Monday, March 6, 2006

You can call it a need, but it's just envy and greed

I hate for you to have to find this out so late in life, but Public Health Care is just a pretext for vacuuming cash from sentimental chumps' pay stubs. Canada's peculiar, cynical health care system has little to do with medicine, any more than a 411 scam has to do with the deposed former finance minister of Kenya. It's all about the $$$ and the cu$hy protected job$ of the people who run the scam.

Like the duped victim of a 411 fraud artist, you will be lied to and strung along with the dream of health care riches for all, until you either die or run out of money to send to the scammer. Sorry to break it to you this way, but you're being exploited.

The caring'n'sharing'n'equality fluff is a marketing trick, an attempt to invert the moral high ground. But so many analyses of this scam accept its moral premises, measuring only this or that waiting list length. HT Paul McKeever, the Sun has an excellent editorial that actually identifies the moral turd that is Canada's health care system:

When all is said and done, the philosophy on which Canada’s ailing medicare system is based is this.

That Canadians are perfectly content to eat sawdust, as long as they can be assured that no one is ever going to be allowed to buy a steak.
This captures the vindictive, antisocial nature of our health care system very well -- and entirely apart from the economic impossibility of such a system doing what it is (supposedly) set up for.
It’s now one of the world’s most expensive health care systems while its efficiency is generally middle-of-the-pack, internationally.
It's among the most expensive because there is no way to rationally plan without a price system. It's also among the most expensive because the main idea behind it is to dupe as much money out of you as possible before you expire on some afterthought of a waiting list.

Now, every business wants to get as much from you as possible -- but not every business has the luxury of taking your money from you at the source while criminalizing all competition. What a scam! They could not be any more in-your-face with it.

18 comments:

Ayn Steyn said...

It has gotten to the point that whenever I debate some average Joe, politically inept, amoral Tim Horton's coffee shop philosopher idiot who is afraid of "Americanization", I simply say:

"If you are for the status quo in health care, you are FOR suffering, therefore your views are EVIL and YOU ARE EVIL!"

bonnie abzug said...

Ain't you a charmer!

Honey Pot said...

Everyone knows it is a con, with the guys at the top making a fortune. It is just that the alternative, private health care, will be much worse. Just look at the OATC, the private methadone clinics in southwestern Ontario. No stats are allowed to be kept on the number of people who die because of overdose of meth. They must of paid someone off to have that law changed. They don't have to follow any medical standards, and the janitor can be assigned to hand out meds.

Another good example would be the private hospitals in the states who had a deal going with the morticians in town. They were stealing body parts and selling them. They had this elder woman's body exhumed, and found someone replaced her legs with plumbing parts. Apparently they needed the bones for some rich guy, and they sold them to him. Too late now for them to get them back.

Public health care might need some tweaking,and that will take some honest people, but it is the best bang for your dollar.

Ayn Steyn said...

bonnie abzug said..."Ain't you a charmer!"



Thanks! I use that one on first dates as well. :)

Ayn Steyn said...

Seriously though, if you believe in using the strong arm of the government to prevent someone from using their OWN money for their OWN health, you seriously lack a moral compass.

bonnie abzug said...

I am 100% certain we are not going to agree on this but here goes anyway: I am not overly concerned with preventing people from using their own money for their own health. What I am concerned with is slipping down that slope to reach the point in time where people are forced to used their own money. For me it's a "greater good" argument in favour of public health care and I'm surprised to hear it characterized as "immoral". It makes me think that you're not terribly concerned about the true meanings of words. I could at least understand "misguided" or "irrational" or even "silly".

We both know, Ayn, that even under the current system the strong arm of the state doesn't "prevent" anyone with the will to spend their own cash on private health care. American private hospitals advertise for Canadian patients on an ongoing basis and, at least the last time I checked, it wasn't illegal for a Canadian citizen to cross the border and check into an American hospital.

So, Ayn, if your position is that the public health care system should be done away with and a private one instituted in its place, at least have the courage to say so. I'm almost certain that you will find lots of support here for this position.

Ayn Steyn said...

bonnie said..."I am 100% certain we are not going to agree on this but here goes anyway: I am not overly concerned with preventing people from using their own money for their own health."

I am concerned that you aren't concerned with that.

bonnie said..." What I am concerned with is slipping down that slope to reach the point in time where people are forced to used their own money."

Nobody is "forced" to use their own money. People decide to use their own money.


bonnie said..."For me it's a "greater good" argument in favour of public health care and I'm surprised to hear it characterized as "immoral"."

Well, that's what it is. When the state uses force against those who want to use their own money to deal with another consensual trader of goods or services....that is immoral. The "greater good" argument involves the state using force against some to pay for the healthcare of others. Again, immoral.

bonnie said..."It makes me think that you're not terribly concerned about the true meanings of words. I could at least understand "misguided" or "irrational" or even "silly"."

No, it is you who is not concerned with the meaning of words. Something that is immoral is something that works against the thriving of life. To live in a free society, one must be able to be free from force from others. Using force against someone, whether it is assaulting someone OR preventing them from using their own money as they see fit (including using that money to buy health insurance), is an immoral act.

bonnie said..."We both know, Ayn, that even under the current system the strong arm of the state doesn't "prevent" anyone with the will to spend their own cash on private health care."

It does prevent them from spending their cash in Ontario. It is against the law to buy private health insurance in Canada. That, bonnie, means the state is "preventing" someone from doing so.

bonnie said..."American private hospitals advertise for Canadian patients on an ongoing basis and, at least the last time I checked, it wasn't illegal for a Canadian citizen to cross the border and check into an American hospital."

No it's not illegal, and there are a growing number of people doing so....for a reason. But the fact remains that the government is preventing them from dealing with insurers IN Ontario.

bonnie said..."So, Ayn, if your position is that the public health care system should be done away with and a private one instituted in its place, at least have the courage to say so. I'm almost certain that you will find lots of support here for this position."

My position is that if people want to pay into the public system, they can go right ahead and do so. But for those of us who would rather spend their own money on private health insurance, we should be free to do so. Preventing us from doing so is "EVIL"!

Honey Pot said...

...but Ayn, could you jump a head of a child?..... even a poor disposable one? What does that make us as a country? The only thing we got going for us is that we care about the health of our people. We don't have that really, but there is an illusion out there that Canadians take care of their sick. It is what separates us from animals, we look after our sick. We really don't, but it is something to wave a flag about on Canada day.

gm said...

The solution is several fold, allow people to pay direct, third party private insurance and third party public insurance. The money should flow through the patient in direct payment.
This would be in full compliance with the Canada Health Act, the government would continue to offer non-profit public health insurance that is publicly-administered, comprehensive in its coverage, available on uniform terms and conditions, portable, and accessible. Just like now, you will have an undeniable right to pay into and to be covered by public insurance. Public health insurance premiums will be controlled by controlling the prices of health services provided to publicly-insured patients.
This would also allow you to be free to pay-as-you-go.

A physician could also be free to serve publicly-insured patients, privately-insured patients, and pay-as-you-go patients at the same time.

Many European Countries have adopted this model and find thatit works better than a strict Socialist model.

Mike said...

BA:

"We both know, Ayn, that even under the current system the strong arm of the state doesn't "prevent" anyone with the will to spend their own cash on private health care... [T]he last time I checked, it wasn't illegal for a Canadian citizen to cross the border and check into an American hospital."

I take it you would not object to the criminalization of abortion. Anyone with the money could travel to the US or Mexico to get one.

I expect you'd also say that making a provincial offence out of homosexual acts between consenting adults would not constitute preventing them, since right across the border they're totally legal. You would not think immoral the criminalization of homosexuality.

HP:

"...but Ayn, could you jump a head of a child?"

You are stuck thinking in terms of queues because many years ago a bunch of evil capitalists established a monopoly over health care in this province that forcibly prevents others from opening up and inviting in the queued. So queues, an alien phenomenon basically everywhere else, seem natural. They're not.

Where else in life do you encounter chronic, universal queueing for goods and services? Nowhere but here. There are queues in Canadian health care because there is a shortage. There is a shortage because the evil capitalists have established by force and a perversion of the virtue of charity a sweet monopoly over a service everyone wants in abundance. Now, the evil capitalists no longer have a price system to help them figure out where to optimally allocate present resources and plan rationally for the future. Hence, shortages and untethered budgeting.

They also lack a compelling incentive to plan well and make customers happy, since the police will take away incipient competition. There are queues in this system because you are not a valued customer of a business, but a bother to a system that will get your money whether or not you are satisfied with their service. So you can wait, as politics rather than the needs of the people determines whether ten more nurses, or 2 more MRIs, or an MRI and a software contract to a cousin, are budgeted.

