-anesthesia comeback. Good one.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Actually, I am pretty sure that anesthesia was deemed evil at one time. Suck it up guys, who needs that sissy stuff? Nothing a little whisky will not take care of :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

Back to the Cuban system, life expectancies, etc., there is a good article in the NYTimes:

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/weekinreview/27depalma.html


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Concordia said:


> Back to the Cuban system, life expectancies, etc., there is a good article in the NYTimes:
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/weekinreview/27depalma.html


Thanks for the link Concordia.

Now back to the OP, do you think the average American healthcare consumer will accept the usual waits in Canada for services?


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

eagle2250 said:


> I don't know about the limits of the "State's" presumptive knowlege but, Hillary certainly thinks she "knows what's best for us."???


This is exactly what I hate about the left. They force you to do dumb and stupid things- how are they helping me with their stupidity? How many wonderful things in life have I missed, because some fool know better than me, preventing me from doing what I should have done, and at that so many times with my tax money, the thiefs.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Having listened to Canadian news for over 30 years I have heard of a number of health care places shut down, and at that with promises that others won't be shut down that got shut down too. Canadian health care is not a system I want. Many Canadians come south and pay out of their own pockets, and their are some Canadians who want to put a stop to that, because they think it is unfair.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

WA said:


> Many Canadians come south and pay out of their own pockets, and their are some Canadians who want to put a stop to that, because they think it is unfair.


WA, that is 100% true. Amazing, is it not?


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

What's unfair about going elsewhere to get health care and freeing up resources? How would they justify banning that?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

hopkins_student said:


> What's unfair about going elsewhere to get health care and freeing up resources? How would they justify banning that?


Because EVERYONE cannot do it. It is better for someone that can afford help in the US to die so they are suffering like everyone else.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Because EVERYONE cannot do it. It is better for someone that can afford help in the US to die so they are suffering like everyone else.


Seriously? Even though it would actually help, by freeing up resources, people that can't afford to go out of the country? That's class envy like I've never heard of. "Because I have to die early, you have to die early too!"


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Socialism gone to far. But, when you bring up this "Because I have to die early, you have to die early too!" that should correct the false morality that some people fall for. But the "Socialism gone to far" group try to control minds so people don't ge this- "Because I have to die early, you have to die early too!" to correct their thinking. I think this sorry thinking is very pervasive in the Democrat and Europe, such as France- "Many Canadians come south and pay out of their own pockets, and their are some Canadians who want to put a stop to that, because they think it is unfair".


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Why doesn't Moore move on to France?

Why does he stay in a country he hates?


----------

