So, this thread is about bashing capitalism rather than addressing the failings of Canada's healthcare system due to socialism. Gotcha.

The shortcomings of Canada's health care system pale on comparison to the shortcomings of Americas health care system ... So why would we adopt that model ? Or even partially adopt it ?

That's the point I'm trying to make .

If you're going to be butt hurt and try and take a swipe at socialism at least put some thought into your rhetoric

You should adopt the American system so that you won't have universal health care anymore and the cost will go up 5-8% GDP

Your butthurt-Canadian-circle-jerk started on the first page with bashing on America as you experience the failings of your own system.

Think about this for a minute. Which is more valuable to the whole world USA or Canada?
What scenarios would play out if each were to mysteriously evaporate into non existence?
What would a world look like without Canada as part of it vs. a world without the United States?

Naturally the value of a society is attached to the attitudes of it's people. Americans are far more efficient at creating "stuff" than Canadians this includes [wealth] as well as (new technology, healthcare procedures, etc..) It's why so many of your countries people have came here for healthcare which they cannot receive there.

It is the capacity to generate wealth offered by our society which drives people to advance.

A Capitalistic society recognizes that people who make more effective usage of their potentials are by far more efficient members of society.
Efficiency is a core component to getting ahead in any race i.e. making progress. Capitalism motivates people to be SELF-efficient.
Any person who enjoys pushing themselves to be the best that they can be LOVES Capitalism. (i.e.) scrawny kid that can't even lift --> hates capitalism.
Capitalism rewards self-efficiency & those who live up to their potentials --> with personal wealth.
As such, Capitalism generates more PROGRESS than Socialism. Socialism on the other hand conditions --> dependency.
Socialism destroys efficiency and hinders progress. Resulting in a sickly lazy docile population(s).
This all is provable. Many different scientific fields can formulate evidence of this. From Biologists to Mathematicians.


At lest you don't have to wait months in line for that tube of Prep-H though, right buddy?

Just an FYI. The government of Canada cannot implement a two-tiered system. That is up to the provinces to do.

Did socialized coverage take effect on a by province basis similarly to begin with?

For instance I gather that BC. is comprised of more motivated persons(?)
The people of BC. appear willing to make the effort to pay for their own health coverage, so they can have better healthcare.

Was BC. setup this way at the onset of socialized healthcare or did they move away from the socialized coverage?

If my understanding of your social condition is correct it appears that province may serve in small part as a refuge from socialism imposed onto the people of your country.

Absolutely not. It's not a matter of treating people the same, it's a matter of worsening society to help a few.



True and not true. Provinces rely on funding from the government, so the federal government has the power to enforce standardized practices. They've done this with education to ensure education in all provinces is strong.

This post was edited by Caedus on Jul 21 2014 03:07pm

You're a nutter, when you are actually willing to have a rational conversation hit me up...

as a parting blow though...

"Over the past five years, the average net worth of Canadian households has exceeded that of American households. So for the the first time in history, Canadians are wealthier than Americans — by more than $40,000, on average. In 2011, the average net worth of a Canadian household was $363,202, compared to $319,970 in the U.S., according to Environics Analytics WealthScapes data published in the Globe and Mail. (‘Average net worth’ measures the total combined value of a household’s liquid and real estate assets, minus debt.)"

In aggegate it would not reduce wait times. Why? Because wait times are a product of available resources - doctors, nurses, beds and technology. The problem with starting a two tier system is that it would removes scarce resources (doctors/nurses) from the public system. This leads to increased wait times in the public system, therefore driving aggregate wait times up.

If your goal is to reduce wait times you have to spend more money and buy more beds, doctors, nurses and or technology (MRIs etc).

On the efficiency side, there is no evidence to support the assertion that private healthcare is more efficient. In fact there is a large body of evidence that suggets that it is leas efficient. Left unchecked by the stringent cost saving regulations found in the public system, doctors on a fee for service basis in a private system are more likely to induce demand and order more tests, more procedures, etc that may not be necessary.

Finally, be relocating resources from the public system to a privaye system you are directing away much needed resources from those who need it the most - the poor, including the elderly, who account for the largest amount of healthcare used because of their higher propensity to become sick - to the rich who are the least likely to become ill and need medicAl treatment. This is the inequality side of the equation explained. Taking this inescapable reality into consideration it becomes plain and obvious that allowing for a two tier system would favour only a small portion of the population and harm the vast majority.

I see it more likely that the federal government would use their influence against a two-tiered system. Would you agree? I don't know of any examples in which a province was in favor of or implemented such a system.

When I go to the doctor, everyone is my equal, we are all entitled to the same level of care. This is a beautiful thing. Also, just very recently a candidate for leader of the progressive conservative party of NL was chased out for being in favor of a two tiered system.