Posted on 10/26/2015 1:28:34 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
At sporting matches, it is customary for fans of the home team to chant unflattering jabs at their opponents, and the Sunday night soccer “friendly” game between Canada and the U.S., played at Toronto’s BMO Field, was no exception.
What was unusual though was one of the taunts chosen by the Canadian faithful: “Free health care, free health care.”
If there is one thing that distinguishes the two neighbouring countries, it is their health care systems.
Canada’s state-funded insurance program, informally known as medicare, ensures a measure of universality and equity in health-care delivery. It is, for better or worse, often held out as this country’s defining feature, our pride and joy. This despite the fact that medicare coverage is far less comprehensive than any other universal health system.
The U.S., as we all know, has a non-system that is far more polarized and less equitable. Those who are insured privately tend to have extensive coverage and great care, while tens of millions of citizens who are uninsured or underinsured pay heavily for their care (to the point where health expenses are a leading cause of bankruptcy) and must sometimes depend on charity.
These distinctions are well known, if frequently exaggerated for political effect.
It is not surprising, then, that the taunts of soccer fans would spark an interesting polemic on Twitter.
Are soccer fans more politically astute and clever than hockey fans, who tend to limit themselves to profundities like “Go Leafs Go” and “Crosby sucks”?
Or, more to the point, do Canadians really think health care is free?
Last year in Canada, we spent an estimated $200.5-billion on health services. About 70 per cent of the total, $141-billon, was paid from public coffers and the other $59.5-billion with private insurance and out-of-pocket.
(Excerpt) Read more at theglobeandmail.com ...
SCC decision that oddly , only applies to Quebec:
Chaoulli v. Quebec
Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General) involved a patient who had to wait several months for hip replacement surgery. Together with his physician, Dr. Jacques Chaoulli, the two challenged the Quebec law that prohibited private health care insurance for publicly insured health services. They argued that these provisions offended rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and its Quebec equivalent. Although the case was dismissed by both the trial court and the Quebec appeal court, the Supreme Court agreed to allow an appeal, which it heard on June 8, 2004.
On June 9, 2005, by a majority of 4-3, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Quebec’s ban on private insurance for publicly insured health care services violates the Quebec Charter of human rights and freedoms. Three of the same four judges also concluded that the ban violated the Canadian Charter, while three judges held that it did not, with the seventh judge not voicing an opinion on the matter. As a result, while the Court ruled that there was a violation of the Quebec Charter, it did not rule that there was a violation of the Canadian Charter
http://www.canadiandoctorsformedicare.ca/the-chaoulli-decision.html
“Free” health care isn’t worth much if you must wait months to see a doctor, & months more still to get needed treatment. Sick people often die from lack of treatment. How many illnesses can be treated successfully if detected early? How many will suffer & die without early detection?
There are 2 reasons for long wait times - too many patients & too few doctors, clinics, & hospitals. The author dwells on the former while ignoring the latter which is entirely controlled by the government.
Government could double the amount of medical staffs & services, cutting wait times in half, but probably doubling national costs. Add in the inevitable huge, expensive, inefficient government bureaucracy (staffed by cronyism & patronage) needed to manage such a system & ultimately, wait times, poor care, & stifling bureaucracy will continuously increase, as will suffering & death.
So, it boils down to this: The government bureaucracy decides who lives & who dies by the level of funding it provides. That funding level is dependent on lying, self-serving, clueless politicians, the worst management possible. Government health care will only get worse, as witnessed in Britain, where patients die in hospital halls from neglect & call relatives/friends begging for food & water; in other words, third world health care.
Actually, the article endorses the Canadian system, just not calling it “free.”
I will not go into detail about which ethnic groups (hint, mainly "new Canadians") are most apt to abuse the system. Coming to an ER near you.
Nothing the government provides is free - it’s just paid for remotely by taxpayers’ money....
Not very long ago, one could argue that although Canada health-care was “free” to its users, with the many attendant problems of long waiting times, particularly for chronic conditions, their system forced Canadians who could afford it, to go to the United States for treatment.
I have no doubt that has changed greatly under Obamacare. The US Government under Obama is speeding up destruction of US healthcare. We now not only have expensive health-care, it has become sub-standard care also.
The US spends $3.2 Trillion collectively on health care, about 17% of GDP. On the other hand, the US spends about $620 billion on Defense, about 3% of GDP. You could cut whatever amount you wished, so that Americans would have a "Canadian-style military," with no submarines able to go to sea, or the inability to deploy a fully-functional brigade overseas - and that money would not make one jot of difference in the massive, inefficient, super-expensive, proto-fascist health-care system that is Obamacare.
The same person who paid for it in 1939....if you're going to have children, haave the money of insurance to pay for it. In this day and age there is NO excuse for not having health and life insurance....cheap and widely available.
I fully understand that welfare is necessary for those who fall through the cracks, but there should be a VERY small number of those, not 30% of the population.
Hillary and Sanders want cradle to grave control of the people and will give it to them by taxing those of us who provide for ourselves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.