Conservative Explanations

[ViperOverLord]

That's the point dude. The point is not whether the doctor should be treating it. The point is a person in Japan coughs and they are at the doctor. And I'd trust my brother 100 times out of 100 times vs you. So there's no point in having that argument. He didn't f'ing lie to me when he told me about the waits.

And I have a brother dude. What the f*ck is your deal? You really couldn't think of anything better to call me out on? And I already showed you that you were wrong about vernacular as well so bringing that baggage up just makes you look foolish.

So roughly, you're arguing that your brother went to see a doctor and had to wait 6-10 hours to get an entirely ineffective form of medication for a common cold, treatment for which is entirely available over the counter from any pharmacy in Japan, and that prescription, when granted, was free, although prescriptions aren't actually free in Japan, just heavily subsidised?

BS (to use the vernacular), obviously.

Instead of regarding your sheepish lies__ Let me stick to the facts. You mentioned that the care in socialized medicine in Japan was great and I told you that long waits were routine according to my first hand source. That's not trolling__ that's what's called a counter argument. What you are doing with all your little accusations and condescension is much closer to trolling.

[thegreekdog]

I don't think it's unreasonable for private companies and individuals to argue they should not have to provide for insurance to cover contraceptives.

If it's expected of the companies to provide insurance that covers overall healthcare, then there's no reason why that insurance shouldn't cover contraceptives as well.

If you guys had universal healthcare, then this thing wouldn't even be an issue.

There are plenty of reasons why companies would not want their health insurance to cover contraceptives:

(1) Money;
(2) Necessity vs. non-necessity;
(3) Religious reasons
(4) Personal reasons

If we had universal healthcare, this would be an even bigger issue.

It would not be an even bigger issue. It would be almost a non-issue entirely. As evidence I present pretty much any country that provides universal healthcare. Companies are very rarely involved (some companies in the UK offer private healthcare too), so there's virtually no issue.

I've only experienced three examples of national healthcare though- the UK, Japan, and the US, those being the only countries I've lived in. The UK and Japan provided excellent service, and nobody really had an issue with contraception (there are always a few nuts). Only in the US is it politicised, rather than normalised.

Why do you think it would be a bigger issue? It goes against almost every example I've experienced, at least.

Taxpayers would be directly paying for contraceptives - it would be a much bigger issue and one that social conservatives could exploit further.

[thegreekdog]

There are plenty of reasons why companies would not want their health insurance to cover contraceptives:

(1) Money;
(2) Necessity vs. non-necessity;
(3) Religious reasons
(4) Personal reasons

There's plenty of "reasons" for companies to want to do lots of things.

1 - Does money justify everything? Is a company justified in eg. destroying the environment, ignoring safety of employees, moving production to 3rd world countries, as long as it gets them more money?
2 - Necessity is subjective. One could argue that lots of things aren't "necessities", yet in a civilized society, guaranteeing those things for workers is considered beneficial for all.
3 - Religious reasons can be used to justify anything. Religious freedom should never override more important freedoms and rights.
4 - Personal reasons can also be used to justify anything.

I fail to see how any of these are viable arguments.

If we had universal healthcare, this would be an even bigger issue.

I don't believe you.

I agree with all of what you've typed above; we just have different weightings on the necessity of contraceptives versus any of the above four reasons. You think the need for contraceptives outweighs any and all of the above; I think it outweighs none of them.

[Symmetry]

That's the point dude. The point is not whether the doctor should be treating it. The point is a person in Japan coughs and they are at the doctor. And I'd trust my brother 100 times out of 100 times vs you. So there's no point in having that argument. He didn't f'ing lie to me when he told me about the waits.

And I have a brother dude. What the f*ck is your deal? You really couldn't think of anything better to call me out on? And I already showed you that you were wrong about vernacular as well so bringing that baggage up just makes you look foolish.

So roughly, you're arguing that your brother went to see a doctor and had to wait 6-10 hours to get an entirely ineffective form of medication for a common cold, treatment for which is entirely available over the counter from any pharmacy in Japan, and that prescription, when granted, was free, although prescriptions aren't actually free in Japan, just heavily subsidised?

