[Wheatfield]

The only Americans that I am aware of going to Canada for medical reasons are those who go over to buy prescriptions, either because they are cheaper, or they aren't available over here, usually because they were banned here. BTW, don't muddy the water. I'm only speaking of the number of Canadians who seek treatment in the US, for whatever their reason may be. If you want to argue with services being available (or not available), special insurance policies for Canadians seeking faster care, lack of qualified physicians and other medical personnel, along with several other issues, take it up with the editors of the Star who must be printing misinformation and falsehoods.

Also note that I am not defending the US health care system. It is a screwed up as Hogan's goat. But I don't believe a system like Canada's is the answer.

I've pretty much decided that you don't have anything to say regarding this thread. You don't know what you are talking about regarding the Canadian health care system other than repeating the same tired talking points that the right uses to scare people who are also uneducated. Pointing up the occasional flaw in the system and pretending that is the norm is ignorance bordering on stupidity, and I really feel that this is what you are adding to the discussion.
In another thread, there is discussion about a white guy in Florida who offed a 17 year old black kid and apparently isn't facing any kind of charges. I suppose that this means that all Americans are racist jerks and your justice system advocates hanging blacks from trees.
Applying the logic you are presenting regarding the Canadian health care system, it is.
But the reality is, presuming this would be ignorance bordering on stupidity.

---

Last edited by Wheatfield; 03-20-2012 at 04:32 PM.

[Wheatfield]

But I don't see Canada's solution as one that will work here.

It won't because it is so radically different from your system that you would never get it past the purveyors of FUD. America picks and chooses it's socialism based on garnering the most for the individual while ensuring the fewest individuals benefit.
A truly altruistic health care system is just so far away from the American every man for himself ethos that you will never see anything but the for profit system that is bleeding your country and it's citizens.

[Winder]

I felt sorry for Obama because no matter what he managed to get through it would not be close to what he wanted and it would be too much fo a large percentage of people averse to any idea of social programs
It's just not a view i can ever understand. for me a country's first duty is to do it's best to protect the health and well being of their citizens so they can be productive members of society, and so they are punished for being born into a socio economic class.

I think we can agree that government has a role to protect the health and well being of its citizens. I think the question is how far does the government have the right to go to protect me and do they have an obligation to protect all citizens equally? Can the government justify diminishing the rights of one group for the benefit of another?

I find socialism somewhat of an ironic political ideology. The great religions of the world traditionally took care of the poor and sick through out history. It was the role of the church. The Catholic church is famous for its use of guilt and forced morality in order to bring in money to achieve its objectives. It is an incredibly wealthy and powerful organization. They have hidden a lot of "sins" behind this shield of morality. The socialists have taken a few plays from the playbook of religion when it comes to gaining public support. The morality card one of the most played. Government is the new religion for some people, and the playbook has been the same for the last 100 years. Class warfare. Envy. The promise of a better civilization.

Let's look at one of the most famous socialist movements in history.
The National Socialist German Workers' Party can into existence after WWI. They were a labor union party who had strong protectionist/nationalistic ideas. They wanted to protect German jobs from foreign competition. They preached the need to reunify the German empire with Austria and Prussia. Germany's economy was in shambles after WWI and war reparations were insanely punitive. When Germany failed to make its payments to France, France took control of a key industrial region of Germany and the political backlash from a nationalistic German people was very strong. This turmoil opened the door for the National Socialist party to grow significantly. They probably waged the most successful class warfare campaign in the history of the world. They went after a different 1% of the population who they identified as the cause of all of their problems. It is ironic that the Jewish population was in fact very close to 1%. Envy is a powerful tool for a politician. It is just not "fair" that they had more than most German citizens. "They" were getting rich on the backs of the German working class. Sound familiar?

The Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP) or in English Nazi party rose to power on the good intentions of the people. People promising to do the right thing for the good of Germany. People who preached morality and purity. The German people had no idea the path they were headed down. It was a movement that started because it promised to help a struggling people. A people who were convinced that their plight was the fault of others. The rise of socialism and the centralization of government power was not a good thing by any means.

