Canada's Conservatives vow health care guarantee By David Ljunggren
Fri Dec 2, 2:19 PM ET
OTTAWA (Reuters) - The main opposition Conservative Party, regularly accused of planning to scrap Canada's creaking publicly funded health care system, promised on Friday to cut wait times for treatment if elected, but stressed it would not create a parallel private network.
The Conservatives -- bidding to end 12 years of Liberal rule in the January 23 election -- have had great trouble persuading Canadians that they want to improve rather than kill off the national medicare system.
Medicare gives Canadians the right to free medical treatment. Although it swallows close to C$90 billion a year in public funds, waiting times are growing and there are increasingly serious shortages of family doctors and nurses.
Conservative leader Stephen Harper said he would work with the provinces to guarantee that people get care within a reasonable time or be entitled to go outside the province if necessary. Spokeswoman Carolyn Stewart-Olsen said this would even mean treatment in the United States if necessary.
Private medical facilities have already been set up in various provinces. The Liberals have on occasion threatened to cut off funds to the provinces unless the clinics cease operations but Prime Minister Paul Martin refused at a Toronto news conference on Friday to say he would shut them down.
Martin scoffed at Harper and said he could not be trusted.
He said that in the 1950s his father Paul Martin Sr. had brought in the beginnings of the public health system. He himself made wait times a centerpiece of the 2004 election and then arranged for C$41 billion in new funding.
TimmyBoy said:Where are the proponents of socialized medicine concerning this issue? I am surprised to not here any comments from liberals or any of them to address the problems that socialized medicine brought to Canada that are stated in this article. I am assuming the proponents of socialized medicine are too scared to debate the issue.
TimmyBoy said:Where are the proponents of socialized medicine concerning this issue? I am surprised to not here any comments from liberals or any of them to address the problems that socialized medicine brought to Canada that are stated in this article. I am assuming the proponents of socialized medicine are too scared to debate the issue.
Comrade Brian said:To put it short, the reason why we should have free medical care is, to put it short, so everyone can have it.
What revolutionary idea do you have that will provide health care to the 43 million Americans who currently aren't covered? I'm curious to read what your solution is?TimmyBoy said:Where are the proponents of socialized medicine concerning this issue? I am surprised to not here any comments from liberals or any of them to address the problems that socialized medicine brought to Canada that are stated in this article. I am assuming the proponents of socialized medicine are too scared to debate the issue.
26 X World Champs said:What revolutionary idea do you have that will provide health care to the 43 million Americans who currently aren't covered? I'm curious to read what your solution is?
Are any of you out there of the opinion that if people can't afford private health care that's too damn bad? I'm not talking about people living below the poverty line, I'm talking about people who live from paycheck to paycheck and are self-supporting but do not have enough to buy health care, what happens to them? If they have diabetes, how do they get their meds, etc.?
TimmyBoy said:Any which way you look at it, their is no easy solution to the healthcare problem. If you want better quality healthcare, you want new innovative ideas on health issues then you would want for profit, private, control of healthcare. If you want an inefficient system, shortages of doctors and nurses, doctors who are not very good in the operating room, long waiting lists to see the doctor, but everybody is covered, then the socialized medicine is the way to go. But their are serious risks to socialized medicine and hidden costs that are associated with it. Me personally, i feel that socialized medicine has some serious shortcomings and I have deep misgivings about switching to socialized medicine. Doctors need to make money and the cold hard facts are, nothing in this world is free, even under socialized medicine, it is not free. You will need higher taxes to pay for an inefficient system when it comes to socialized medicine. I guarantee you, those taxes will be very high to pay for that system as well and it will still be inefficient.
TimmyBoy said:Where are the proponents of socialized medicine concerning this issue? I am surprised to not here any comments from liberals or any of them to address the problems that socialized medicine brought to Canada that are stated in this article. I am assuming the proponents of socialized medicine are too scared to debate the issue.
think that's one of the fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives. The conservative argument is "so what - it's every man for himself". The liberal argument is that "every American deserves health care".