BS (to use the vernacular), obviously.

Instead of regarding your sheepish lies__ Let me stick to the facts. You mentioned that the care in socialized medicine in Japan was great and I told you that long waits were routine according to my first hand source. That's not trolling__ that's what's called a counter argument. What you are doing with all your little accusations and condescension is much closer to trolling. I'm pretty much done with this though.

Your brother would be a second hand source for me. You would be a first hand source. Given that your source is obviously wrong in several respects, which parts should I trust?

That antibiotics treat a common cold?

That he had to wait 6-10 hours? Huh, you'd think he'd know the number of hours. That's quite a strange way to phrase a waiting period if we're talking about reality.

The fact that I'm calling you a troll shouldn't be the thing that bothers you. You should be more bothered by your sheer incompetence at the job.

[thegreekdog]

Finally, I agree with VOL - What was the point Woodruff? Why does a conservative need to be the one to point out the problems with the article? We hear a lot of talk on this forum about being nonpartisan and about how the conservatives on this forum use ridiculous statistics. How is this any different? This is weird coming from you Woodruff, unless I'm mistaking the intent.

You are.

Cool. Whenever you deign to, please let us know your intent.

[ViperOverLord]

Re: Japanese Healthcare

Source

Reform Proposal 4: patient-oriented delivery system. The notion that major changes are needed in the Japanese medical care system is not limited to policy-making circles, or to worries about spending. Patients have been complaining about hospitals and physicians for years: Waiting times are too long, doctors don’t give out much information, and the entire system appears unresponsive and arrogant. Reports of serious medical errors have been getting widespread media attention. The MHLW has been trying to deal with the situation but to many eyes appears ineffectual and too willing to collude with the JMA. However, beyond political and administrative problems, there are formidable structural barriers to reforms of the delivery system.

First, long waits are an inevitable result of patients’ having free access to virtually all hospitals and physicians’ offices. Not unnaturally, many patients prefer to visit prestigious medical centers rather than their local physician’s office, and it is only in the former that long waiting times are common. Partly because of complaints about waiting times, the MHLW has been trying to reduce demand for outpatient care at large hospitals in favor of private-practice physicians—for example, by decreasing their consultation fees and making patients pay more if they come in without a referral. However, the trend has hardly been reversed, partly because its objectives are contradictory: Lower consultation fees for large hospitals are a disincentive to the hospital but an incentive to the patient, since the copay is lower. Gatekeeping by primary care physicians would be the solution, but it would be unpopular with the public and difficult to implement, given the lack of appropriate training in primary care.

Source

Health Care for Anyone at Anytime

Dr. Kono Hitoshi is a typical doctor. He runs a private, 19-bed hospital in the Tokyo neighborhood of Soshigaya.

"The best thing about the Japanese medical system is that all citizens are covered," Kono says. "Anyone, anywhere, anytime — and it's cheap."

Patients don't have to make appointments at his hospital, either.

The Japanese go to the doctor about three times as often as Americans. Because there are no gatekeepers, they can see any specialist they want.

Source

patients in Japanese hospitals have the longest average length of stay in the world. Even accounting for the lengthy stays of psychiatric patients, the average patient's stay in a Japanese hospital far exceeds that of most other OECD countries both in the aggregate and by specific disease categories

-----

My brother doesn't lie to me Symmetry. That's what you do. I gave you a legitimate point and you shamelessly attempted to denigrate me (and him) with your patented personal assaults.

[Symmetry]

I don't think it's unreasonable for private companies and individuals to argue they should not have to provide for insurance to cover contraceptives.

If it's expected of the companies to provide insurance that covers overall healthcare, then there's no reason why that insurance shouldn't cover contraceptives as well.

If you guys had universal healthcare, then this thing wouldn't even be an issue.

There are plenty of reasons why companies would not want their health insurance to cover contraceptives:

(1) Money;
(2) Necessity vs. non-necessity;
(3) Religious reasons
(4) Personal reasons

If we had universal healthcare, this would be an even bigger issue.

