From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Canadian vs US health care (was "ACM downgrades Catastrophe Medical Insurance")
Date: 10 Sep 92 16:52:38 GMT
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: Curious Goods (formerly Louis Vendredi Antiques)

mark@cita.toronto.edu writes:
>
>[ Phil Hughes ]
>
>| A Canadian-style plan, in spite of all the bad press it gets in the
>| U.S. is actually reasonable.  (For example, one of the big lies about
>| the Canadian health care system came out during the Tsongas campaign.
>
>It's gratifying that at least *some* Americans are aware that the 
>Big Lie technique is being used to totally misrepresent the Canadian 
>health care system.

Basically, Americans are being victimized by their historical ignoring
and ignorance of Canada.  I can't tell you how many Americans I have
hosted (when I was working) who were shocked to see that Toronto is a
big, modern city and is the setting for all those television shows and
movies ("Oh, so there really is an Eaton's!").  I had hoped I wouldn't
see it, but a lot of people think that we're entirely rural or else a
poor, grey British colony (believe me, a LOT of people still think we
are ruled from London, and I'm in New York City).  As you'll see, a
lot of people are more than willing to repeat the Canadian health care
myths despite what is published on the record (e.g., the New York Times
has pointed out the updated Fraser Institute numbers for shorter heart
procedure queues than the decade-old 6 month figure everyone loves).

>it's hard to understand why anyone would oppose it.  People with 
>vested interests (e.g. the insurance industry, the AMA), of course.  

Since Canada went through all this 20 years ago, where we paid cash
just like Americans before that when health insurance was still just
a frill, it's sorta deja-vu all over again as with reading about the
NAFTA down here ... the insurance industry wants to protect its turf
and there's no saying that they'll bail out of basic medical coverage
altogether if any ideas about universal coverage proceed (Canadian
private insurers lucked out on foresight, keeping the supplemental
Blue Cross/Blue Shield stuff which is really high profit).  The AMA
has regular contact with the CMA, so I'm certain that they know the
real score despite the bollocks that they write about.  The Economist
has pointed out that doctors tend to be pretty conservative about the
way they practice, because in Britain its doctors fighting to save
their NHS which they had opposed 20-30 or more years ago.

>But what about Joe and Jane MiddleAmerica?

When GM closed down their Van Nuys, CA facility two weeks ago today
and transferred its production to Bromont, Quebec, they made it a
point to mention that health benefits were a factor (that was also 
the same time that they rolled back coverage and instituted premiums to
white collar staff).  This was on CNN and the NYT, so I'm sure that it
rocked a few people.  GM is probably too Republican up top to endorse
universal health insurance the way that Lee Iacocca did ages ago, but
their actions do speak for themselves ...

As a Canadian, I'm not cackling over this kind of job trickle 'cos I'd
rather see us create new jobs under any sort of freer trade than take
a job away from somebody ... in the long run, we're better off having
those Americans buy our stuff (maybe with the money they'd save (-;),
make more television shows and movies in our Generic Too-Clean North
American City (maybe one day, they'll just admit it's Toronto!), etc.
rather than bulge their dole queues ... )-;

>The only explanation I can think of is that the amazing disinformation
>campaign is succeeding.  The people who try to argue that the Canadian
>system is inferior to the American system by focusing on the problems 
>it does have (of course it has problems; no sensible person would argue
>that it's perfect) are, at the very least, being extremely disingenuous.
>Let me correct that: "mendacious" seems like a more appropriate term.

Without any means of verification, most Americans would have to take
at face values claims that the GST (our federal Value Added Tax) was
put in to pay for wild health care spending rather than a rewrite of
the existing tax structure.  (The math doesn't work out anyways, as we
spend 3/4ths of the GDP fraction that the Americans do.)  I could tell
them it was due to a bad maple syrup harvest, for all they'd know. )-;
I've not talked about any problems with our system in my files because
they're totally different from what Americans want to focus on (for
one, I support Quebec's plan for token $5-$20 deductibles per visit,
to streamline the load on the insurance fund and leave more in the pot
for paying big-buck but obscure specialists who need to live in bigger
cities than Montreal anyways).

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare				
> gld@cunixB.cc.columbia.EDU		Oct 26/92: Just say "OUI!"
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			(Let's worry about the economy!)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss,ba.motss