I don't buy the idea that socialism is morally superior. I think most socialist have great intentions and I think they aspire to accomplish great things. I don't think it is a sustainable system. I'm not implying that all socialists governments are going to spiral into a Nazi Germany type government, but I do take exception to the ideal that socialism has a better past than capitalism. It does bother me when I see socialist returning to class warfare as a means to an ends. I find it ironic that they criticize religious establishments for trying to dictate standards of morality and compassion while using the same tactics to argue for more government control.

[redrockcoulee]

A couple of years ago there was something on the news about a clinic in Hamilton that almost all its patients were Americans.

One thing about Canadians going to the US for treatment one must factor in as well there are some specialized treatments that are not offered here. In that case we do travel to the US and often the tab including family travel is picked up by the health care system. I know of no one who has gone to the US because of waiting times, although I am sure there are. If one wants to pay to jump the queque there are also places within country that it can be done as well.

[stevewig]

...........I find socialism somewhat of an ironic political ideology. The great religions of the world traditionally took care of the poor and sick through out history. It was the role of the church. The Catholic church is famous for its use of guilt and forced morality in order to bring in money to achieve its objectives. It is an incredibly wealthy and powerful organization. They have hidden a lot of "sins" behind this shield of morality. The socialists have taken a few plays from the playbook of religion .........

Please do not Hijack this thread into a discussion about socialism. This thread is discussing the relative merits of one Health Care system versus another. Only the right-wing in the USA equate a Health Care system to SOCIALISM. That is why the USA has a health care system that is Number 37th in the world instead of 1st!

http://thepatientfactor.com/canadian-health-care-information/world-health-or...ealth-systems/

[redrockcoulee]

Winder

I hope you do not equate National Socialist Party with socialism as it was not. It was a right wing party. Just like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is not a real democracy. Hitler's politics would be more aligned with the most right wing Republican than the most left wing Democrat. Not saying that those Republicans are anything like Hitler but that they are on the same side of the political spectrum and therefore bringing them up in an arguement against single payer health care is just wrong from a factual bases as well as the normal do not use Hitler argument.

[Winder]

Winder

I hope you do not equate National Socialist Party with socialism as it was not. It was a right wing party. Just like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is not a real democracy. Hitler's politics would be more aligned with the most right wing Republican than the most left wing Democrat. Not saying that those Republicans are anything like Hitler but that they are on the same side of the political spectrum and therefore bringing them up in an arguement against single payer health care is just wrong from a factual bases as well as the normal do not use Hitler argument.

What it turned into was no socialist. What it started out as was socialist. They were a labor party that promoted in protectionist policies. That is not "right-wing". They believed in increased government control which turned into a totalitarian government. That is not "right-wing". They used class warfare to divide the population and target the wealthy Jewish community. You know... go after the 1%. The origins of the Nazi party (National Socialists) was very much a socialist movement. The conflict between the socialist and the Marxist was mainly because they were fighting for the same base. There were polls where university student who attended both Marxist and Nazi rallies were asked to explain the differences between the two parties and after attending and most struggled to find differences in the messages. There were also members of the German Religious Socialist Party who were fighting for the church to be the center of the socialist movement who would later join the Nation Socialists party.

What Hitler turned the party into was not socialist, but the ground work to centralize power and the idea that centralizing power would benefit the common man was laid by socialist ideas.

When was the last time the "Right" was pro-organized labor?
When was the last time the "Right" was for bigger centralized government?
When was the last time the "Right" promoted protectionist economic policies?
When was the last time the "Right" used class warfare to generate envy and target the bourgeoisie?
None of these are the policies of the "Right".

Which policy of the "Right" do you see in the National Socialist German Workers Party? The roots of the Nazi party are firmly planted in socialism. Common people who thought they were working for good of the common man and that a centralized government was their best protection from capitalist/industrialists and the Jewish bankers who held the wealth. This was not a pro-capitalist movement. I'm not trying to imply socialists are anything like Hitler. This was a situation where a war torn and suffering German people where trusting in the socialist ideals to help them.

[Wheatfield]

Winder, dry up.

[Winder]

Please do not Hijack this thread into a discussion about socialism. This thread is discussing the relative merits of one Health Care system versus another. Only the right-wing in the USA equate a Health Care system to SOCIALISM. That is why the USA has a health care system that is Number 37th in the world instead of 1st!