It would not be an even bigger issue. It would be almost a non-issue entirely. As evidence I present pretty much any country that provides universal healthcare. Companies are very rarely involved (some companies in the UK offer private healthcare too), so there's virtually no issue.

I've only experienced three examples of national healthcare though- the UK, Japan, and the US, those being the only countries I've lived in. The UK and Japan provided excellent service, and nobody really had an issue with contraception (there are always a few nuts). Only in the US is it politicised, rather than normalised.

Why do you think it would be a bigger issue? It goes against almost every example I've experienced, at least.

Taxpayers would be directly paying for contraceptives - it would be a much bigger issue and one that social conservatives could exploit further.

Of course, the obvious response is that they wouldn't be paying directly at all. That's just a silly way of portraying taxation. Actually pretty weird, but then much of this debate is like that. Of course taxpayers aren't directly purchasing contraceptives. Indirectly was the word you were looking for. Unless you're worried about people directly purchasing contraceptives, which the same religious groups are also against, and presumably would also like to be illegal.

So, anyway, I'm assuming you meant indirectly. My point still stands I think- that it's not a big problem in other countries which have universal healthcare.

I'll throw you a bone though, because Ireland has some issues on this subject, mainly surrounding abortion.

[Symmetry]

Re: Japanese Healthcare

Source

Reform Proposal 4: patient-oriented delivery system. The notion that major changes are needed in the Japanese medical care system is not limited to policy-making circles, or to worries about spending. Patients have been complaining about hospitals and physicians for years: Waiting times are too long, doctors don’t give out much information, and the entire system appears unresponsive and arrogant. Reports of serious medical errors have been getting widespread media attention. The MHLW has been trying to deal with the situation but to many eyes appears ineffectual and too willing to collude with the JMA. However, beyond political and administrative problems, there are formidable structural barriers to reforms of the delivery system.

First, long waits are an inevitable result of patients’ having free access to virtually all hospitals and physicians’ offices. Not unnaturally, many patients prefer to visit prestigious medical centers rather than their local physician’s office, and it is only in the former that long waiting times are common. Partly because of complaints about waiting times, the MHLW has been trying to reduce demand for outpatient care at large hospitals in favor of private-practice physicians—for example, by decreasing their consultation fees and making patients pay more if they come in without a referral. However, the trend has hardly been reversed, partly because its objectives are contradictory: Lower consultation fees for large hospitals are a disincentive to the hospital but an incentive to the patient, since the copay is lower. Gatekeeping by primary care physicians would be the solution, but it would be unpopular with the public and difficult to implement, given the lack of appropriate training in primary care.

Source

Health Care for Anyone at Anytime

Dr. Kono Hitoshi is a typical doctor. He runs a private, 19-bed hospital in the Tokyo neighborhood of Soshigaya.

"The best thing about the Japanese medical system is that all citizens are covered," Kono says. "Anyone, anywhere, anytime — and it's cheap."

Patients don't have to make appointments at his hospital, either.

The Japanese go to the doctor about three times as often as Americans. Because there are no gatekeepers, they can see any specialist they want.

Source

patients in Japanese hospitals have the longest average length of stay in the world. Even accounting for the lengthy stays of psychiatric patients, the average patient's stay in a Japanese hospital far exceeds that of most other OECD countries both in the aggregate and by specific disease categories

-----

My brother doesn't lie to me Symmetry. That's what you do. I gave you a legitimate point and you shamelessly attempted to denigrate me (and him) with your patented personal assaults.

I'll admit that it's possible you simply misunderstood what your brother was saying to you, but I suspect that your brother might have been telling a few mistruths, if that's ok to say.

Now you may well think that having regular access to a doctor is a sign of racial hypochondria, but I'm not sure if that's really the case no matter how large the typeface. Regular health checks aren't a bad thing, nor is a prolonged stay in hospital. Indeed looking at the general health of Japan, one might even conclude that the Japanese healthcare system is very effective.

