🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <27o2fs$qh3@bmsrs.usc.edu>, Ray <degennar@bmsrs.usc.edu> wrote:
>Two points:
>
>1) Do you really want a health care program like Canada's?

Do we want a system that costs less money (as a percentage of GNP) and
covers every person in the country, unlike our system that leaves tens of
millions of people uninsured.

Critics of Canada's system cite lines for certain procedures that are
non-emergency, usually anecdotal stories that ignore that most procedures
are done as quickly there as in the US.  First, note that Canadians are
overwhelmingly supportive of their system, unlike Americans who in public
polls are overwhelmingly unsatisfied with our system.

Secondly, go to any county hospital and you will see lines of people
waiting for EMERGENCY care.  This is the difference: in Canada, they make
sure that everyone gets emergency care immediately and occasionaly make
people wait a little for non-emergency care.  

In the US, the rich and powerful get immediate care for anything they
need even if not an emergency, while the poor have to wait even for
emergency care and never receive preventive care.

So yes, the Canadian system would be a wonderful improvement.

>2) Do you really feel that the governmet is capable of effectively
>   adminstrating a health care program without raising the cost or
>   decreasing the quality of service?

As noted, Canada shows it can.  And private insurers have proven
conclusively that they are chronically wasteful.  It is estimated that our
system spends $250 billion on paperwork that is unneeded and useless.  THe
government would simplify paperwork--as it does in every country with
national health insurance.



-- 
	 **************************************************
         *    Nathan Newman:  newman@garnet.berkeley.edu  *
         *                 UC-Berkeley			  *