_
Cremaster77 said:I post studies with links that show that Canadians have a wait time of a few weeks, not 6 months like some people here blindly state. I post data with links that show that Candians are MORE satisfied with their healthcare than Americans. You make ridiculous statements about how socialized medicine results in inferior medical care citing "doctors who are not very good in the operating room", yet in countries with socialized medicine average life expectancy is higher, and infant mortality and maternal mortality are lower than in the US. This includes most European countries, some Asian countries, and Canada.
You make a blanket statement to start the thread about how noone wants to debate these issues. I post DATA showing how your statements and completely false, and you ignore them, instead choosing to make unsubstantiated claims as to the inferiority of healthcare under socialized systems. You serve as a prime example why healthcare in this country is declining and will continue to do so. Congratulations.
hipsterdufus said:You here this crap about how bad it is in Canada on Fox all the time.
Remember - the big losers in National Health Insurance are the pharmaceutical companies, HMOs and private insurance companies. They are all very powerful lobbyists.
A new study by "Public Citizen" showed that national health insurance could save at least $286 billion annually on paperwork, enough to cover all of the uninsured and to provide full prescription drug coverage for everyone in the United States.
http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=1623
mesue said:I have waited as long as 3 months to see a specialist and that is with two types of insurance here in the US. All this talk about long waits and not being able to see your doctor is from ads made by the insurance companies and shown on tv whenever anyone mentions national healthcare,who think their cash cow will be gone if we go to a national healthcare program.
And whether you consciously acknowledge it or not when you support not having a national healthcare program you are supporting over 40 some million people not having health care, and stats prove that as a result many of these people will die. So what you are supporting is letting poor people die. Bottom line thats it, if they don't have access to medical care because their poor and they have an illness that can kill without medical care they will die, and you support that when you support NOT having a national healthcare program.
Many of you assume none of these over 40 million people work and they are lazy and you are tired of supportng them anyway. Well the truth is many of them are the working poor, people who are out of work and looking for work, people who are working, who toil long hard hours for little money (minimum wage or a few cents above it) and no benefits and pay taxes just like you do, In with these over 40 million peoiple who don't have insurance are the ones who have lost their jobs for any number of reasons, looking for work, and then also the ones who have found employment and are waiting for the waiting period for insurance to kick in, most of the time here in my area you work for three months before you can get insurance.
I'm all for a National Healthcare Program, my brother died as a result of not having found employment (economy is bad lots of folks out of work) to provide himself with health insurance, he finally found a job but and had gotten called to work but by that time he was to sick to go. The local hospital only ran the necessary tests after his medicaid kicked in that they filed for him. He died one week later. The doctors said if they had gotten it early on there was a high cure rate for this type of cancer.
You can die in America as a result of not having insurance which basically means that hospitals will see you but they will not run expensive tests or give expenisve treatment without your having insurance to pay for it. And for all you people here screaming you don't support a national healthcare program, life turns on a dime, you could lose your job tomorrow and your insurance and then you will be in with this group. Lets hope you or your children don't get sick and need healthcare and access to expensive test or treatment. If and when this happens just remember this is what you have supported.
Stinger said:Then let's have free food too.
UtahBill said:When the media tells us that 40 million Americans do not have health insurance, I immediately want to know what percentage of them CAN afford it, but won't buy it because they would rather have a few more toys, luxuries, videos, beer, wine, cigarettes, etc. in their house.
I know a lot of people who fit that description. Their toys are more important to them than the health of their children.
Comrade Brian said:How strange, I am for that too. Want a moneyless society.
UtahBill said:When the media tells us that 40 million Americans do not have health insurance, I immediately want to know what percentage of them CAN afford it, but won't buy it because they would rather have a few more toys, luxuries, videos, beer, wine, cigarettes, etc. in their house.
I know a lot of people who fit that description. Their toys are more important to them than the health of their children.
That reported number came from the census bureau if I remember correctly, the number included self-employed, jobs without health benefits, and unemployed, but it was mostly skewed to favor the argument for U.H.C. The fact is that some of the self employed did not fit the uninsured category, and likewise some of the non benefits employees had their own individual policies, 40 million was an inflated figure.Inuyasha said:The media gives us the figure of 40 million because that's the figure put out by the insurance companies and the AMA. I would venture to guess that the actual number is even higher.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?