Unless, of course, your source is your brother, who needs antibiotics for a common cold.

[ViperOverLord]

One might even conclude that the Japanese healthcare system is very effective.

You may recall that my response stating the terrible wait times of Japanese hospitals was a response to your statement, "The UK and Japan provided excellent service." I gave that argument regarding the actual service (not necessarily the substantive quality of the actual health care).

The Japanese lead the world in average life span at 82.6 years. The US is 36 at 78.3 years. Despite that, I tend to believe that the US has better health care as our life spans are offset by worse diets, worse genetics and higher crime rates. If you have data that speaks to better healthcare in Japan, I'd love to see it.

I'm not closed off on universal health care__ but I'm still waiting to see significant data that argues for it. The best argument I've seen is data that indicates generally cheaper health care for all but at the expense of standards, wait times, privacy, etc.

What I want to see is how can universal care really improve a person's chances of living in the face of a life threatening disease like cancer. Will drugs be cheaper? Will treatments be more timely? Etc.

[patches70]

The Japanese might have longer life spans than everyone else but they don't like living in Japan very much. Japan is losing population at an alarming rate, even before their recent earthquake/nuclear/tsunami disaster. Japanese are leaving the country in droves. Having universal health care does not necessarily translate into making for a great place to live.....
Food for thought maybe.

[Symmetry]

One might even conclude that the Japanese healthcare system is very effective.

You may recall that my response stating the terrible wait times of Japanese hospitals was a response to your statement, "The UK and Japan provided excellent service." I gave that argument regarding the actual service (not necessarily the substantive quality of the actual health care).

The Japanese lead the world in average life span at 82.6 years. The US is 36 at 78.3 years. Despite that, I tend to believe that the US has better health care as our life spans are offset by worse diets, worse genetics and higher crime rates. If you have data that speaks to better healthcare in Japan, I'd love to see it.

I'm not closed off on universal health care__ but I'm still waiting to see significant data that argues for it. The best argument I've seen is data that indicates generally cheaper health care for all but at the expense of standards, wait times, privacy, etc.

What I want to see is how can universal care really improve a person's chances of living in the face of a life threatening disease like cancer. Will drugs be cheaper? Will treatments be more timely? Etc.

Hmm, you ask a lot of weird questions. Let's get a few out of the way- cheaper- yes, in terms of the payer. Drugs are cheaper. Obviously not the strange free antibiotics your brother had to wait between 6 and 10 hours for (did that not sound weird to you at all?). Medication is heavily subsidised. By the way, you should have a word or two with your (entirely trustworthy) brother about what he's taking antibiotics for. If it was for for a cold, he's being pretty irresoponsible,

Anyway, I lost track. Regular visits to a doctor can detect cancer in its early stages. I trust I can go on faith on that point. Early detection leads to more reliable treatments. Hope that point is ok.

Early detection generally equates to earlier treatment, unless of course some idiot turns up demanding antibiotics for his genital warts cold.

[ViperOverLord]

One might even conclude that the Japanese healthcare system is very effective.

You may recall that my response stating the terrible wait times of Japanese hospitals was a response to your statement, "The UK and Japan provided excellent service." I gave that argument regarding the actual service (not necessarily the substantive quality of the actual health care).

The Japanese lead the world in average life span at 82.6 years. The US is 36 at 78.3 years. Despite that, I tend to believe that the US has better health care as our life spans are offset by worse diets, worse genetics and higher crime rates. If you have data that speaks to better healthcare in Japan, I'd love to see it.

I'm not closed off on universal health care__ but I'm still waiting to see significant data that argues for it. The best argument I've seen is data that indicates generally cheaper health care for all but at the expense of standards, wait times, privacy, etc.

What I want to see is how can universal care really improve a person's chances of living in the face of a life threatening disease like cancer. Will drugs be cheaper? Will treatments be more timely? Etc.

