From: boardman@cancer.unm.edu (Bob Boardman)
Subject: Re: Helmet laws, abortions and why national health care is a Bad Idea.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 21:28:33 GMT
Organization: UNM Cancer Center
Reply-To: boardman@cancer.unm.edu

In article <Bs2A73.638@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca>,
   rblander@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca (Robyn Landers) writes:
>
>	Ever heard of Canada?  We have public health care paid
>for out of tax dollars.  Alcohol, abortion, tobacco, extramarital
>sex, and riding without a helmet in some provinces, are all still legal.
>
>	We also spend less per capita on health care than the 
>American system does, with better overall treatment for patients.
>Now, there is a lot of "cross border shopping" for specialized
>medical procedures that have huge waiting lists here, because in
                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>America, if you are rich, you can buy your own health care 
>without delay, which is nice.   On the other hand, if you are poor
>in Canada, you still receive decent treatment, whereas if you are poor
>in the USA you die on the sidewalk outside the Emergency room
>because they won't let you in with an empty wallet.
>(Hyperbolic?  Just following your example.)
>
	The primary difference between the U.S. health care delivery
  system and the socialized systems in Canada and Great Britain, is that
  here in the U.S., health care is considered an immediate need and is
  rationed on the basis of money, while these other systems limit the
  volume by rationing delivery of care (in some cases until the individual
  has died, removing the need for care).  I would dispute the above claim
  that the Canadian system results in "better overall treatment" for patients.
  Our system results in a greater variety in quality of care, with those being
  able to afford it getting the best state-of-the-art care that money can buy,
  and the others that can't ending up with a lower level of care at the local
  county hospital responsible for indigent care. (There are laws preventing
  the denial of emergency care to indigents). Socialized systems result in a
  much more uniform level of quality of care, but obviously at a less than
  state-of-the-art level (or with long waiting lists which results in people
  not getting the care they need WHEN THEY NEED IT).
	The "bottom line" is that most people in the U.S. have grown up with
  the idea that everyone should have immediate access to the highest level of
  care that technology can provide, but this same technology has resulted in
  treatments which are so extremely expensive that there is no way that
  everyone can be offered this level of care.  We are not used to the idea
  of "rationing" health care and the idea of waiting several years for an
  "elective" surgery would not be popular or workable, but we must face the
  fact that we can no longer afford to deliver "state-of-the-art" care to
  our entire population.
	Now can we get back to motorcycles?

  -Bob

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
|      Bob Boardman, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico        |
|    internet:boardman@cancer.unm.edu    bitnet:BOARDMAN@UNMB   DoD# 569      |
|    XV750 - "It keeps running and running"  (someday I'll get a new cycle ;^)|
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=