World Health Organization’s Ranking of the World’s Health Systems | thepatientfactor.com

Canada has socialized medicine. Even Canadians refer to it as socialized medicine.

"Right-Winger" in the USA referring to it as "socialized" or "Socialism" have nothing to do with where the healthcare system ranks.

[dankoBanana]

police is a socialist idea!

[ihasa]

I think that when most of Western Europe, Australia, and Canada (and even the USA to an extent) have Socialist aspects to the way they are governed, it's disengenuous to point to Nazism as the ultimate example of where Socialism leads. These 'social democratic' systems of government are partly a method of avoiding the sort of social conditions that Nazism flourished in. (Noticed how the extreme right are gaining ground in Europe as people are hurting economically due to the recession?)

Nordic model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Social democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Third Way (centrism) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In fact it is almost always from the right that populist anti-immigration, hyper-patriotic, propagandising, militaristic jingoism seems to emanate.

[audiobomber]

Winder, you're spouting complete nonsense. The extreme form of left-wing politics is communism. The extreme form of right-wing politics is fascism.

[redrockcoulee]

Canada has socialized medicine. Even Canadians refer to it as socialized medicine.

"Right-Winger" in the USA referring to it as "socialized" or "Socialism" have nothing to do with where the healthcare system ranks.

I have never ever heard anyone in Canada call it socialized medicine. But perhaps I run in the wrong circles.


Perhaps you should write political science textbooks. The last one I read , Political Ideologies made it plan and clear that Hitler's government was right wing. During extremely difficult times like Germany faced in the 20s due to the conditions forced on them after the Great War, people turn to all kinds of ideas , some times conflicting ones so that one person may try communism one day and fascism that evening in their search for a simple solution to a complex problem.

My doctor is an independent business person whose customer is the government and paid so much per each visit by each patient covered by health care. She is not even an employee of the government.

Well I am off to work driving first on streets provided by the municipal govt and then on a highway jointly paid for by the provincial and federal govts.

[GeneV]

What it turned into was no socialist. What it started out as was socialist. They were a labor party that promoted in protectionist policies. That is not "right-wing". ....

Please go study some history and can this silly Argumentum ad Hitlerum. The original German Workers Party was antisemitic, anti-capitalist, anti-democratic, anti-Marxist, and anti-liberal. One could just as easily and slanderously talk about what Nazis had in common with the Tea Party as with any form of "socialism." Oh wait, the Nazis built the Autobahn, so Eisenhower brought National Socialism to America with the Interstate. This childish argument by similarity of a name chosen as something of a con on the workers has no place in a reasoned discussion.

[eddie1960]

Please go study some history and can this silly Argumentum ad Hitlerum. The original German Workers Party was antisemitic, anti-capitalist, anti-democratic, anti-Marxist, and anti-liberal. One could just as easily and slanderously talk about what Nazis had in common with the Tea Party as with any form of "socialism." Oh wait, the Nazis built the Autobahn, so Eisenhower brought National Socialism to America with the Interstate. This childish argument by similarity of a name chosen as something of a con on the workers has no place in a reasoned discussion.

Exactly

Winder you are completely clueless on this one. the Nazi party couldn't be further from Socialist they were as Gene point out always a fascist party (like Franco in Spain and Mussolini in Italy for example)And socialism is not communism BTW. For that matter there has not been a truly communist Government though many have called themselves that (I would actually say the Cuban's came closest but that's another argument)

In any case i am talking about a social policy. certain policies that benefit the whole need to be government administrated and take the profit motive out of the system (I know you have a hard time believing it can be more efficient). Healthcare is one, but so is infrastructure.

Maybe you should learn something by going and reading the links provided by Ihasa. they are fairly balanced

Social democracy IMO is probably the best form of Government because it aligns nicely with a humanist viewpoint (I've become more moderate as I age As a youth I was very hard left). the model of every man for himself the US runs on holds zero appeal to me, and for most of the population it makes their lives worse not better from what I see.

EDIT

I'll add another link and educate you on Canada a bit

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/social-democracy