Hmm, you ask a lot of weird questions. Let's get a few out of the way- cheaper- yes, in terms of the payer. Drugs are cheaper. Obviously not the strange free antibiotics your brother had to wait between 6 and 10 hours for (did that not sound weird to you at all?). Medication is heavily subsidised. By the way, you should have a word or two with your (entirely trustworthy) brother about what he's taking antibiotics for. If it was for for a cold, he's being pretty irresoponsible,

Anyway, I lost track. Regular visits to a doctor can detect cancer in its early stages. I trust I can go on faith on that point. Early detection leads to more reliable treatments. Hope that point is ok.

Early detection generally equates to earlier treatment, unless of course some idiot turns up demanding antibiotics for his genital warts cold.

I never stated that my brother was getting antibiotics. I stated that he mentioned the long wait times and then when you doubted it (and demeaned me even), I gave you empirical data that showed Japan had the longest wait times in the world. So__ I don't know why you're still on that kick.

Earlier detection (for cancer) is better obviously. But what access do they have to medications, chemotherapy, radiation, etc? Those are bigger questions for me.

Also, what are the wait times for major surgeries or access to MRIs? Frankly, we hear horror stories from Canada.

[Symmetry]

I never stated that my brother was getting antibiotics.

My brother lived in Japan__ He definitely disagrees with your summary of Japanese care. He recounted that it was 6 to 10 hours of waiting just to fulfill an appointment for antibiotics for the common cold

Hmm

[Baron Von PWN]

One might even conclude that the Japanese healthcare system is very effective.

You may recall that my response stating the terrible wait times of Japanese hospitals was a response to your statement, "The UK and Japan provided excellent service." I gave that argument regarding the actual service (not necessarily the substantive quality of the actual health care).

The Japanese lead the world in average life span at 82.6 years. The US is 36 at 78.3 years. Despite that, I tend to believe that the US has better health care as our life spans are offset by worse diets, worse genetics and higher crime rates. If you have data that speaks to better healthcare in Japan, I'd love to see it.

I'm not closed off on universal health care__ but I'm still waiting to see significant data that argues for it. The best argument I've seen is data that indicates generally cheaper health care for all but at the expense of standards, wait times, privacy, etc.

What I want to see is how can universal care really improve a person's chances of living in the face of a life threatening disease like cancer. Will drugs be cheaper? Will treatments be more timely? Etc.

Hmm, you ask a lot of weird questions. Let's get a few out of the way- cheaper- yes, in terms of the payer. Drugs are cheaper. Obviously not the strange free antibiotics your brother had to wait between 6 and 10 hours for (did that not sound weird to you at all?). Medication is heavily subsidised. By the way, you should have a word or two with your (entirely trustworthy) brother about what he's taking antibiotics for. If it was for for a cold, he's being pretty irresoponsible,

Anyway, I lost track. Regular visits to a doctor can detect cancer in its early stages. I trust I can go on faith on that point. Early detection leads to more reliable treatments. Hope that point is ok.

Early detection generally equates to earlier treatment, unless of course some idiot turns up demanding antibiotics for his genital warts cold.

I never stated that my brother was getting antibiotics. I stated that he mentioned the long wait times and then when you doubted it (and demeaned me even), I gave you empirical data that showed Japan had the longest wait times in the world. So__ I don't know why you're still on that kick.

Earlier detection (for cancer) is better obviously. But what access do they have to medications, chemotherapy, radiation, etc? Those are bigger questions for me.

Also, what are the wait times for major surgeries or access to MRIs? Frankly, we hear horror stories from Canada.

And we hear horror stories from the US of A. We hear what we want to hear.

[Symmetry]

On the bigger questions, Japan and the UK do all the medications, chemotherapy (not sure what you mean by radiation, but maybe radiotherapy?). Weirdly enough, if you have a serious illness, rather than your brother's obviously fake "cold", doctors will see you.

[ViperOverLord]

I never stated that my brother was getting antibiotics.

My brother lived in Japan__ He definitely disagrees with your summary of Japanese care. He recounted that it was 6 to 10 hours of waiting just to fulfill an appointment for antibiotics for the common cold

Hmm

Yes__ I didn't say that he was the one getting antibiotics.

