CANADIAN PREMIER RUNS TO U.S. FOR HEART SURGERY

Yet another Canadian politician has chosen the much-maligned U.S. health care system over the government-run health care of his own country. AP reports the following:

The premier of Canada’s east coast province is undergoing heart surgery in the United States this week because the treatment he is seeking was not available in his home province.

Hmm …. voting with his feet, eh?

The announcement about of Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams’ plans has triggered a debate since Canada prides itself on its universal health care system.

Williams is only the latest Canuck politician to reject Canada’s single-payer system. Belinda Stronach, Paul Martin, Jean Chretien and Joe Clark also share his aversion to Canadian health care.

One can hardly blame them, of course. Only American progressives are dumb enough to think government-run health systems actually provide acceptable medical treatment.

Williams’ choice once again begs this question: If government-run health care is so good, why do the political leaders of countries like Canada avoid it like the plague?

Comments 5

  1. Marc Brown wrote:

    Predictable to see yet more straw man stuff from you – rich people the world over use their wealth to go wherever they want for treatment. A poor uninsured American has no more chance of accessing the heart clinic this guy is going to than they have of getting the very latest cancer treatment at the MD Anderson. But a poor Canadian will be treated to a high standard of care for free.

    Posted 02 Feb 2010 at 6:43 pm
  2. Joseph C. wrote:

    “But a poor Canadian will be treated to a high standard of care for free.”

    Since we’re dealing in anecdotes, do you think Natasha Richardson was treated to a “high standard of care”?

    Posted 03 Feb 2010 at 8:51 pm
  3. Marc Brown wrote:

    The Richardson case was looked at extensively at the time – as she refused more help initially it is unlikely that any ski resort in the world could have then got her to a hospital in time given the delay and the remoteness of most resorts. We had a case here in the UK where a paramedic put a bolt in someone’s skull and saved his life – I can’t imagine anyone in the US would have tried that on Natasha Richardson. And the key lesson here is – wear a helmet.

    Posted 04 Feb 2010 at 7:41 am
  4. Brian Laan wrote:

    Unfortunately I read and see hundreds of articles condemning public health care in countries such as France, Britain and Canada from people who have little to no knowledge and sensationalize what they choose to cherry pick. Most Canadians will tell you we have an excellent system. We live longer, have a lower infant mortality rate and pay about half of what Americans do. Reality – US medical system doesn’t want to see their pay cut in half. Let’s cut through all the fluff and admit greed is more important than health care.

    Posted 09 Feb 2010 at 9:48 pm
  5. Kay Stevens wrote:

    US hospitals treat many patients on a compassionate care basis, I worked for a hospital where 70% of patients were poor uninsured and many illegal aliens. It was one of many such centers in our area. US has extensive care for the poor. Sick children not only have s-chip they also have free , clean good quality housing for themselves and their families near the hospital.

    (Yes, I have had experience with a single payer system. I used to live in the UK and had to try to use the NHS. I can’t tell you whether it was good or not, as they refused to treat or even diagnose me time and time again despite a very worrying painful and swollen condition. )

    Solutions for the US:

    -Allow insurance purchase across state lines-
    -tort reform
    -HSAs for non-major costs
    -Do not require purchases of insurance for items such as infertility treatment, etc. that are not bona fide medical necessities (offer as an option) .

    Note on infant mortality rates: the US counts all live births no matter how low the birth weight , many single payer countries do not include preemies less that a certain weight, hence they incorrectly claim a lower infant mortality rate.

    Posted 07 Sep 2010 at 12:47 am

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *