A comparison of US and Canadian healthcare, Using babies! Options

[mipadi]

United States

• Wife with previa placenta, c-section, 9 days hospital - $50k+
• Son 3 weeks immature, 3 weeks in NICU - $140K+

Welcome to American health care. I do have insurance so with that it will be about $20K out of pocket for me. And most importantly my son is now 5 weeks old and thriving.

Canada

I'm a Canadian in Canada, father of two. I created an account specifically after reading the above comment. This isn't a horror story, or even a story of near-disaster, just what happened, but I couldn't help but notice a contrast.

In the last weeks of my wife's first pregnancy, she began experiencing some stomach pain. We went to the hospital, she was checked out with a bevy of tests, discharged, and sent home when she appeared to be doing better. Gas, we all thought. After more pain a few days later, and some discussion with the nurse over the phone, we agreed that this needed to be checked again. My wife was diagnosed with an unusual affliction that can affect pregnant women, and that it was best treated with the baby removed.

They tried to induce labour (to no effect), she was given an epidural, and eventually it was decided that this was best handled with a cesarean. The deed done, all was well. Mom and child #1 stayed in the hospital for a few days, receiving checkups and the assorted 200-point-inspections that newborns seem to need. I brought them home, life was good. A nurse came to our home within a couple of weeks to see if we needed anything. At some point my wife went in to a nursing clinic at the hospital to get help with breastfeeding.

Pregnancy #2 came along a couple of years later. As a consequence of history, there were a couple of extra appointments with the obstetrician, an extra ultrasound (I think)...and about three weeks before the due date, my wife started getting pains again. The ob's general take was "let's not mess around - let's just go with the cesarean...how 'bout this weekend?" Another surgery, another stay of a few days.

I paid for parking. I paid to get some photos of the ultrasound in a cutesy envelope, and I paid something like $10 or $15 so my wife would have a phone in the hospital room. I never saw a bill. I don't know how much all this cost. I'd never think this is all that remarkable except that I keep hearing that it is.

I don't really know what things are like in the U.S. I hear horror stories, of course, but I've learned not to trust what you're told about a foreign health care system. I don't know what it's like in the UK or France since I've never lived there.

As for what goes on in Canada...I don't suppose it comes as a surprise to most of the crowd on this particular board to be told that you are being lied to. Horribly, horribly lied to. As the debate rages on in your country, my wife and I are frequently exposed to the things you're being told about the system in my country. She laughs out loud, and my stomach turns.

This isn't a polemic. I don't know that you can really walk away with more than "I heard from some guy that it's not so bad." You folks should do what's best for you and your country, but you deserve good information and a good debate to make your choice.

[NoSex]

Big government is effectively crippling important sectors of our economy. lower taxes means more money for the consumer to use, to stimulate other sectors of an ever dwindling economy.

what sector of our economy is being crippled by government? please cite specific examples. also, lower taxes for the consumer can stimulate the economy, of course. however, raising taxes for the upper crust of society, that small %2 that has a vast majority of this country's wealth, will not destroy us. lastly, what the f*ck are you talking about? i thought we were discussing healthcare. aren't i right? isn't the private industry hurting the economy?

If a corporation in competition can't become more efficient, what makes you think a government funded program will?

because a single payer can manage in a more inexpensive manner. because a single payer, non-profit system doesn't need vacation bonuses like a mother f*cker. because a single payer actually has an incentive to lower costs... and make people healthier. the private industry does best when people are sick; a public system does best when people are healthy.

Government involvement in healthcare is the problem, not the solution.

so i guess the government forced healthcare ceos to take piles & piles of money for bonuses this year... last year, every year. man, the government is an evil prick! i can't believe the government keeps forcing the private industry to deny coverage! what a f*cker!

p.s. you're a tool.

[kryogenix]

what sector of our economy is being crippled by government? please cite specific examples. also, lower taxes for the consumer can stimulate the economy, of course. however, raising taxes for the upper crust of society, that small %2 that has a vast majority of this country's wealth, will not destroy us. lastly, what the f*ck are you talking about? i thought we were discussing healthcare. aren't i right? isn't the private industry hurting the economy?

Government is crippling EVERY sector of the economy. Taxes, minimum wage, bullshit regulations etc.

Tax that 2% enough, and they'll leave/dodge taxes. Then you'll have no one paying the bulk of taxes.

I'm talking about the expansion of government power, which is exactly what government run healthcare is.

because a single payer can manage in a more inexpensive manner. because a single payer, non-profit system doesn't need vacation bonuses like a mother f*cker. because a single payer actually has an incentive to lower costs... and make people healthier. [b]the private industry does best when people are sick; a public system does best when people are healthy.

LOL what a joke. Have you ever been to public school, the DMV, the post office?

There is no incentive to make people healthier, as the government will be making money whether the people are being healed, or dying waiting for their medicine because it's being rationed.

so i guess the government forced healthcare ceos to take piles & piles of money for bonuses this year... last year, every year. man, the government is an evil prick! i can't believe the government keeps forcing the private industry to deny coverage! what a f*cker!

p.s. you're a tool.

The government IS an evil prick. Unjust war, unjust taxes, making a mockery of the Constitution, buying votes with taxpayer money, etc. The CEOs can do whatever the f*ck they want with their profits, they EARNED those profits. They aren't demanding money at gunpoint like the government is.

P.S. cry more

[NoSex]

Government is crippling EVERY sector of the economy. Taxes, minimum wage, bullshit regulations etc.

if government is crippling the economy, why are there still record high profits?

Tax that 2% enough, and they'll leave/dodge taxes. Then you'll have no one paying the bulk of taxes.

than we can arrest that 2%. you know, enforce the law. fundamentally, and rather obviously, that 2% owes their wealth to the infrastructure of society. without civilization, they wouldn't have the same wealth. because of this, they have an obligation, as we all do, to contribute a percentage of our earnings (in order to support the common wealth and development of civilization). those who are wealthiest have a greater debt to society.

otherwise, we live contrary to the concept of civilization. civilization is participatory, communal, and a form of unification. we come together because we are stronger as many. FROM MANY COME ONE.

otherwise, you merely support civilization as a system of labor exploitation and slavery. you would do yourself a service by reading howard zinn's a peoples history of the united states. you must realize that all of history is a story of those what have power, imposing that power on others, unfairly, with little regard for humanity - only giving the masses enough "freedom" so as to pacify them, so as to prevent violent revolution. history is long, but we're still just a bunch of wage slaves.

LOL what a joke. Have you ever been to public school, the DMV, the post office?

there are different ways to increase quality care in a single-payer system. for one, the efficiency i was describing was purely in the sense of cost - universal healthcare would be much cheaper than our private industry. the government could definitely reduce costs, creating a more fiscally efficient system. secondly, what we have seen around the world is that all other systems of equitable (sometimes greater) quality than the us system. so, it isn't a joke, it's a reality. germany, for example, has less wait time than america. and, france has greater quality care. there are different ways to increase quality of care, and it isn''t like delivering mail or taking a driving test (and i've gotten better government service than private service, definitely, so whatever). for example, you give a doctor more money the LESS his patients visit him, not the other way around. this creates a new paradigm in healthcare services, increases efficiency, and actual incentive for healing people.

The CEOs can do whatever the f*ck they want with their profits, they EARNED those profits. They aren't demanding money at gunpoint like the government is.

can the ceos buy the government out? can they lobby politicians to vote in a corporation's interest?

what is your deal with taxes? you realize we need them to function as a civilization? you realize you use public services constantly? and benefit from taxation?

[kryogenix]

if government is crippling the economy, why are there still record high profits?

Because government policy makes it harder for smaller companies to compete, so there is less pressure to lower prices.

than we can arrest that 2%. you know, enforce the law.

It's against the law to move out of the country? I know if I was in a citizen in a country that was taking away the majority of my wealth every year, I'd want out.

fundamentally, and rather obviously, that 2% owes their wealth to the infrastructure of society. without civilization, they wouldn't have the same wealth. because of this, they have an obligation, as we all do, to contribute a percentage of our earnings (in order to support the common wealth and development of civilization). those who are wealthiest have a greater debt to society.

No, they don't owe a f*cking dime. Party A provides a good or service for Party B, who pays for and consumes the goods or services. Both sides were compensated in the transaction. There is no obligation for companies to society, and no obligations for society to companies. As long as both sides make voluntary transactions, both sides have already been fairly compensated.

otherwise, we live contrary to the concept of civilization. civilization is participatory, communal, and a form of unification. we come together because we are stronger as many. FROM MANY COME ONE.

I fail to see why this entails taking wealth from the most productive members of society by force and giving it to the least productive.

otherwise, you merely support civilization as a system of labor exploitation and slavery. you would do yourself a service by reading howard zinn's a peoples history of the united states. you must realize that all of history is a story of those what have power, imposing that power on others, unfairly, with little regard for humanity - only giving the masses enough "freedom" so as to pacify them, so as to prevent violent revolution. history is long, but we're still just a bunch of wage slaves.

You mean it's not labor exploitation and slavery for the government to let people work and take away more than half of what they earn? Perhaps not slavery (yet), but serfs during the middle ages kept more of their money than people in America.

there are different ways to increase quality care in a single-payer system. for one, the efficiency i was describing was purely in the sense of cost - universal healthcare would be much cheaper than our private industry. the government could definitely reduce costs, creating a more fiscally efficient system.

The government COULD reduce costs. But they don't. They never do. Republican or democrat, they squander our money on stupid shit. The last thing we need is yet another monolithic government run program.

secondly, what we have seen around the world is that all other systems of equitable (sometimes greater) quality than the us system. so, it isn't a joke, it's a reality. germany, for example, has less wait time than america. and, france has greater quality care. there are different ways to increase quality of care, and it isn''t like delivering mail or taking a driving test (and i've gotten better government service than private service, definitely, so whatever).

What about healthcare in China?

for example, you give a doctor more money the LESS his patients visit him, not the other way around. this creates a new paradigm in healthcare services, increases efficiency, and actual incentive for healing people.

A doctor in this situation could make his offices smelled like shit, play obnoxious music in the waiting room, and have horrible service so that patients would avoid him, and he would be paid higher than a doctor that people actually liked to visit.

can the ceos buy the government out? can they lobby politicians to vote in a corporation's interest?

I love how both the CEOs and the government are the bad guys here, yet you place government on a pedestal and only admonish the CEOs.

Government enables and even encourages unfair corporate practices.

what is your deal with taxes? you realize we need them to function as a civilization? you realize you use public services constantly? and benefit from taxation?

We functioned as a civilization prior to the 16th amendment. We can have a functioning society without it.

[NoSex]

Because government policy makes it harder for smaller companies to compete, so there is less pressure to lower prices.

please, be specific. what government policies make it harder for companies to compete?

I know if I was in a citizen in a country that was taking away the majority of my wealth every year, I'd want out.

no one is being taxed over half of their assets. for example, income tax only reaches 35% in the highest brackets. and, even than, deductions and exemptions usually push that percentage down. and, even than, those being taxed 35% are still making more money than anyone needs, more money than any dozen people need - - after taxation.

No, they don't owe a f*cking dime.

the government paid for the roads that lead to their shop, they subsidize the television broadcasting that sends out their commercials. etc. etc. if you don't think they owe anything to society, than perhaps they should stop participating in society.

I fail to see why this entails taking wealth from the most productive members of society by force and giving it to the least productive.

1. i don't think building tickle-me elmo's is productive.
2. i don't think selling tobacco is productive.
3. redistributing wealth increases social health, less crime, less poverty, less hunger, less problems. it makes society a greater place, that's a worthwhile cause.
4. for all your moralizing, you seem to fail to see that people are in trouble in this society, and that people work very very hard and get no where; redistribution of wealth, and putting ownership into the hands of the proletariat can take this civilization out of corporate stagnation. the incentive of profit margin isn't moving society, it is forcing it into a slave state of exploitative labor, money worshiping, and consumerist nightmares. society is sick, and the capitalist system, that operates purely on profit motive, is largely to blame. socialism moves the emphasis to utility, capitalism does not have that power. worst of all, those who were privileged with money (power) to begin with, in a capitalist system, are likely to maintain that privilege and to pass it on within their bloodline. this creates a society ruled by a select few families, running a select few corporations - - this causes stagnation and a tremendous waste of time and resources.

You mean it's not labor exploitation and slavery for the government to let people work and take away more than half of what they earn? Perhaps not slavery (yet), but serfs during the middle ages kept more of their money than people in America.

1. no one is having half of their earnings taken from them. not even close.
2. are you dense? do you not understand wealth? serfs were f*cking poor, who cares if they even kept all of their money - - they would still have insanely less than the average american. if you have a lot of money, you can lose a lot of it, and still be swimming in it - get it?
3. the government taxes its citizens and than they build roads, they give us public education, they create an army to protect us, and they help us when we can't afford to eat, and receive medicine at the same time. government is supposed to be for the people and by the people... we, as a people, want these public services, we use them and value them. they are important. for all your moralizing, you seem to forget that without public services, america would be even more class divided, even less developed; imagine the literacy rates.

The government COULD reduce costs. But they don't. They never do. Republican or democrat, they squander our money on stupid shit. The last thing we need is yet another monolithic government run program.

nothing could be more monolithic than the system we already have. it would be cheaper. it's simply a reality, a single payer is a more fiscally efficient system.

A doctor in this situation could make his offices smelled like shit, play obnoxious music in the waiting room, and have horrible service so that patients would avoid him, and he would be paid higher than a doctor that people actually liked to visit.

government policy and regulation wouldn't let that happen. of course, consumer review and quality standards would exist.

I love how both the CEOs and the government are the bad guys here, yet you place government on a pedestal and only admonish the CEOs.

Government enables and even encourages unfair corporate practices.

only for profit motive though... my primary argument is maintained:
capitalism puts emphasis on profit, this hurts society.
socialism puts emphasis on utility, this helps society.

We functioned as a civilization prior to the 16th amendment. We can have a functioning society without it.

we still had taxation before the 16th amendment. in fact, we have always had taxation. who do you propose build the roads? or teach our children?

[kryogenix]

please, be specific. what government policies make it harder for companies to compete?

For one, minimum wage.

no one is being taxed over half of their assets. for example, income tax only reaches 35% in the highest brackets. and, even than, deductions and exemptions usually push that percentage down. and, even than, those being taxed 35% are still making more money than anyone needs, more money than any dozen people need - - after taxation.

Because federal income tax is the only tax right? Oh wait, think about that for a second.

What gives you the right to say those people don't deserve the money based on the arbitrary criteria of it's more than they need? In fact, by that definition, anyone that is able to put money aside for savings or investments has more money than they need.

Should we punish people for being responsible and saving/investing? Oh wait, we already do, via inflationary policies and capital gains taxes.

the government paid for the roads that lead to their shop, they subsidize the television broadcasting that sends out their commercials. etc. etc. if you don't think they owe anything to society, than perhaps they should stop participating in society.

I'm missing the part where they have to pay for people's healthcare.

1. i don't think building tickle-me elmo's is productive.
2. i don't think selling tobacco is productive.

Millions of soccer moms begged to differ at Wal-Marts around the country on Black Friday. Millions of smokers disagree.

3. redistributing wealth increases social health, less crime, less poverty, less hunger, less problems. it makes society a greater place, that's a worthwhile cause.

More like makes the poor dependent on the welfare state, violate the citizen's right to property and increases the burden on society's most productive members to the point where they say f*ck it all and pack their bags.

4. for all your moralizing, you seem to fail to see that people are in trouble in this society, and that people work very very hard and get no where; redistribution of wealth, and putting ownership into the hands of the proletariat can take this civilization out of corporate stagnation. the incentive of profit margin isn't moving society, it is forcing it into a slave state of exploitative labor, money worshiping, and consumerist nightmares. society is sick, and the capitalist system, that operates purely on profit motive, is largely to blame. socialism moves the emphasis to utility, capitalism does not have that power. worst of all, those who were privileged with money (power) to begin with, in a capitalist system, are likely to maintain that privilege and to pass it on within their bloodline. this creates a society ruled by a select few families, running a select few corporations - - this causes stagnation and a tremendous waste of time and resources.

People voluntarily working for companies (and being paid while doing so) is moving towards a slave state... Yet you don't think that healthcare workers being FORCED to work by the government isn't?

Show me an example of a true free market dystopia, and I'll show you 5 socialist dystopias.

1. no one is having half of their earnings taken from them. not even close.
2. are you dense? do you not understand wealth? serfs were f*cking poor, who cares if they even kept all of their money - - they would still have insanely less than the average american. if you have a lot of money, you can lose a lot of it, and still be swimming in it - get it?
3. the government taxes its citizens and than they build roads, they give us public education, they create an army to protect us, and they help us when we can't afford to eat, and receive medicine at the same time. government is supposed to be for the people and by the people... we, as a people, want these public services, we use them and value them. they are important. for all your moralizing, you seem to forget that without public services, america would be even more class divided, even less developed; imagine the literacy rates.

1. once again, income tax isn't the only tax we have you dolt.
2. are YOU dense? it's almost laughable that a highschool dropout has the audacity to tell the most productive members of society that they don't deserve their wealth.
3. again, didn't we have these things before the 16th amendment? end the federal income tax.

government policy and regulation wouldn't let that happen. of course, consumer review and quality standards would exist.

All the while making services more costly and inefficient. Doctor's offices will be spending more time filing paperwork than actually treating patients. And that's after our medical schools will have all time lows in enrollment because everyone will realize it's not worth going to school for 10 years to become a slave to the healthcare system.

only for profit motive though... my primary argument is maintained:
capitalism puts emphasis on profit, this hurts society.
socialism puts emphasis on utility, this helps society.

Profit is not evil. The pursuit of profit is only evil when you undertake evil deeds in order to obtain it.

The same thing applies for socialism. It doesn't matter that you're helping poor people get healthcare, the fact that you are taking wealth from people by force in order to do so makes it wrong.

we still had taxation before the 16th amendment. in fact, we have always had taxation. who do you propose build the roads? or teach our children?

The point you missed was that the federal government grew tremendously after the federal income tax was enstated. Look at the parallel between income tax growth and the growth of the military industrial complex. Government involvement should be limited to protecting people's rights, not creating new ones out of thin air.

[NoSex]

For one, minimum wage.

so you're saying that minimum wage is forcing businesses to jack up the prices of their goods and services so that they can collect records profits because...? i'm really not following this. i think you're grasping at straws here.

Figure 7: CEOs' average pay, production workers' average pay, the S&P 500 Index, corporate profits, and the federal minimum wage, 1990-2005 (all figures adjusted for inflation)

Because federal income tax is the only tax right? Oh wait, think about that for a second.

even considering the highest taxes on property, social security, medicare, sale, trade, and income... no one is being taxed half of their assets. take notes, i never said that income tax is the "only tax." it's far and along the most significant tax, which is why i cited it.