The same thing would happen in any other industry: food, energy, housing, little paper drink umbrellas, clothing, child care, cars... It's sad that so many not only allow, they freaking *celebrate* this kind of sick predation -- and on the sick, no less.

Let the good times roll! If they don't like it, they can upend their entire lives and go to the States --- while still paying us! Bwa ha ha! A good laugh all around. Blackberries are turned off as the clink of champagne glasses is heard; a match is struck to light a Cuban cigar; looking out over the private golf course through the dacha penthouse window as the sun sets over Ontario. I'd like to thank all the little people who made this possible.

So the queues are the artificial creation of monopoly, just like they are in every industry that is taken over by evil capitalists using the power and moral cover of government to run scams.

I can't speak for Ayn, and I don't know whether I'd knowingly jump ahead of a child, but I would insist upon it for my family and my friends. But hmm, why should people who love me have to suffer my suffering and do without me, all for a stranger none of us knows, in a system that is unjust and evil whoever gets the shit end of the stick? Isn't that awful, that any of us should have to face such a choice. This choice, the shortage knowingly and joyfully imposed upon everyone, is imposed by the perpetrators and dupes of "socialized medicine".

Several generations now living have witnessed the incredible proliferation and cheapening of computer technology. Can we extrapolate? Look at things like Walmart and Amazon. Who knows what we would have in medicine, what waste and suffering and moral inversion might never have come about if Tommy Douglas had been tarred and feathered the first time he proposed gangland-style health care.

"What does that make us as a country?"

Ripe for the pluckin'.

Dale said...

The genuine tragedy is that in Canada we already have a two tier system. At the front of the queue we have various politicians, athletes and others who miraculously need service for which there are no waiting times. Similarly those who have serious cash, instead of needing to wait in line or pay to get to the front are able to use connections to get an opening when one appears. That in essence, is what our 'single' tiered system provides.

Anonymous said...

Canadians are perfectly content to eat sawdust, as long as they can be assured that no one is ever going to be allowed to buy a steak.

Slight correction: Canadians are content to spend 6 months on a waiting list to receive a kick in the balls, as long as they can enroll their kids in French immersion, so that someday their children can be the ones kicking people in the balls.

That's what is known as "keeping your eyes on the prize".

Honey Pot said...

"I can't speak for Ayn, and I don't know whether I'd knowingly jump ahead of a child, but I would insist upon it for my family and my friends. But hmm, why should people who love me have to suffer my suffering and do without me, all for a stranger none of us knows, in a system that is unjust and evil whoever gets the shit end of the stick?" -Mike

See Mike that is the difference between me and you. I wouldn't, jump a head of a child who was in need of health care. I know there are many that could, but to me it means they are lacking in something...like humanity. You can't have a system where every man, woman and child are on their own. Survial of the fitness, only works on tv, where you get a big prize for screwing your neighbous. What you are suggesting is a cold and heartless medical model where only the rich count. With your model, I don't think your family would really care if you bit the dust, as long as you left what you had to them. They even might be cheering it on, if you get my drift. Sounds like a heartless crew you were bought up in.

I have yet to be in an emergency room where the person who was the sickest, was not treated first. They are real good when children come in sick also. Most people don't mind that sick children are seen to first in emergency wards. I like that model.

Mike said...

HP, I think I'll let you careen dimly off in all directions on your own steam in the future.

Pietr said...

If you are in a queue, you are in a queue.
If you turn up at the ER for sudden crisis treatment, and nobody else is there at that exact time, and you get immediate treatment,governed by a triage nurse, who exactly has suffered?

Honey Pot said...

I don't think your system would work Mike. What if you, and say....a drug dealing whore house owner, needed to have surgery on the same day.Let's pretend you need open heart surgery, and the pimp needs a glass eye. There is only one surgeon who can preform the operations. Let's say the pimp has a whole whack more money than you...but you will die without the surgery. Who goes first, the pimp with the money who needs the glass eye, or you, who will surely die if youd don't get that operation. Though you don't have the same sort of cash flow as the pimp, should they perhaps let you die and salvage your eyes for the pimp?

Pietr said...

Would you sacrifice Mike?
You who can do buggerall to relieve suffering are so much superior to mere 'surgeons', right?

Mike said...

I don't think your system would work Mike.

The cannibal pot's looking a bit empty, you better jump in before we all starve to death.