http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/744815–billboards-lure-patients-south

“New York Hospitals are pitching their services to Canadians, cashing in on frustration over a system where nonemergency patients can face long waits. The system north of the border guarantees that all residents get free care, but patients who need procedures such as joint replacement or bariatric surgery can wait months for months for treatment. Seeing an opportunity, Kaleida Health System in Buffalo rented billboard space in Canada touting its “timely” care and “expedient treatment.” A newspaper in Hamilton, Ontario reported that hospitals in Michigan are doing much the same thing. While the Ontario provincial health system pays for care provided in the United States and concedes that waits can be frustrating, some officials say they find the ad campaigns “distasteful.” The Hamilton paper notes that health officials in Ontario want to reduce the outflow of patients. Health officials say they paid for 12,000 Canadians to get care in U.S. hospitals in 2008, a fourfold increase over the 2007 level. They had no figures on how many Canadian patients decided to cross the border and pay for care on their own.”

note: that was from crain’s health pulse.

See? The Canadians are fleeing, and the response from their pathetic health officials is that the Americans offering care to their northern neighbors are acting distastefully. How uncaring, arrogant, and genuinely repulsive.

Socialism in health care is a much, much preferable system than the millions uninsured, millions more under-insured, and the very wealthy few who often travel abroad for cheaper treatment anyway. I don’t coil when you use the term socialism if that’s what your attempting to induce.

In a socialized health care system, everybody ends up “under-insured”.

The bureaucracy exists in the private system. Have you ever even filed a claim??!! It’s not just bureaucracy but rampant denial of coverage that wouldn’t even be an issue in a single payer system. They get bonuses precisely based on the number of claims they deny. How can you possibly justify this behavior?

Bureaucracy exists in the current health care system, but then again, it’s is not truly a private system. Heavy government regulations are grinding competitive market forces, which are the strongest impetus of efficiency, to a halt. Also, government run Medicare and Medicaid deny more claims than private insurance.

It’s not caring about the national population, it’s sabotaging it. When profit is the bottom line, the world suffers.

What bottom line do government and politicians have? A benevolent empathy for the needs of others? Not! This is exactly where socialism fails and what proponents of socialism never accept, to the detriment of all. People at first think they’re “democratically” relinquishing their freedom in exchange for a benevolent helping hand, but what they get is a system full of crooks and incompetents, vying for their own self interests. Only now they are in government and those crooks and incompetents have a greater opportunity to abuse their power than ever. And that’s because unlike in private industry where the “evil” profit is the motive, a socialist program has no need to retain customers through quality of service because the customers have nowhere else to go, no incentive to economize because it’s spending other people’s money and not in competition with other businesses, and has no incentive to innovate because innovators do not benefit from their efforts with said “evil” profit. And on top of everything, the crooks and incompetents in government are for the most part expected to regulate themselves into honesty and benevolence.

It is seen in factory farming (which you probably have a cursory knowledge of at best), exploitation of workers, and our asinine system of companies who accrue millions while choosing who would live or die. Explain why people on government provided insurance are so vociferously defending their insurance if it’s such a nefarious entity?

There are plenty of people who hate their Medicare, Medicaid, and VA service, but they want to keep it because they think they’re getting something that others are footing the bill for. What a surprise!

A single payer system guarantees people coverage. THAT is what’s caring about the population at large.

To summarize Will’s point, a single payer system guarantees people coverage, but it does not guarantee people care. Those are not one and the same.

If you do not think man is naturally inclined to donate to charity, I’d humbly ask you to explain the American response to the Asian tsunami.

I tried to explain why they defend their systems in my original posting:

“Further implications concern the effect on the future of political debates in this country. Having spent some time up in Canada, I can attest that public healthcare destroys any principled difference between parties. The bureaucracy, once set in motion, becomes too unwieldy; and like an angry, venomous snake, one not dare touch it. The medical institutions that actually provide the health care in a nation with a “public option” is intertwined with the parasitic/host government. Even a hint of poking at the fragile superstructure of protocols becomes positively frightening to a dependent population.”

That’s the true intent – destruction of meaningful political debate, and control of your body by the state.

Look, if you refuse to acknowledge that coverage does not equal care, and that single payer systems MUST, and DO RATION too, I think you’re properly classified as living in a fantasy world. It happens everyday, because you cannot legislate away scarcity. What do you think a waiting line is a manifestation of? And although you will downplay their significance, I don’t think you would if you were in desperate need of a new hip, or knee, or shoulder, or needed a tooth filled.

Which is why I say I’d rather pay in DOLLARS than in PAIN.

There are plenty of ways to expand coverage without destroying the innovation and market coordination provided by a private system. All involve DEREGULATION. Believe it or not, insurance is one of the most regulated industries in the country.

Yaron, whew. Really, just sad.

Really, really? Oh, yeah really. Whew “ConArtist”, you’re really making a point here. A sad one… really, no joke. I’m really, really serious about this.

What specifically do you disagree with? If you don’t mind.

The bureaucracy exists in the private system. Have you ever even filed a claim??!! It’s not just bureaucracy but rampant denial of coverage that wouldn’t even be an issue in a single payer system. They get bonuses precisely based on the number of claims they deny. How can you possibly justify this behavior?

It’s not caring about the national population, it’s sabotaging it. When profit is the bottom line, the world suffers. It is seen in factory farming (which you probably have a cursory knowledge of at best), exploitation of workers, and our asinine system of companies who accrue millions while choosing who would live or die. Explain why people on government provided insurance are so vociferously defending their insurance if it’s such a nefarious entity?

A single payer system guarantees people coverage. THAT is what’s caring about the population at large.

All socialist models do not fail. In fact, the only models that ever succeed incorporate many elements of socialism.

your political theory would best be characterized as “how do I feel, today?”

there is no other way of interpreting this:

“I don’t believe in free-market/market economy completely as I do support regulation and taxation…. When you err to far on one side or the other I think they system is destined to collapse.”

as for you and marx, a single payer system is socialism in healthcare. how? public funds used to create a resource that is operated along bureaucratic lines. this is not putting words in your mouth; it’s identifying the true nature of a single payer system.

and, since it is a socialist model, it will fail for the same reasons all socialist models fail: destruction of price information, resulting in the misallocation of resource, no way of knowing whether resources are used efficiently (that is, whether you’ve attained a net gain or less through changes), chronic shortages, and perpetual crises.

this is not being a shill for an insurance company. this is actually caring about the population at large, and basing my opinion off of a careful study of history and economic theory.

I welcome feedback on my blog as well. Although I don’t pick and choose the coherency of the commenter. I’ve learned not to deter readers so I allow them to respond in whatever way they choose without belittling (though once again, I accept blame for my part above).

As for centralized economic control (fairly vague statement) I think most successful economies are mixed: like North America and Europe)
I don’t believe in free-market/market economy completely as I do support regulation and taxation. Though I don’t think the severance has to be complete. See developing Asian countries for evidence of rampant pollution and exploitation of labor forces for just two problems of capitalism without genuine regulation.

When you err to far on one side or the other I think they system is destined to collapse. However, through my studies the least vulnerable economies often are more liberal (though certainly aren’t recipients of giant bull markets or booms and likewise rarely suffer prolonged depressions).

I do welcome feedback. I like feedback when it’s coherent, and the people who offer it can substantiate their claims.

So, tell me, with your education of political system, what political system in history has centralized economic control and experienced prosperity? If you can think of one, HOW did that centralization of power and decision making benefit the society?