What gives you the right to say those people don't deserve the money based on the arbitrary criteria of it's more than they need? In fact, by that definition, anyone that is able to put money aside for savings or investments has more money than they need.

again, you're not reading what i'm saying. you're just arguing against points i haven't made. i said that it was more than anyone needs, or any "dozen people," for that matter. i was simply demonstrating that they wouldn't be hurting to lose any money, they could be taxed on 90% of their wealth and still be richer than the majority of americans. nonetheless, "more than one needs" is not an arbitrary criteria, it's not like i just chose to say that for no reason. people need money, and some people don't have enough of it... and, arguably, some people have far too much of it. it would be a good thing if everyone could it, and, pragmatically, it's not a bad thing to have to take money from others, who can afford it, to feed those who can't.

still, and even further, when it comes to deserving money, i have a particular inclination that those who do the most work (i.e. physical labor), those who actually move this country, who put their lives on the line, and suffer a great deal of stress and sacrifice in their labor, deserve the most compensation. without laborers, there would be no profit for anyone. any single laborer for gm is more deserving of compensation than roger moore. who has done more work? who has actually created a product?

but, we find that the exact opposite is true. ceo salaries are skyrocketing and labor salaries aren't hardly moving @ all.

Millions of soccer moms begged to differ at Wal-Marts around the country on Black Friday. Millions of smokers disagree.

you're not going to actually argue that smoking cigarettes is productive? look, these things propagate merely because they are profitable. my point was to illustrate that profitable things are not inherent instrumental or of significant utility, rather the opposite is often true.

More like makes the poor dependent on the welfare state, violate the citizen's right to property and increases the burden on society's most productive members to the point where they say f*ck it all and pack their bags.

1. capitalism created the poor.
2. property rights existed only because they were intended for rich white people, the only people who once owned property.
3. the most productive members of society are laborers, not ceos.

People voluntarily working for companies (and being paid while doing so) is moving towards a slave state...

after the slaves were emancipated, where did they go? they worked the fields. and now they were, in a sense, worse off. now that they had salaries, their employers were not obligated to provide food and shelter to them. they paid them only enough to keep them alive and mildly healthy, healthy enough to work. now that the slaves required a salary to survive, how voluntary would you consider their labor?

1. once again, income tax isn't the only tax we have you dolt.
2. are YOU dense? it's almost laughable that a highschool dropout has the audacity to tell the most productive members of society that they don't deserve their wealth.
3. again, didn't we have these things before the 16th amendment? end the federal income tax.

1. i know, you dolt. still, not half of anyone's wealth.
2. argumentum ad hominem. p.s. i never dropped out. i graduated. i now attend university.
3. we also had taxes before the 16th amendment? what the hell are you talking about? f*ck, we even had income tax before the 16th amendment.


All the while making services more costly and inefficient. Doctor's offices will be spending more time filing paperwork than actually treating patients. And that's after our medical schools will have all time lows in enrollment because everyone will realize it's not worth going to school for 10 years to become a slave to the healthcare system.
Profit is not evil. The pursuit of profit is only evil when you undertake evil deeds in order to obtain it.

The same thing applies for socialism. It doesn't matter that you're helping poor people get healthcare, the fact that you are taking wealth from people by force in order to do so makes it wrong.

i don't believe in your infantile shit morality.
not to mention, any reasonable dude would be like, "let people die or steal money from people who own golden helicopters...?" oh, i don't know, steal from the rich and give to the poor! if it's life and death, if it is the health of all of society... steal from the rich, for god's sake.

Government involvement should be limited to protecting people's rights, not creating new ones out of thin air.

i would argue that the provision of certain necessities (i.e. food, shelter, etc.) is a form of protection. without these provisions, human beings cannot survive (or at least, not easily survive). insofar as we have the right to "life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness," don't you think that the governments that are designed to secure these rights should make efforts to see that they are actualized? and, don't you feel that only by fulfilling the lower tiers of maslow's hierarchy can we secure these rights?