[ViperOverLord]

And we hear horror stories from the US of A. We hear what we want to hear.

Not so much regarding the things I mentioned like timely surgeries and access to procedures like MRIs. We do need tort reform so that doctors aren't as handcuffed, but that is hardly an argument for socialized medicine.

There are 6 month to 2 year waiting lists for procedures in Canada that get performed in days (even same day) or weeks in the USA. My contention is that that is too high of a cost to pay for the so called right to universal health care. Other than that, my point is not at all to defend everything about our system.

[Symmetry]

And we hear horror stories from the US of A. We hear what we want to hear.

Not so much regarding the things I mentioned like timely surgeries and access to procedures like MRIs. We do need tort reform so that doctors aren't as handcuffed, but that is hardly an argument for socialized medicine.

There a 6 month to 2 year waiting lists for procedures in Canada that get performed in days (even same day) or weeks in the USA. My contention is that that is too high of a cost to pay for the so called right to universal health care. Other than that, my point is not at all to defend everything about our system.

And yet it seems to be a weird set of arguments based on what other people tell you, and that you clearly misunderstand about countries that actually have universal healthcare.

[Baron Von PWN]

And we hear horror stories from the US of A. We hear what we want to hear.

Not so much regarding the things I mentioned like timely surgeries and access to procedures like MRIs. We do need tort reform so that doctors aren't as handcuffed, but that is hardly an argument for socialized medicine.

There are 6 month to 2 year waiting lists for procedures in Canada that get performed in days (even same day) or weeks in the USA. My contention is that that is too high of a cost to pay for the so called right to universal health care. Other than that, my point is not at all to defend everything about our system.

The reason for your same day procedures is pricing out the wait list. Can't afford it? no surgery. Cuts down on wait times.

I agree, wait times for certain procedures is a problem in Canada. One I think we could stand to look south of the border for improvements. Such as allowing private clinics, while maintaining our public system. especially for non life threatening procedures, like MRIs or hip replacement surgeries. (these tend to be the things we have long wait times for, the whole system works on triage)

[ViperOverLord]

And we hear horror stories from the US of A. We hear what we want to hear.

Not so much regarding the things I mentioned like timely surgeries and access to procedures like MRIs. We do need tort reform so that doctors aren't as handcuffed, but that is hardly an argument for socialized medicine.

There a 6 month to 2 year waiting lists for procedures in Canada that get performed in days (even same day) or weeks in the USA. My contention is that that is too high of a cost to pay for the so called right to universal health care. Other than that, my point is not at all to defend everything about our system.

And yet it seems to be a weird set of arguments based on what other people tell you, and that you clearly misunderstand about countries that actually have universal healthcare.

I've demonstrated no misunderstanding of other countries universal healthcare; hence why you offered no supporting examples for that wild accusation.

[ViperOverLord]

And we hear horror stories from the US of A. We hear what we want to hear.

Not so much regarding the things I mentioned like timely surgeries and access to procedures like MRIs. We do need tort reform so that doctors aren't as handcuffed, but that is hardly an argument for socialized medicine.

There are 6 month to 2 year waiting lists for procedures in Canada that get performed in days (even same day) or weeks in the USA. My contention is that that is too high of a cost to pay for the so called right to universal health care. Other than that, my point is not at all to defend everything about our system.

The reason for your same day procedures is pricing out the wait list. Can't afford it? no surgery. Cuts down on wait times.

I agree, wait times for certain procedures is a problem in Canada. One I think we could stand to look south of the border for improvements. Such as allowing private clinics, while maintaining our public system. especially for non life threatening procedures, like MRIs or hip replacement surgeries. (these tend to be the things we have long wait times for, the whole system works on triage)

Yea__ Triage. Great for war. Not great for a national medical system. The Republicans weren't just playing on fear when they stated that Obamacare literally picks who lives and dies. People that work for a means to health should be allowed to use their means for survival. That is a right that I don't want the government taking.

