> -----Original Message----- > From: Sam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 11:20 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Canada's 'universal' health care > > Did you just say screw them, let them drive to Mexico? :o
Did I? Not that I remember. I will say that no system is perfect. From a purely superficial standpoint it seems like the Canadian system is much more effective at the "bottom end" than the U.S. system: common, basic care is provided well-enough to everybody. However the "high-end" is less effective: special care, unusual situations, etc. The U.S. is roughly in the inverse position. Lots of resources, lots of skill but an ability to get basic care to a large segment of citizens. After you strip the rhetoric and extremism from it I actually completely agree with the article you posted. The American health care system IS a "back up" for the Canadian. And why not? The Canadian system can provide cheap basic service and then reach out to us when they need a little extra. They don't need to invest in the infrastructure and resources to have access to them. It's good business, pure and simple. What I disagree with is the claim that the Canadian system "didn't provide for them". They did: when they couldn't provide the service they "contracted out" and got it done. Again, good business: don't replicate an infrastructure when it's cheaper to rent one. One key component here is cost: my understanding is that the family is STILL COVERED under the national health care insurance (since the move to the US hospital was orchestrated by the national service). They will pay no more than they would have in Canada as I understand the system. An American however... now that's a different story. A normal vaginal birth with no complications averages around $9,000 in the U.S. I can only assume that this special case (caesarean births for four infants needing round-the-clock care for weeks) would easily run into the fractions-of-a-million range. I had both my kids at Mass General (one of the top five hospitals in the US) and each of them spent a night in the ICU. The uninsured bill was well over $20,000. I'm glad my insurance both covered it and gave me access to that quality of care... at the same time I shudder to think of the quality of care and costs if I were still working at 7-Eleven. So what's better? A highly competent system that many can't access or an adequately competent system that everybody has access to and that provides access to a highly competent system. I'm happy enough to agree that the Canadian system works so well because it has access to the U.S. system as a "back-up"... but doesn't that still leave us with every Canadian covered and only a percentage of Americans covered? Jim Davis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| ColdFusion is delivering applications solutions at at top companies around the world in government. Find out how and where now http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/showcase/index.cfm?event=finder&productID=1522&loc=en_us Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:240691 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