[Baron Von PWN]

And we hear horror stories from the US of A. We hear what we want to hear.

Not so much regarding the things I mentioned like timely surgeries and access to procedures like MRIs. We do need tort reform so that doctors aren't as handcuffed, but that is hardly an argument for socialized medicine.

There are 6 month to 2 year waiting lists for procedures in Canada that get performed in days (even same day) or weeks in the USA. My contention is that that is too high of a cost to pay for the so called right to universal health care. Other than that, my point is not at all to defend everything about our system.

The reason for your same day procedures is pricing out the wait list. Can't afford it? no surgery. Cuts down on wait times.

I agree, wait times for certain procedures is a problem in Canada. One I think we could stand to look south of the border for improvements. Such as allowing private clinics, while maintaining our public system. especially for non life threatening procedures, like MRIs or hip replacement surgeries. (these tend to be the things we have long wait times for, the whole system works on triage)

Yea__ Triage. Great for war. Not great for a national medical system. The Republicans weren't just playing on fear when they stated that Obamacare literally picks who lives and dies. People that work for a means to health should be allowed to use their means for survival. That is a right that I don't want the government taking.

lol yes they were. Longer wait times for non-time critical surgeries/treatments turns into choosing who lives and dies!!!!! Goodness you're absurd, try and have reasonable conversation and you just go all crazy. You're such a waste of time.

[ViperOverLord]

lol yes they were. Longer wait times for non-time critical surgeries/treatments turns into choosing who lives and dies!!!!! Goodness you're absurd, try and have reasonable conversation and you just go all crazy. You're such a waste of time.

Source

My health-care prejudices crumbled not in the classroom but on the way to one. On a subzero Winnipeg morning in 1997, I cut across the hospital emergency room to shave a few minutes off my frigid commute. Swinging open the door, I stepped into a nightmare: the ER overflowed with elderly people on stretchers, waiting for admission. Some, it turned out, had waited five days. The air stank with sweat and urine. Right then, I began to reconsider everything that I thought I knew about Canadian health care. I soon discovered that the problems went well beyond overcrowded ERs. Patients had to wait for practically any diagnostic test or procedure, such as the man with persistent pain from a hernia operation whom we referred to a pain clinic—with a three-year wait list; or the woman needing a sleep study to diagnose what seemed like sleep apnea, who faced a two-year delay; or the woman with breast cancer who needed to wait four months for radiation therapy, when the standard of care was four weeks.

I decided to write about what I saw. By day, I attended classes and visited patients; at night, I worked on a book. Unfortunately, statistics on Canadian health care’s weaknesses were hard to come by, and even finding people willing to criticize the system was difficult, such was the emotional support that it then enjoyed. One family friend, diagnosed with cancer, was told to wait for potentially lifesaving chemotherapy. I called to see if I could write about his plight. Worried about repercussions, he asked me to change his name. A bit later, he asked if I could change his sex in the story, and maybe his town. Finally, he asked if I could change the illness, too.

If that's the price of free and/or so-called affordable health care, I don't want it. Keep the government dumb f*ck bureaucrats as far away from my treatments as possible.

[Woodruff]

Well__ I think it is possible for liberals to be honest and step up and say yea this is wrong__ that's not right. I think the liberals who stick to their philosophies rather than seeing everything as an us vs. them scenario would look at the unfairness of the article and say something. But those types of libs seem few and far in between.

I agree. The same can be said for those types of conservatives, as well.

As for the article__ I think it goes beyond flawed logic. It's just a hit piece built upon lies to suit that group's agenda.

Well of COURSE it is. That's what I've been HOPING to be shown! And yet, I'm not seeing your refutation of the statements made.

[Woodruff]

My brother lived in Japan__ He definitely disagrees with your summary of Japanese care. He recounted that it was 6 to 10 hours of waiting just to fulfill an appointment for antibiotics for the common cold b/c it was free and everybody felt the desire/need to take full advantage.

The US military uses this type of system. I did not experience these problems on any sort of a consistent basis.